Sinking Ships

Ok Ferruccio, the picture was made by NASA. I can tell. Normally it would break the horizon but because it hasn't it is part of the conspiracy.

Ok Ferruccio, the picture was made by NASA. I can tell. Normally it would break the horizon but because it hasn't it is part of the conspiracy.

oh man, I'm outed.  Give me your address so I can assassinate you, plz.



thx

Another picture on vanishing points!  Disprove that, tom bishop!

Seriously, what in the world gives? I think Tom Bishop believes the world is round, and is just using this forum as a means of destroying the last bits of FE.

Some 3d Engineering drawings are based on the 2 point perspective that someone posted a while back (the blue picture) An object will never disapear below the horizon

Another picture on vanishing points!  Disprove that, tom bishop!

The left hand series of blocks seems to breach the horizon line as I've predicted.

Another picture on vanishing points!  Disprove that, tom bishop!

Seriously, what in the world gives? I think Tom Bishop believes the world is round, and is just using this forum as a means of destroying the last bits of FE.

Stop using NASA/government pictures. Everyone know that any picture that is to promote the RE is part of the conspiracy. Also, this argument is about water (mainly oceans) obscuring the horizon.

No Tom, you see the lower, left hand line? This does not breach the horizon. However, the higher right hand line, near the vanishing point of the picture, comes very near to being right over the left hand line as it breaks the horizon. Zoom in to see what I mean, but it never goes over to the left completely. The right hand line, in a smaller version of the picture, could be mistaken for the left hand one. The right hand one breaking the horizon therefore appears to be the left hand one breaking the horizon.

Quote

Another picture on vanishing points!  Disprove that, tom bishop!

The left hand series of blocks seems to breach the horizon line as I've predicted.

You ignorant little twit.  No, it does not.  Shame on you.  What you're seeing is the limitation of pixels.

That's a result of the pixelation in the picture Tommy boy. A nice high res image would work better. Mind you, I'm somewhat baffled that you don't get this concept to begin with you knuckle head.

EDIT: and please stop saying that in the real world objects below the line of sight eventually breach the horizon. we already know that. it is so as a result of the fact that we live on a sphere.

I like how Tom Bishop sees a pixel artifact and he's like "just as I've predicted!"

Yet, if he doesn't see a pixel artifact, he's saying

Back up!  You're not far away enough!!! You rigged the picture!!! You're a liar and a cheat!!!!


Seriously TB, if you think about it, I should have been able to see a lot more than a pixel above the horizon.  After all, you posted that picture with a very nice in view ship along with the person on the bike.  That ship should have been much smaller.  Like, you know, enough to take up a pixel on the screen.


Additionally, what you're seeing for the ground isn't an infinite plane, but it's as big as I could get it.  at 4 kilometers away.. lol

Additionally, what you're seeing for the ground isn't an infinite plane, but it's as big as I could get it.  at 4 kilometers away.. lol

That's what I was gonna ask you (whether or not the program was treating it as if it was an infinite plane). On a finite plane an object will break the horizon as it nears the very edge of the map. I've said this a number of times already (it's why you'll see your NPC break the horizon in your half life map Tom). But on an infinite plane it simply cannot happen. For the boats in the real pictures to break the horizon as they do, it would mean that either a) they're on a sphere or b) they're at the very edge of the plane and are about to fall off.

I like how Tom Bishop sees a pixel artifact and he's like "just as I've predicted!"

Yet, if he doesn't see a pixel artifact, he's saying

Back up!  You're not far away enough!!! You rigged the picture!!! You're a liar and a cheat!!!!


Seriously TB, if you think about it, I should have been able to see a lot more than a pixel above the horizon.  After all, you posted that picture with a very nice in view ship along with the person on the bike.  That ship should have been much smaller.  Like, you know, enough to take up a pixel on the screen.


Additionally, what you're seeing for the ground isn't an infinite plane, but it's as big as I could get it.  at 4 kilometers away.. lol

You rigged the picture, with the help of NASA of coarse. Enough of your lies and show me a picture not belonging to the conspiracy.

Yes yes, any pic that disproves a FE is part of the conspiracy.. we get the joke. Ironically enough, it doesn't get any funnier if you repeat it many times. The 'flat minded' pun was a lot better, go back to your roots.

Ferruccio, do you have any other program that could simulate an infinite plane and an object receding into it? It'd have to be a schematic type of program since I imagine any rendering program will only generate finite maps. I'm no expert on 3D rendering or anything like that, so I don't know which would be best to use.

