Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)

  • 94 Replies
  • 21059 Views
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #60 on: July 07, 2007, 02:13:50 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?

HAha you're absolutelly right, but knowing Tom he will answer you with just "Do you deny that the air obscures things as they get farther away?" or something of the sort.

What you really wanna point to is that the effect would have to be very abrupt (i.e. one moment u can see things, the next you can't). And even if it was, it still wouldn't account for the phenomena observed.. because of the effect itself. (i.e. the same abrupt vanishing threshold which would cause what Tom proposes would be the same one that would obscure the ship or skyline before it had any chance whatsoever to 'sink'.
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..

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #61 on: July 07, 2007, 03:23:52 PM »
This is the main issue with horizon that TB and a few other FEers have, that fog is what creates the horizon.

The problem is that fog doesn't define an abrupt horizon.  Just like fog in video games, it causes the horizon to gradually fade out.

Dogplatter's hypothesis with the ships is that you'd only see the water block the hull before they get completely obscured with fog.  Unfortunately, his logic is instantly destroyed by the last pic I posted of the CN tower nearly half obscured.  I know of no ship that is that tall.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #62 on: July 07, 2007, 04:50:36 PM »
No way, this actually happens in real life:

FE strikes again...muhahaha.

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #63 on: July 07, 2007, 05:47:03 PM »
Unfortunately, his logic is instantly destroyed by the last pic I posted of the CN tower nearly half obscured.  I know of no ship that is that tall.

And a good pic it is. His logic is also instantly destroyed by a little bit of that elusive quality many seem to lack: the ability to think. *gasp* (yeah that's right, I went there  ;D)

FE strikes again...muhahaha.

Damn those bastards, always editing reality...

BTW where is Tom anyway? Here Bishop Bishop Bishop....
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 #64 on: July 07, 2007, 06:17:55 PM »
This has worked before:


Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #65 on: July 07, 2007, 07:02:44 PM »
This has worked before:



that's the coolest picture ever

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #66 on: July 07, 2007, 07:21:22 PM »
Ditto.

EDIT: To the Tom-mobile!
« Last Edit: July 07, 2007, 07:33:43 PM by Trekky0623 »

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #67 on: July 07, 2007, 07:36:27 PM »
I have returned! What may I pointlessly argue this time?
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!!!"

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1208
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #68 on: July 07, 2007, 07:54:39 PM »
Ditto.

EDIT: To the Tom-mobile!
...

For sure the funniest thing I've see today.

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #69 on: July 07, 2007, 11:06:30 PM »
Ditto.

EDIT: To the Tom-mobile!


Definitely fuzz out the picture around the face to make it look like there's a windscreen in front.

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #70 on: July 08, 2007, 01:33:52 PM »
I am curious, though, how dogplatter would explain why half of the CN tower is obscured by waves, when there are certainly not waves that tall on lake ontario.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #71 on: July 08, 2007, 03:51:46 PM »
Quote
I am curious, though, how dogplatter would explain why half of the CN tower is obscured by waves, when there are certainly not waves that tall on lake ontario

Was the picture taken at high tide? If so, there should be a bulge of water upon the surface of the sea as a result of the moon's gravitation. High Tide takes place twice a day, last for quite a while, varies with location, and can certainly hide the base of distant objects.

Otherwise, the effect can be explained by Dr. Rowbotham's original explanation in Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham has explained the effect a little differently than I have, and has actually given experimental evidence which demonstrated his explanation.

Distant objects with an obscured base are little more than an observational curiosity.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2007, 04:25:08 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #72 on: July 08, 2007, 04:13:11 PM »
Tom whats your opinion as to why the Engineers and Surveyors are incorrect in their allowance foe the " Earths Curvature" in things like the building of the Narrows Bridge where the tops of the towers are 1 5/8 inches further apart at the top as opposed to their bases ?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #73 on: July 08, 2007, 04:18:25 PM »
Quote
Tom whats your opinion as to why the Engineers and Surveyors are incorrect in their allowance foe the " Earths Curvature" in things like the building of the Narrows Bridge where the tops of the towers are 1 5/8 inches further apart at the top as opposed to their bases ?

