A second sinking skyline + something for the RE primer

Ok, I started this in a new thread because the other one kinda went in a different direction and the approach and focus here is different. Gulliver, you may find this useful for the RE primer. First, I will show another sinking skyline of Toronto, Ontario. Such pics are easy to obtain, as I've learned, due to the fact that they can be taken from the city of Niagara on the Lake, which is about 50 km across lake Ontario. Please see: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=43.255278,-79.071667&spn=0.1,0.1&q=43.255278,-79.071667.



You will notice a black line that I have drawn. I will come back to it later.

Based on this picture, I outlined the visible skyline, keeping all things the same size. Based on the known dimensions of the CN tower, I worked out the proportions of the tower (ie. distance from observation deck to tip / distance from ground to observation deck) to complete the skyline and to extrapolate precisely how much was being hidden. You are welcome to doublecheck my work. The black part of the skyline is the part originally visible in the above picture. The grey is the extrapolated size of the bulidings all the way to ground level. You will also notice that I drew in the skydome on the left as it should appear based on the scale of the drawing. The scale is 1 pixel = 10.7 feet. (I actually made it a bit taller as it sticks above the horizon line by a couple of pixels. Probably due to a bit of rounding error and human error. In any case the apporximate size is correct).



The black line in the original picture corresponds to the ground level as I calculated for Figure 1. It is meant to show you how much of the skyline is actually obscured from ground level. According to FE theory, everything above that black line is the wall of water that the skyline recedes into as it gets farther away. That's a hell of a wall there folks. Not buyin it? Neither am I, since I can still see above and beyond most of the waves above that black line and to the horizon. In the other 'skyline thread', I've explained why this wall of water idea is bullshit (I'm still wainting for a rebuttal there btw), and this has been touched on in many other threads as well. Never will the waves intersect your view of the skydome, but hey, I'll INDULGE your indea nonetheless, and show you that imperfections on the horizon are still not enough to obscure the skydome in this picture the way they should. So I took this experiment one step further and drew a diagram simmilar to one I had done for a previous post but with this skyline instead.



The dark blue is the water, and the light blue is the "imperfections at the horizon". Notice that it is 7 pixels thick at the very edge of the horizon! I am being extremely generous with how big I am illustrating these imperfections to be. Now in figure 2, I take the unaltered image of the skyline and i bring it to touch the DARK BLUE line (i.e. a part of the grey area goes behind the blue line. How odd that the skydome is not completelly hidden, even by this massive imperfection, as it should be. In Figure 3, I shrink the skyline until most of the skydome is relativelly hidden. (Notice it still isn't quite hidden.. in fact some of the grey is still there, but I felt I had made my point and didnt wanna waste any more time. In any case I tried to closely match the 'cutoff' from the original pic with the cutoff created by the 'imperfections at the horizon'.) Notice how much smaller the skyline would have to be in order for that much of it to recede even behind so large a line of imperfection along the horizon.

The conclusion? Even with a generous allowance for what you claim causes the sinking effect, the picture presented does not support your argument. Even if it were possible for these so called imperfections to cause the effect described (which it isn't), the skyline would still have to appear way smaller than it does! So even when I indulge your dumb ideas, your theory still doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Congratulations.

Nice job. I think I will work that into the RE Primer.

Now, Tom. I know you might be feeling a little embarrassed right now. I want you to know that sometimes people make mistakes and it's nothing to be ashamed of. You're still the biggest tuna in my book! (That's a non-sexual good thing.)

Great job on your "presentation" Slappy. That is a very cool picture BTW.

That's an extremely zoomed in telescopic image, Slappy. What you are looking at is the series of waves off in the distance which are obscuring the Toronto skyline from the bottom up.

In reality, the area you've marked out wouldn't be even a hair's width in height. Almost imperceptable to the human eye. The zoom is so great in that image that you are zoomed in on a series of 40 inch wave with a series of smaller waves in front of it. The area you've marked out is the height of the larger waves which are obscuring the skyline.

Your image is deceiving because it was taken with a camera mounted with a telescopic lens, zoomed to its maximum, portrayed here as what one would see from the coast of a beach with the naked eye.