Yes yes, any pic that disproves a FE is part of the conspiracy.. we get the joke. Ironically enough, it doesn't get any funnier if you repeat it many times. The 'flat minded' pun was a lot better, go back to your roots.

Ferruccio, do you have any other program that could simulate an infinite plane and an object receding into it? It'd have to be a schematic type of program since I imagine any rendering program will only generate finite maps. I'm no expert on 3D rendering or anything like that, so I don't know which would be best to use.

any program with a skybox can do the trick, as the horizon line remains at eye level.

Quote from: slappy on July 05, 2007, 03:42:21 PM

Yes yes, any pic that disproves a FE is part of the conspiracy.. we get the joke. Ironically enough, it doesn't get any funnier if you repeat it many times. The 'flat minded' pun was a lot better, go back to your roots.

Ferruccio, do you have any other program that could simulate an infinite plane and an object receding into it? It'd have to be a schematic type of program since I imagine any rendering program will only generate finite maps. I'm no expert on 3D rendering or anything like that, so I don't know which would be best to use.

any program with a skybox can do the trick, as the horizon line remains at eye level.

What about over water? Isn't that the point of this thread?

What about over water? Isn't that the point of this thread?

Well the argument is whether any object below your line of sight can rise above the horizon on an infinite plane (i.e. these would be the waves TomB relies on to obscure things in the distance). The point is: that simply doesn't and can't happen on such a surface. Whether you render waves or boxes to show this, it doesn't matter, the concept is the same.

REers, don't bother looking at the following, as you have already seen it.






Any questions?

Edit: I get the third picture now, there were just to many lines.

Actually, just to clarify/correct that 4th picture of yours (otherwise Tom will just get all apeshit on u). On an infinite plane you will see a horizon (i.e. there will be a clear line dividing sky from sea). However, any physical object will never actually reach that horizon, but rather will recede into it infinitelly. (Think limits in calculus, same thing). If the plane is finite there will still be a horizon, and the horizon will be the very edge of the plane (but depending on how large the plane is, it may be undistinguishably small). So an an infinite plane the horizon is a nonexistant location. On the sphere and the finite plane the horizon is an actual location, however on the finite plane there is nothing beyond it. That is, you'd fall off if you'd go any further.

I wouldn't worry about that. He won't look at the pictures any way.

Sorry about the 3rd pic. The other (red) lines are for comparison to the diagram in the RE primer.

Actually, just to clarify/correct that 4th picture of yours (otherwise Tom will just get all apeshit on u). On an infinite plane you will see a horizon (i.e. there will be a clear line dividing sky from sea). However, any physical object will never actually reach that horizon, but rather will recede into it infinitelly. (Think limits in calculus, same thing). If the plane is finite there will still be a horizon, and the horizon will be the very edge of the plane (but depending on how large the plane is, it may be undistinguishably small). So an an infinite plane the horizon is a nonexistant location. On the sphere and the finite plane the horizon is an actual location, however on the finite plane there is nothing beyond it. That is, you'd fall off if you'd go any further.

Are you sure?  I would think that this is what it would be like (if you could see forever).
Horizon on Sphere:



Horizon on Infinite plane (remember, you can see forever):

I wouldn't worry about that. He won't look at the pictures any way.

Sorry about the 3rd pic. The other (red) lines are for comparison to the diagram in the RE primer.

It's all right, I got the idea. I couldn't see the water at first. You may want to say that if the wave doesn't reach above the viewer's view line than the object can be seen

Are you sure?  I would think that this is what it would be like (if you could see forever).
Horizon on Sphere:



Horizon on Infinite plane (remember, you can see forever):

Yes, I'm sure. It's called the geometrical horizon. Think about it: you can see on forever, but things just shrink more and more as they go off into the distance becoming infintesimally small as they approach the horizon. In fact, due to the earth's size, the difference between our true horizon and what the horizon would look like if we lived on an infinite plane is imperceptably small. (i.e., they'd look the exactly same to the naked eye). The difference is how objects would behave upon receding into the horizon.

From wikipedia's horizon article:

In many contexts, in particular perspective drawing, the curvature of the earth is typically disregarded and the horizon is considered the theoretical line to which points on any horizontal plane converge (when projected onto the picture plane) as their distance from the viewer increases. Note that, for viewers near the ground, the difference between this geometrical horizon (which assumes a perfectly flat, infinite ground plane) and the true horizon (which assumes a spherical Earth surface) is typically imperceptibly small. That is, if the Earth were truly flat, there would still be a visible horizon line, and, to ground based viewers, its position and appearance would not be significantly different from what we see on our curved Earth.