Engineers may indeed account for the Earth's supposed curvature in their calculations, but ultimately it results in a slightly sloping or relaxed bridge. This is quite unfortunate, since more than a few lives have been lost due to bad bridge design like this.

The Flat Earth Society makes a point to protest this sort of bad engineering.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2007, 04:23:53 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Bushido

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #74 on: July 08, 2007, 04:23:33 PM »

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #75 on: July 08, 2007, 04:23:50 PM »
Quote
I am curious, though, how dogplatter would explain why half of the CN tower is obscured by waves, when there are certainly not waves that tall on lake ontario

Was the picture taken at high tide? If so, there should be a bulge of water upon the surface of the sea as a result of the moon's gravitation. High Tide takes place twice a day, last for quite a while, varies with location, and can certainly hide the base of distant objects.

Otherwise, the effect can be explained by Dr. Rowbotham's original explanation in Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham has explained the effect a little differently than I have, and has actually given experimental evidence which demonstrated his explanation.

Distant objects with an obscured base is little more than an observational curiosity.
TomB, are you under the impression that tides affect the Great Lakes, or rise 300 feet anywhere?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #76 on: July 08, 2007, 04:27:11 PM »
Quote
TomB, are you under the impression that tides affect the Great Lakes, or rise 300 feet anywhere?

If the moon affects water through gravitation, I don't see why the Great Lakes shouldn't have tides.

And yes, a slight bulge in the water could cover up 300 feet of a distant city.

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #77 on: July 08, 2007, 04:31:25 PM »
"The Flat Earth Society makes a point to protest this sort of bad engineering."

As it should , but don't you think it is "more likely" that the few FEers are incorrect as opposed to all the Engineers and Surveyors in the world? Surely if the basic precepts of Surveying and the resultant engineering solutions were wrong there would be more failures?

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #78 on: July 08, 2007, 04:32:40 PM »
Quote
TomB, are you under the impression that tides affect the Great Lakes, or rise 300 feet anywhere?

If the moon affects water through gravitation, I don't see why the Great Lakes shouldn't have tides.

And yes, a slight bulge in the water could cover up 300 feet of a distant city.
There are no significant tides on the Great Lakes. They are too small.

I've already proven to you that the water would have to rise 300 feet just to cover the 600 feet that we see in the photo.

You're just out of steam these days. There seems to be no argument you make that even survives a few posts.

?

Bushido

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #79 on: July 08, 2007, 04:39:42 PM »
Better yet, this more extreme picture



It's a fake.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #80 on: July 08, 2007, 04:47:09 PM »
Quote
TomB, are you under the impression that tides affect the Great Lakes, or rise 300 feet anywhere?

If the moon affects water through gravitation, I don't see why the Great Lakes shouldn't have tides.

And yes, a slight bulge in the water could cover up 300 feet of a distant city.

A 300 foot tide?  And there aren't more floods because?  Seriously, a 300 foot tides in the Great Lakes would surely be noticed by someone.  As in, "HOLY SH*T A WALL OF WATER" type of notice. 
Quote from: NOAA
The height of the level of water relative to a datum (see below). The Great Lakes are not as affected by gravitational interactions among the sun, moon, and earth as many other areas of the country are, so we cannot measure a predictable tide in these locations. Changes in water level are usually due to weather events. Users can retrieve data from active or historic stations.
300 foot rainfall?  Yeah, right.

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #81 on: July 08, 2007, 06:32:40 PM »
Was the picture taken at high tide? If so, there should be a bulge of water upon the surface of the sea as a result of the moon's gravitation. High Tide takes place twice a day, last for quite a while, varies with location, and can certainly hide the base of distant objects.

On a flat plane, this bulge of water would have to be tall enough to intersect your line of sight. In fact, the difference caused by the tides is less than an inch (the lakes aren't oceans you know). The bulge is subject to the same laws of perspective. If it is lower than your line of sight it cannot obscure your view of anything on the horizon of a flat plane. Review the models posted by Ferrucio if you have a hard time with this.

Otherwise, the effect can be explained by Dr. Rowbotham's original explanation in Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe. Rowbotham has explained the effect a little differently than I have, and has actually given experimental evidence which demonstrated his explanation.