That's an extremely zoomed in telescopic image, Slappy. What you are looking at is the series of waves off in the distance which are obscuring the Toronto skyline from the bottom up.

In reality, the area you've marked out wouldn't be even a hair's width in height. Almost imperceptable to the human eye. The zoom is so great in that image that you are zoomed in on a single 40 inch wave with a series of smaller waves in front of it. The area you've marked out is the height of the waves which are obscuring the skyline.

Your image is deceiving because it was taken with a camera mounted with a telescopic lens, zoomed to its maximum, portrayed here as what one would see from the coast of a beach.

So in other words, the ocean goes up to eye level but once again the city does not move.  That must be some magical city.  O wait I know, The earth is round. 

That's a lot of effort gone into trying to convince people that the earth isn't flat... especially when none of them actually believe it and are just egging you on.

That's an extremely zoomed in telescopic image, Slappy. What you are looking at is the series of waves off in the distance which are obscuring the Toronto skyline from the bottom up.

In reality, the area you've marked out wouldn't be even a hair's width in height. Almost imperceptable to the human eye. The zoom is so great in that image that you are zoomed in on a series of 40 inch wave with a series of smaller waves in front of it. The area you've marked out is the height of the larger waves which are obscuring the skyline.

Your image is deceiving because it was taken with a camera mounted with a telescopic lens, zoomed to its maximum, portrayed here as what one would see from the coast of a beach with the naked eye.

Tom, it doesn't really matter if it was taken from shore or not (it was probably taken from a boat), although it is not as zoomed in as you imply.. I have seen this skyline from across lake Ontario with my own eyes. Regarless, in my diagrams I treat everything as if we're looking at it from that same point. The area I've marked out is still correct with respect to the proportions of the skyline of that picture. And from that area to the horizon you can see individual waves and you can see OVER them. In order from your argument to be true, that whole area above the black line and between the horizon should consist of nothing but the wall of waves obscuring the 'true' horizon, but one look at the picture will show you that that clearly isn't the case. The zoom really doesn't matter.

EDIT: Nor would it matter even if if the area I've marked out would be smaller if viewed from shore. The area I've marked off is not the height of the larger waves. You can see the waves continue past this area and 'ascend' towards the horizon, gradually appearing smaller and smaller as they do so before eventually merging with it. You can actually see some slight imperfections at the very edge of the horizon, and these are only possible because the earth is a sphere.

That's an extremely zoomed in telescopic image, Slappy. What you are looking at is the series of waves off in the distance which are obscuring the Toronto skyline from the bottom up.

In reality, the area you've marked out wouldn't be even a hair's width in height. Almost imperceptable to the human eye. The zoom is so great in that image that you are zoomed in on a series of 40 inch wave with a series of smaller waves in front of it. The area you've marked out is the height of the larger waves which are obscuring the skyline.

Your image is deceiving because it was taken with a camera mounted with a telescopic lens, zoomed to its maximum, portrayed here as what one would see from the coast of a beach with the naked eye.

TomB, I did the math for you. It proves you're wrong, yet again. Care to refute it?

Weather the picture is zoomed or not doesn't change anything. Unless a wave is half the height of the CN tower it's not going to cover that much of it. Zoom only turns a small FOV into a large one. It doesn't make waves bigger. You are only acting naive now.

"View of Toronto Skyline (53km across the lake) through Canon Rebel digital camera 28 to 400mm zoom"



Looks to me as if you can see the bottom. Your picture must be a lot farther.

Nice job Slappy. Once the issue has been tossed around a few (dozen) times I'm sure the primer will welcome it.

Zoom only turns a small FOV into a large one.

It's the other way around.

Divito, it depends where exactly the picture was taken from (There are various points across lake Ontario from which you can see the Toronto skyline, some farther away than the others). Now, Niagara on the Lake is approx 50 km away (across the lake), and every picture I have seen from there shows the bottom part of the skyline obscured. I have driven by as well and I did see the partial skyline from the area on more than one occasion, so my picture could not have been much farther away. I suspect that the picture you've posted is still taken from a simmilar location, but from a greater elevation. In the picture I posted, regardless of how much the zoom is being used, you can see that the camera is only a few metres above the water. In your picture however, it seems to be much higher up. That would explain why you can see the bottom half of the skyline the way you can.

