Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)

  • 94 Replies
  • 19111 Views
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #30 on: July 06, 2007, 11:44:27 AM »
I've always been confused why people argue the perspective of the horizon since it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wait, what?  I'm not sure what you mean.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17848
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #31 on: July 06, 2007, 11:44:36 AM »
Quote
This is in a previous thread.  You said that, Tom Bishop.  So, I devised an example.  An infinite flat plane, all the distance in the world for those objects to break the horizon line, and they still didn't.  That's the point I am making.

I absolutely agree with your point. On an infinite plane with a perfectly transparent atmosphere, receding objects at a level lower than the observer will never break the horizon line.

I support this simulation 100%, Ferruccio.

Quote
You shouldnt ask him about number two, hes going to once again claim air is blue.

Yes, the sky is blue. Thanks for bringing us up to date.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2007, 11:47:26 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #32 on: July 06, 2007, 11:46:47 AM »
but you're forgetting the second set of pillars. They are above the observers' sight.
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

*

sokarul

  • 19277
  • Extra Racist
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #33 on: July 06, 2007, 11:49:18 AM »
Yes, the sky is blue. Thanks for bringing us up to date.
Yes the sky is blue, air is not. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17848
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #34 on: July 06, 2007, 11:49:53 AM »
Quote
Yes the sky is blue, air is not.

Is the sky not composed of air?

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #35 on: July 06, 2007, 11:50:08 AM »
Quote
This is in a previous thread.  You said that, Tom Bishop.  So, I devised an example.  An infinite flat plane, all the distance in the world for those objects to break the horizon line, and they still didn't.  That's the point I am making.

I absolutely agree with your point. On an infinite plane with a perfectly transparent atmosphere, receding objects at a level lower than the observer will never break the horizon line.

I support this simulation 100%, Ferruccio.

okay.. cool

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2007, 11:52:11 AM »
So how can you explain the sinking ship effect Tom?

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2007, 11:52:15 AM »
Ferruccio is assuming a couple of things about FE in his simulation in the first post:

1.) That the oceans are infinite.

2.) That the atmosphere is perfectly transparent.

Neither of these are true in Flat Earth Theory.


And on a Flat Earth finite plane, they would just cut off.

GET IT INTO YOUR BRAIN.  That isn't the point.  Yes, that is what we are assuming.  But listen, the point is a drop off or a sinking object CANNOT happen on a Flat Earth.  A finite plane would be like the objects just stop.  Think before posting.  Look at the third picture.

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2007, 11:59:32 AM »
What is this "think" you speak of?  :o

?

Bushido

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2007, 12:02:09 PM »
The following is the same group of objects, on an earth-sized sphere, except they are 100x bigger (like 30 story and 60 story skyscrapers)




EDIT:

The observer on this one is 150 meters off the ground, so the eye height can still rest between the tops of the two prisms.

Where's the camera placed here?

P.S.

Are the skyscrapers always perpendicular to the curved surface?

*

sokarul

  • 19277
  • Extra Racist
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #40 on: July 06, 2007, 12:06:41 PM »
Quote
Yes the sky is blue, air is not.

Is the sky not composed of air?
It is, but the air is not blue. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #41 on: July 06, 2007, 12:33:22 PM »
The camera is located at 150 meters on the more extreme curved case.

The skyscrapers are also normal to the surface (pretty much impossible to see as each prism has less than an arcsecond difference in-between)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17848
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #42 on: July 06, 2007, 12:44:53 PM »
Quote
And on a Flat Earth finite plane, they would just cut off.

GET IT INTO YOUR BRAIN.  That isn't the point.  Yes, that is what we are assuming.  But listen, the point is a drop off or a sinking object CANNOT happen on a Flat Earth.  A finite plane would be like the objects just stop.  Think before posting.  Look at the third picture.

However, if there is an atmosphere for the far away vanishing point to hide behind, the receding left hand prisms absolutely could appear to breach the line of the horizon.

Quote
It is, but the air is not blue.

What color is it, then?

*

sokarul

  • 19277
  • Extra Racist
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #43 on: July 06, 2007, 12:47:31 PM »
What color is it, then?