Sure, if by experimental evidence you mean bad and flawed diagrams. Rowbotham's explanation works on the basis that waves will obscure your view at the horizon. This is simply false. We have already shown you how on a flat plane this is impossible. This is why his explanation is flawed.

Your method (or rather Dogplatter's) was to intruduce the notion of air obscuring the vanishing point, thereby making the visible horizon the exact boundary between the visible and the invisible. Here I agreed that waves on this very boundary itself would appear to break this 'false horizon'. However, given this situation nothing past this boundary could be observed. i.e. the very instant an object crossed the threshold it would dissapear (there would be no sinking effect. half of boat or a skyline could never be obscured in this manner). If you maintain that an object would still be visible, then it contradicts the presence of this boundary which in turn does away with the false horizon upon which your argument depends. Conclusion: your explanation does not and cannot work. (Oh and Rowbotham mentions nothing of this, this is dogplatter's attempt to make sense of it).


Distant objects with an obscured base are little more than an observational curiosity.

On the contrary. They are phenomena that cannot be explained on anything but a curved surface.
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..

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #82 on: July 08, 2007, 07:41:02 PM »
Lakes don't have tides.  If they had 300 foot tides, the gravity involved to pick a lake up that high would certainly have drastic effects on all the boats on that lake, in the sense that "ohhh man, there's this huge bulge on the lake now! I'm sliding off!"

If you think gravity would keep the boats where they are, then gravity would also mean that boats would be positioned with respect to the bulge's slope, which would give every lake ontario boater a wonderful view of the lake shore, which seems to magically slope up with respect to them.  Heck, everyone would be flocking to the middle of the lake to get a good view of things!

Additionally, how do you know that bridges are being built incorrectly due to earth's curvature?  How does this happen?  The bridge disaster article you gave has nothing about not taking into account for earth's flatness.

Your description of waves blocking out half a city still doesn't work.  Please refer to my POV-RAY renderings, which completely destroy the concept of perspective blocking out large objects at a distance if they are lower than the eye.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2007, 08:02:14 PM by Ferruccio »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #83 on: July 09, 2007, 11:03:21 AM »
Quote
Sure, if by experimental evidence you mean bad and flawed diagrams. Rowbotham's explanation works on the basis that waves will obscure your view at the horizon. This is simply false. We have already shown you how on a flat plane this is impossible. This is why his explanation is flawed.

That's not Rowbotham's explanation for the effect at all. The wave argument was mine alone. Dr. Rowbotham argues a different point for the effect. From Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe:

CHAPTER XIV.
EXAMINATION OF THE SO-CALLED "PROOFS" OF THE EARTH'S ROTUNDITY.--WHY A SHIP'S HULL DISAPPEARS BEFORE THE MAST-HEAD.


IT has already been proved that the astronomers of the Copernican school merely assumed the rotundity of the earth as a doctrine which enabled them to explain certain well-known phenomena. "What other explanation can be imagined except the sphericity of the earth?" is the language of Professor de Morgan, and it expresses the state of mind of all who hold that the earth is a globe. There is on their part an almost amusing innocence of the fact, than in seeking to explain phenomena by the assumption of rotundity, another assumption is necessarily involved, viz., that nothing else will explain the phenomena in question but the foregone and gratuitous conclusion to which they have committed themselves. To argue, for instance, that because the lower part of an outward-bound vessel disappears before the mast-head, the water must be round, is to assume that a round surface only can produce such an effect. But if it can be shown that a simple law of perspective in connection with a plane surface necessarily produces this appearance, the assumption of rotundity is not required, and all the misleading fallacies and confusion involved in or mixed up with it may be avoided.

Before explaining the influence of perspective in causing-the hull of a ship to disappear first when outward bound, it is necessary to remove an error in its application, which artists and teachers have generally committed, and which if persisted in will not only prevent their giving, as it has hitherto done, absolutely correct representations of natural things, but also deprive them of the power to understand the cause of the lower part of any receding object disappearing to the eye before any higher portion--even though the surface on which it moves is admittedly and provably horizontal.

In the first place it is easily demonstrable that, as shown in the following diagrams, fig. 71, lines which are equi-distant


FIG. 71.