You got me there, slappy.  Not even I can refute your lengthy and tedious conjecture.

"View of Toronto Skyline (53km across the lake) through Canon Rebel digital camera 28 to 400mm zoom"



Looks to me as if you can see the bottom. Your picture must be a lot farther.

Feel free to look at the pics again.  Notice how the pic you posted was taken significantly above the water while the OP pic was taken from a few feet above the water.

Feel free to look at the pics again.  Notice how the pic you posted was taken significantly above the water while the OP pic was taken from a few feet above the water.

Yes, the picture is at a different elevation. What are the numbers regarding the curvature of the Earth?

Quote from: sokarul on July 03, 2007, 03:11:22 PM

Feel free to look at the pics again.  Notice how the pic you posted was taken significantly above the water while the OP pic was taken from a few feet above the water.

Yes, the picture is at a different elevation. What are the numbers regarding the curvature of the Earth?

Nice response. Most mature. Kudos.
From the RE Primer:
 
The diameter of the Earth is approximately: 7,925 miles.
The distance to the object: d
The point of the Observer: A   
The center of the Earth: B
The point of the object: C
The point level to the observer directly over C: D
The angle DAB is a right angle.
AB is one side of a right triangle, the radius of the Earth.
The length of AB is: 3,960 miles approximately. AC is equal AB.
The distance for CD is the sought value: x
ACD is a straight line. ACD is the hypotenuse of the right triangle ABD.
By the Pythagorean Theorem:
d²  + AB² = (AC + x)²
AC+x= √(d²+〖AB〗² )
 x= √(d²+〖AB² )- AC
The following tables list some useful values.

d (miles)	x (feet)
1	0.67
2	2.67
3	6.00
4	10.67
5	16.67
6	24.00
7	32.67
8	42.67
9	54.00
10	66.67

I agree with Gulliver, these equations accurately show the slight curvature of the earth-disc.

I agree with Gulliver, these equations accurately show the slight curvature of the earth-disc.

Thank you, but I have to ignore your post... Seriously, can you help know when you're joking and when you're serious please? Use tags [/sarcasm] [/joke] or colored fonts (green = jest, blue = sarcasm, red=General doesn't like colored fonts.)

General doesn't like being called 'General'

Oh, that was good, very good. +52 on the laughometer.

I don't see what is so complicated about all this.

The FE cannot successfully explain the "sinking ship" phenomenon.

ETA: I predict Tom will not be heard from again on this thread.

In your picture however, it seems to be much higher up. That would explain why you can see the bottom half of the skyline the way you can.

Divito's picture shows that your image in the first post is zoomed in with a telescopic lens and taken from a location farther back. As I've said with my previous post, the outlined part of your image shows the height of a regular large wave at the horizon. There are smaller lesser waves in front of it. In reality; the area you've outlined in your image is less than a hair's width in height, barely perceptible to the human eye.

The FE cannot successfully explain the "sinking ship" phenomenon.

Now put the horizon line at eye level.

Quote

In your picture however, it seems to be much higher up. That would explain why you can see the bottom half of the skyline the way you can.

Divito's picture shows that your image in the first post is zoomed in with a telescopic lens and taken from a location farther back. As I've said with my previous post, the outlined part of your image shows the height of a regular large wave at the horizon. There are smaller lesser waves in front of it. In reality; the area you've outlines is less than a hair's width in height, barely perceptible to the human eye.

Quote

The FE cannot successfully explain the "sinking ship" phenomenon.

Now put the horizon line at eye level.

Do you have any math to back up your claim about the hair's width size, or are you making things up again?

What horizon line are you referring to? Why would be move it? Are you ever going to respond to my diagram that doesn't even use a horizon?

He still seems to think that the horizon is always at eye level. A fact I have seen no proof of and is always the basis of his arguement. Tom, when you whole arguement is based upon an unproven fact, admit defeat.