Air is colorless.  Different gasses do have clors though. 

If air is blue, why are sunsets red? 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #44 on: July 06, 2007, 12:48:11 PM »
Quote
And on a Flat Earth finite plane, they would just cut off.

GET IT INTO YOUR BRAIN.  That isn't the point.  Yes, that is what we are assuming.  But listen, the point is a drop off or a sinking object CANNOT happen on a Flat Earth.  A finite plane would be like the objects just stop.  Think before posting.  Look at the third picture.

However, if there is an atmosphere for the far away vanishing point to hide behind, the receding left hand prisms absolutely could appear to breach the line of the horizon.

If you are defining the horizon as being the last point where you can see the ground before the fog blocks your view, then this makes the whole concept of ships sinking into the horizon impossible, as they would be behind the fog.

Quote
Quote
It is, but the air is not blue.

What color is it, then?

Air is clear.  The blue color is a result of Rayleigh scattering, where longer wavelengths of light pass through and hit the ground just fine, while shorter wavelengths are absorbed by the air molecules and radiated out in every direction.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17848
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #45 on: July 06, 2007, 01:13:18 PM »
Quote
Air is colorless.  Different gasses do have clors though.

Air is not transparent. If that were so, the color and sharpness of distant mountains would not be faded with a blueish tint.

Quote
If air is blue, why are sunsets red?

During a sunset, more red light is scattered toward the observer because of aerosols  in the lower atmosphere. Since, at sunset, sunlight is passing through a much longer path of the lower atmosphere than when the sun is overhead, the effect of the aerosols becomes much stronger.

Quote
Air is clear.  The blue color is a result of Rayleigh scattering, where longer wavelengths of light pass through and hit the ground just fine, while shorter wavelengths are absorbed by the air molecules and radiated out in every direction.

The atoms of the sky are absorbing every color except blue; therefore we could say that the atoms and molecules of the sky are emitting a blue color.

Just the same we could say that an apple is absorbing every color of the rainbow except red, therefore the apple is red.

Quote
If you are defining the horizon as being the last point where you can see the ground before the fog blocks your view, then this makes the whole concept of ships sinking into the horizon impossible, as they would be behind the fog.

That's exactly what happens. The ship does not completely sink into the horizon. As it recedes from the viewer the ship kind of sinks into the ocean a little from the bottom up and then fades out completely.

Dogplatter agrees in this thread:

    "Perspective, as sublime has demonstrated, is an insufficient explanation for the actual disappearance of the lower parts of the ship. I'm still standing by my assertion that the compound effect of waves obscures the lower half of the boat, and that if the experiment could be conducted on a perfectly flat body of water, the bottom of the ship would remain visible (almost) as far away as the top half of the ship (I say almost because it's possible that other factors could marginally obscure the bottom of the boat in this hypothetical experiment, atmospheric distortion, higher water vapour content close to the surface, etc. These factors are not relevent in the scope of this discussion, since on such a local level as bottom-of-ship to top-of-ship they would be minute)."

    "I put it to Round Earthers to explain why the effect is observably more acute in stormy weather. If the sinking effect is genuinely caused by curvature, it should be predictable and consistent regardless of the choppiness of the sea."

    >>Yes, but there's a difference between fading and sinking.

    >>Ships sink over the horizon.

    "They partially sink, and then disappear from view completely. I urge you to observe this phenomenon in person."
« Last Edit: July 06, 2007, 01:22:29 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #46 on: July 06, 2007, 01:22:28 PM »
Quote
Air is clear.  The blue color is a result of Rayleigh scattering, where longer wavelengths of light pass through and hit the ground just fine, while shorter wavelengths are absorbed by the air molecules and radiated out in every direction.

The atoms of the sky are absorbing every color except blue; therefore we could say that the atoms and molecules of the sky are emitting a blue color.

Just the same we could say that an apple is absorbing every color of the rainbow except red, therefore the apple is red.


That is not how it works.  It's called, again, Rayleigh scattering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering


Quote
Quote
If you are defining the horizon as being the last point where you can see the ground before the fog blocks your view, then this makes the whole concept of ships sinking into the horizon impossible, as they would be behind the fog.