"The range of the eye, or diameter of the field of vision, is 110°; consequently this is the largest angle under which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. . . . The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches or 250 feet."

The above may be called the law of perspective. It may be given in more formal language, as the following:. when any object or any part thereof is so far removed that its greatest diameter subtends at the eye of the observer, an angle of one minute or less of a degree, it is no longer visible.

From the above it follows:--

1.--That the larger the object the further will it require to go from the observer before it becomes invisible.

2.--The further any two bodies, or any two parts of the same body, are asunder, the further must they recede before they appear to converge to the same point.

3.--Any distinctive part of a receding body will be-come invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body.

The first and second of the above propositions are self-evident. The third may be illustrated by the following diagram, fig. 73.


FIG. 73.

Let A represent a disc of wood or card-board, say one foot in diameter, and painted black, except one inch diameter in the centre. On taking this disc to about a hundred feet away from an observer at A, the white centre will appear considerably diminished--as shown at B--and on removing it still further the central white will become invisible, the disc will appear as at C, entirely black. Again, if a similar disc is coloured black, except a segment of say one inch in depth at the lower edge, on moving it forward the lower segment will gradually disappear, as shown at A, B, and C, in diagram fig. 74. If the


Fig. 74.

disc is allowed to rest on a board D, the effect is still more striking. The disc at C will appear perfectly round--the white segment having disappeared.

The erroneous application of perspective already referred to is the following:--It is well known that on looking along a row of buildings of considerable length, every object below the eye appears to ascend towards the eye-line; and every thing above the eye appears to descend towards the same eye-line; and an artist, wishing to represent such a view on paper, generally adopts the following rule:--draw a line across the paper or canvas at the altitude of the eye. To this line, as a vanishing point, draw all other lines above and below it, irrespective of their distance, as in the diagram 75.


Fig. 75.

Let A, B, and C, D, represent two lines parallel but not equi-distant from the eye-line E, H. To an observer at E, the vanishing point of C, D, would be at H, because the lines C, D, and E, H, would come together at H, at an angle of one minute of a degree. But it is evident from a single glance at the diagram that H cannot be the vanishing point of A, B, because the distance E, A, being greater than E, C, the angle A, H, E, is also greater than C, H, E--is, in fact, considerably more than one minute of a degree. Therefore the line A, B, cannot possibly have its vanishing point on the line E, H, unless it is carried forward towards W. Hence the line A, W, is the true perspective line of A, B, forming an angle of one minute at W, which is the true vanishing point of A, B, as H is the vanishing point of C, D, and G, H, because these two lines are equidistant from the eye-line.

The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point. Whereas it is demonstrable that lines most distant from an eye-line must of necessity converge less rapidly, and must be carried further over the eye-line before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the vanishing point.

A very good illustration of the difference is given in fig. 76. False or prevailing perspective would bring the lines A, B, and C, D, to the same point H; but the true or natural perspective


Fig. 76.

brings the line A, B, to the point W, because there and there only does A, W, E, become the same angle as C, H, E. It must be the same angle or it is not the vanishing point.

The law represented in the above diagram is the "law of nature." It may be seen in every layer of a long wall; in every hedge and bank of the roadside, and indeed in every direction where lines and objects run parallel to each other; but no illustration of the contrary perspective is ever to be seen in nature. In the pictures which abound in our public and private collections, however, it may too often be witnessed, giving a degree of distortion to paintings and drawings--otherwise beautifully executed, which strikes the observer as very unnatural, but, as he supposes, artistically or theoretically correct.

The theory which affirms that all parallel lines converge to one and the same point on the eye-line, is an error. It is true only of lines equi-distant from the eye-line; lines more or less apart meet the eye-line at different distances, and the point at which they meet is that only where each forms the angle of one minute of a degree, or such other angular measure as may be decided upon as the vanishing point. This is the true law of perspective as shown by nature herself; any idea to the contrary is fallacious, and will deceive whoever may hold and apply it to practice.

In accordance with the above law of natural perspective, the following illustrations are important as representing actually observed phenomena. In a long row of lamps, standing on horizontal ground, the pedestals, if short, gradually diminish until at a distance of a few hundred yards they seem to disappear, and the upper and thinner parts of the lamp posts appear to touch the ground, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 77.