'The horizon' IS always at eye level. But the boundary between 'sea' and 'sky' is not. Tom is confusing his perspective drawing textbook's description of 'horizon' as 'the imaginary (NOT physically apparent) line to which objects appear to tend as they move away' with the other use of the word horizon as 'the point where the sea and sky appear to meet in the distance'. While in everyday life these things occur at roughly the same place, the difference becomes apparent when you ascend (e.g mountains or planes)

Cue: Tom pulls out irrelevant mountaineering quotation that invalidates FE as much as RE, and isn't in any way scientific anyway.

He still seems to think that the horizon is always at eye level. A fact I have seen no proof of and is always the basis of his arguement. Tom, when you whole arguement is based upon an unproven fact, admit defeat.

The horizon line is at the viewer's eye level by definition. Late a quick look through Google and you will find this to be true.

Ask any pilot, consult any visual arts teacher, read any book on perspective, the horizon is always at eye level. The horizon line cannot ascend or descend due to sheer mechanics of perspective. Move your head down close to the surface of the sea and the line of the horizon is still at eye level. Sit on a beach, the horizon is at eye level. Walk up a hill, the horizon is at eye level. Climb a mountain, the horizon line changes and rises with you. Look out the window of a plane, and you will see the horizon at eye level. Half of your window will be filled with land and the other half with the sky.

Here's a quote from "The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception" by James Jerome Gibson.

"The perceiving of that might be called eye level on the walls, windows, trees, poles, and buildings of the environment in another case between the complementarity between seeing the layout of the environment and seeing oneself int he environment. The horizon is at eye level relative to the furniture of the earth. But this is my eye level, and it goes up and down as I stand and sit. If I want my eye level, the horizon, to rise above all the clutter of the environment, I must climb up to a higher place. The perception of here, and the perception of infinitely distant from here are linked."

One easy experiment you can do for yourself is find a computer game which can render large 3D maps. Move your character to one end of the map, center your crosshair on the line of the horizon, and turn on noclip. Without moving the mouse, ascend in height and notice how the line of the horizon will stay centered on the crosshair until you run out of land to see.

This is a simple, basic experiment you can do from the comfort of your own home. There is no excuse not to do it.

I was nearly right. The quotation WAS irrelevant.

One easy experiment you can do for yourself is find a computer game which can render large 3D maps.

STOP! Collaborate and listen.
Rendering a large 3D map imediately assumes the Earth is

A. Flat and
B. Visible to infinite distance.

Neither of these are necessarily the case (A is disputed, B is simply untrue).

As I told you you would, you confused the perspective-drawing horizon with the apparent ground/sky boundary.

'The horizon' IS always at eye level. But the boundary between 'sea' and 'sky' is not. Tom is confusing his perspective drawing textbook's description of 'horizon' as 'the imaginary (NOT physically apparent) line to which objects appear to tend as they move away' with the other use of the word horizon as 'the point where the sea and sky appear to meet in the distance'. While in everyday life these things occur at roughly the same place, the difference becomes apparent when you ascend (e.g mountains or planes)

Cue: Tom pulls out irrelevant mountaineering quotation that invalidates FE as much as RE, and isn't in any way scientific anyway.

That's right. We've had problems with this because of the various types of 'horizons'. TomB is using the 'artist's' version. I'm using a scientific version. I think Roundy is using the mathematical version. Let me work on this offline for a while. I think we need to consider a break until we can get the terms straight.

true, real, and mathematical... are all just problematical.

Oh Christ, I thought we were done with this horizon thing. I seriously don't see where everybody's confusion is, but whatever you guys can work it out as you like.

Divito's picture shows that your image in the first post is zoomed in with a telescopic lens and taken from a location farther back. As I've said with my previous post, the outlined part of your image shows the height of a regular large wave at the horizon. There are smaller lesser waves in front of it. In reality; the area you've outlined in your image is less than a hair's width in height, barely perceptible to the human eye.

Noo.. Divito's picture is taken from a much higher elevation than the one in the OP, ergo he can see the whole city. No more, no less. It's probably taken from a very simmilar location as well.

Now here's what it ultimatelly comes down to kids. Regardless of the zoom on the picture, Tom is basically telling you that the area between the two red lines (the area to which the big red arrow is pointing to) is nothing more than "the height of a regular large wave at the horizon with smaller lesser waves in front of it." In reality, he's just an idiot.