That's actually what happens. The ship does not completely sink into the horizon. As it recedes from the viewer the ship kind of sinks into the ocean a little and then fades out completely.

Dogplatter agrees in this thread:

    "Perspective, as sublime has demonstrated, is an insufficient explanation for the actual disappearance of the lower parts of the ship. I'm still standing by my assertion that the compound effect of waves obscures the lower half of the boat, and that if the experiment could be conducted on a perfectly flat body of water, the bottom of the ship would remain visible (almost) as far away as the top half of the ship (I say almost because it's possible that other factors could marginally obscure the bottom of the boat in this hypothetical experiment, atmospheric distortion, higher water vapour content close to the surface, etc. These factors are not relevent in the scope of this discussion, since on such a local level as bottom-of-ship to top-of-ship they would be minute)."

    "I put it to Round Earthers to explain why the effect is observably more acute in stormy weather. If the sinking effect is genuinely caused by curvature, it should be predictable and consistent regardless of the choppiness of the sea."

    >>Yes, but there's a difference between fading and sinking.

    >>Ships sink over the horizon.

    "They partially sink, and then disappear from view completely. I urge you to observe this phenomenon in person."


This is what I'm getting at.  Under FE, the waves would not obscure the ship whatsoever.  Why? Because the waves would have to break the horizon line in order to obscure the ship.  But, objects receding on a flat plane never break the horizon.

*

sokarul

  • 19277
  • Extra Racist
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #47 on: July 06, 2007, 01:25:13 PM »
The atoms of the sky are absorbing every color except blue; therefore we could say that the atoms and molecules of the sky are emitting a blue color.

Just the same we could say that an apple is absorbing every color of the rainbow except red, therefore the apple is red.

Do you ever learn.  Mostly blue light is hitting the sky, thus mostly blue light is reflected.  If I shine a bright orange light at an apple does that make the apple an orange?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #48 on: July 06, 2007, 01:37:06 PM »
Also, dogplatter's explanation doesn't explain why 200 feet or so of the CN tower is obscured.



Better yet, this more extreme picture


?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #49 on: July 06, 2007, 02:38:36 PM »
Try getting though that picture George Bush.
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #50 on: July 06, 2007, 03:04:29 PM »
Well well, this is mighty interesting. First of all I'd like to say that I find it hillarious how I explained to Tom plainly and simply (and repeatedly) that an object would not breach the horizon on an infinite plane if it was below your line of sight, but that he said it was ridiculous and that all simulations he ever ran showed otherwise, but now suddenly he supports this simulation 100%. In fact here is a quote from him:

You would like me to retort the assertion that objects would shrink infinitesimally into the horizon on a flat surface? That's just stupid. Ask any teenager if an object infinitesimally shrinks into the horizon without breaching it on his 3D simulation video game. That's all the evidence we need.

Well that's good, it's a start. Now let's see what else we have here.

However, if there is an atmosphere for the far away vanishing point to hide behind, the receding left hand prisms absolutely could appear to breach the line of the horizon.

Haha close, but no cigar. Here is the problem with that argument. Assuming that there is a specific point on this infnite plane beyond which you can no longer see anything due to the obscuring effects of the atmosphere, then we can treat the visible section of the infinite plane as a finite plane, with the hypothetical edge at the same point where visibility ceases. I think you will agree with this yes? If such is the case objects below the line of sight could technically appear to breach the horizon AT THE VERY EDGE OF THE VISIBLE PLANE - that is, if it stood on the very edge, or at this very boundary (mind you this effect would be very small and hardly noticeable, but let's go along with it anyway).

The key point is that the only objects to do this (i.e. the only waves) would be the ones immediatelly preceeding the point where all else vanishes (i.e. our plane's hypothetical edge). If this is the point where all else vanishes, then this object would be essentially the LAST thing you could see (unless you moved forward of course). The instant any object (a boat or whatever) reached this point, it would dissapear, without the sinking effect ever taking place. A skyline would certainly not gradually sink into the horizon. Furthermore, if the atmosphere causes this obscuring effect, I should not be able to bring an object back into view by rising a few meters, as the atmosphere would continue to obscure anything beyond the point which you describe. Last but not least, given the size of this visible plane this effect would be virtually unnoticeable. I invite Ferruccio, if he wants to, to take the infinite plane and abruptly cut it off after what.. 6 or so miles, and see how it looks.