Ah, OK.  Thanks.

It's sad that Tom Bishop, being in his later years (Assuming that's his pic and that's not fake grey hair) doesn't know the rules of perspective that is usually taught and thoroughly explained at age 8

On an infinite plane, if you could see forever, the land would get infinitely close to being parallel but it never actually would, so: No, it would not appear to go up, it would be *all but* just below "eye level" since you are 5 ft above the surface. Imagine how large a 5 foot tall pole would appear at 1^1,000,000 miles away. The problem is, on a FE you can't see forever so the horizon would appear at least, much lower than eye level.

Goodbye Tom.

On an infinite plane, if you could see forever, the land would get infinitely close to being parallel but it never actually would, so: No, it would not appear to go up, it would be *all but* just below "eye level" since you are 5 ft above the surface. Imagine how large a 5 foot tall pole would appear at 1^1,000,000 miles away. The problem is, on a FE you can't see forever so the horizon would appear at least, much lower than eye level.

Goodbye Tom.

I don't mean to spoil the victory dance here, but the horizon wouldn't apear lower than eye level. It would appear to be virtually identical to the horizon you and I see at the beach.

EDIT: Even if the FE isn't infinite, given its size, any difference in horizon would be virtually undistinguishable. Again, the key is NOT in how the horizon itself would look. The horizon looks pretty much the same in any of the models. The key is how objects behave as they recede into the horizon. On a finite FE an object would eventually "sit on the horizon", but only when it reached the end of the world (i.e. the very edge of the disk). By then it would be invisible of course (and this of course would also assume that there would be nothing obstructing the view to the very edge of the plane.) Given the sheer size of the FE, the object would behave as if on an infinite plane for all intensive purposes.

Quote from: rentacow on July 05, 2007, 06:29:12 PM

On an infinite plane, if you could see forever, the land would get infinitely close to being parallel but it never actually would, so: No, it would not appear to go up, it would be *all but* just below "eye level" since you are 5 ft above the surface. Imagine how large a 5 foot tall pole would appear at 1^1,000,000 miles away. The problem is, on a FE you can't see forever so the horizon would appear at least, much lower than eye level.

Goodbye Tom.

I don't mean to spoil the victory dance here, but the horizon wouldn't apear lower than eye level. It would appear to be virtually identical to the horizon you and I see at the beach.

EDIT: Even if the FE isn't infinite, given its size, any difference in horizon would be virtually undistinguishable. Again, the key is NOT in how the horizon itself would look. The horizon looks pretty much the same in any of the models. The key is how objects behave as they recede into the horizon. On a finite FE an object would eventually "sit on the horizon", but only when it reached the end of the world (i.e. the very edge of the disk). By then it would be invisible of course (and this of course would also assume that there would be nothing obstructing the view to the very edge of the plane.) Given the sheer size of the FE, the object would behave as if on an infinite plane for all intensive purposes.

I respectfully disagree. As you descend into a depression, such as a canyon, the visual horizon rises. The TomB well is the extreme case. As you ascend a mountain, or in a plane, or in a rocket, the visual horizon drops. The 'small blue dot' is the extreme case.

I respectfully disagree. As you descend into a depression, such as a canyon, the visual horizon rises. The TomB well is the extreme case. As you ascend a mountain, or in a plane, or in a rocket, the visual horizon drops. The 'small blue dot' is the extreme case.

Oh I agree with that. I was talking strictly about the true horizon (i.e. looking out over the sea) from a standing position (or a position reasonably close to ground level). And yes, as you ascend, the horizon definitelly drops (which it wouldn't on an infinite plane). However the drop is very slight and hard to notice until you've made your way up quite a bit. In an case, I'm talking about standing on a shore and looking out towards a true and unobstructed horizon.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 05, 2007, 07:22:11 PM

I respectfully disagree. As you descend into a depression, such as a canyon, the visual horizon rises. The TomB well is the extreme case. As you ascend a mountain, or in a plane, or in a rocket, the visual horizon drops. The 'small blue dot' is the extreme case.

Oh I agree with that. I was talking strictly about the true horizon (i.e. looking out over the sea) from a standing position (or a position reasonably close to ground level). And yes, as you ascend, the horizon definitelly drops (which it wouldn't on an infinite plane). However the drop is very slight and hard to notice until you've made your way up quite a bit. In an case, I'm talking about standing on a shore and looking out towards a true and unobstructed horizon.

Thanks.