That's exactly what happens. The ship does not completely sink into the horizon. As it recedes from the viewer the ship kind of sinks into the ocean a little from the bottom up and then fades out completely.

Umm, nope, that's not at all what happens. The ship is clearly discernible until it finishes sinking into the horizon. Granted with a ship, if you're only using the naked eye and your eyesight isnt particularly good, you probably won't realize this. You'll need a good pair of binoculars. This is far more readily observable with a skyline however (a luxury Rowbotham didn't have). Furthermore, a skyline doesn't sink into the horizon a little and then dissapears, it sinks into it a lot, and continues to do so without fading out.

EDIT: I corrected a couple of minor errors.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2007, 04:16:17 PM by slappy »
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #51 on: July 06, 2007, 04:09:03 PM »
Just the same we could say that an apple is absorbing every color of the rainbow except red, therefore the apple is red.
LOL!  Tom, this is caused by SCATTERING.  The air isn't reflecting.  If that were true you probably would not be able to see a couple of feet in front of you.  And even if air has color, the object would FADE, not SINK (Hat off to Ferruccio in his previous post with the tower).  It's like looking through a material.  The object isn't going to sink any faster just because the air isn't transparent.  Get your facts straight.  This theory is ludicrous.

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #52 on: July 06, 2007, 06:04:06 PM »
Tom Bishop, dogplatter.. both of you.

It is argued, now, apparently, that the probability of high waves increases as you get farther away, because there are more waves between you and the object.  Thus, it is more likely that somewhere along that path, a big wave will block your view.

Okay, let's just say that works.

So, how does it explain half of the CN Tower disappearing?  There are no 500 foot waves in.. well, there just are no 500 foot waves, period.


*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #53 on: July 06, 2007, 06:26:19 PM »
Yeah there are!  Proof:

HAHAHA FE wins!

No, but really Tom, as long as the waves don't come between you and the part of the building you want to see, you will be able to see that part of the building.  And don't give us the colorful air story, that does not explain why half the tower is gone.

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #54 on: July 06, 2007, 06:54:12 PM »
Indeed, as I've pointed out in my earlier post, even if you had an exact location beyond which anything vanished, and this bizzare phenomeon would cause waves to slightly rise above the horizon at the very edge of the field of vision (right before they crossed the threshold), this would still not account for anything sinking, as any other object would also dissapear upon reaching that threshold and the sinking effect would never be observed. Oh and just for fun, I used the same method as before to indicate where the ground level of the skyline should be. Now I'm no expert or nothing, but that looks to me as if it is a lot more than a 'hairline area' on the horizon.


Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #55 on: July 06, 2007, 08:54:40 PM »
Sorry to interrupt, but has anyone noticed that you were debating the age old question "Why is the sky blue?"? I thought that was kinda funny.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #56 on: July 06, 2007, 08:56:01 PM »
Because if it was green, we wouldn't know where to stop mowing.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #57 on: July 06, 2007, 09:33:50 PM »
Exactly.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12705
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #58 on: July 07, 2007, 02:16:50 AM »
Because if it was green, we wouldn't know where to stop mowing.

It's little comments like that that keep me here !  :D

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #59 on: July 07, 2007, 02:01:36 PM »
Quote
And on a Flat Earth finite plane, they would just cut off.

GET IT INTO YOUR BRAIN.  That isn't the point.  Yes, that is what we are assuming.  But listen, the point is a drop off or a sinking object CANNOT happen on a Flat Earth.  A finite plane would be like the objects just stop.  Think before posting.  Look at the third picture.

However, if there is an atmosphere for the far away vanishing point to hide behind, the receding left hand prisms absolutely could appear to breach the line of the horizon.

I like that word- could. Is there any reason to believe that this is actual occurring though, other than an ad hoc desire to prove FE right somehow?