Fig. 77.

The lines A, B, and C, D, represent the actual depth or length of the whole series of lamps, as from C to A. An observer placing his eye a little to the right or left of the point E, and looking along the row will see that each succeeding pedestal appears shorter than the preceding, and at a certain distance the line C, D, will appear to meet the eye-line at H--the pedestals at that point being no longer visible, the upper portion of each succeeding lamp just appears to stand without pedestal. At the point H where the pedestals disappear the upper portions of the lamps seem to have shortened considerably, as shown by the line A, W, but long after the pedestals have entered the vanishing point, the tops will appear above the line of sight E, H, or until the line A, W, meets the line E, H, at an angle of one minute of a degree. A row of lamps such as that above described may be seen in York Road, which for over 600 yards runs across the south end of Regent's Park, London.

On the same road the following case may at any time be seen.


Fig. 78.

Send a young girl, with short garments, from C on towards D; on advancing a hundred yards or more (according to the depth of the limbs exposed) the bottom of the frock or longest garment will seem to touch the ground; and on arriving at H, the vanishing point of the lines C, D, and E, H, the limbs will have disappeared, and the upper part of the body would continue visible, but gradually shortening until the line A, B, came in contact with E, H, at the angle of one minute.

If a receding train be observed on a long, straight, and horizontal portion of railway, the bottom of the last carriage will seem to gradually get nearer to the rails, until at about the distance of two miles the line of rail and the bottom of the carriage will seem to come together, as shown in fig. 79.


Fig. 79.

The south bank of the Duke of Bridgewater's canal (which passes between Manchester and Runcorn) in the neighbourhood of Sale and Timperley, in Cheshire, runs parallel to the surface of the water, at an elevation of about eighteen inches, and at this point the canal is a straight line for more than a statute mile. On this bank eight flags, each 6 ft. high, were placed at intervals of 300 yards, and on looking from the towing path on the opposite side, the bank seemed in the distance to gradually diminish in depth, until the grass and the surface of the water converged to a point, and the last flag appeared to stand not on the bank but in the water of the canal, as shown in the diagram fig. 80.


Fig. 80.

The flags and the bank had throughout the whole length the altitude and the depth represented by the lines respectively A, B, and C, D.

Shooting out into Dublin Bay there is a long wall about three statute miles in length, and at the end next to the sea stands the Poolbeg Lighthouse. On one occasion the author sitting in a boat opposite "Irish Town," and three miles from the sea end of the wall, noticed that the lighthouse seemed to spring from the water, as shown in the diagram fig. 81.


Fig. 81.

The top of the wall seemed gradually to decline towards the sea level, as from B to A; but on rowing rapidly towards A the lighthouse was found to be standing on the end of the wall, which was at least four feet vertical depth above the water. as seen in the following diagram, fig. 82.


Fig. 82.

From the several cases now advanced, which are selected from a great number of instances involving the same law, the third proposition (on page 203) that "any distinctive part of a body will become invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body," is sufficiently demonstrated. It will therefore be readily seen that the hull of a receding ship obeying the same law must disappear on a plane surface, before the mast head. If it is put in the form of a syllogism the conclusion is inevitable:--

Any distinctive part of a receding object becomes invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same object.

The hull is a distinctive part of a ship.

Ergo, the hull of a receding or outward bound ship must disappear before the whole, inclusive of the mast head.

To give the argument a more practical and nautical character it may be stated as follows:

That part of any receding body which is nearest to the surface upon which it moves, contracts, and becomes in-visible before the parts which are further away from such surface--as shown in figs. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70.

The hull of a ship is nearer to the water--the surface on which it moves--than the mast head.

Ergo, the hull of an outward bound ship must be the first to disappear.

This will be seen mathematically in the following diagram, fig. 83.


Fig. 83.

The line A, B, represents the altitude of the mast head; E, H, of the observer, and C, D, of the horizontal surface of the sea. By the law of perspective the surface of the water appears to ascend towards the eye-line, meeting it at the point H, which is the horizon. The ship appears to ascend the inclined plane C, H, the hull gradually becoming less until on arriving at the horizon H it is apparently so small that its vertical depth subtends an angle, at the eye of the observer, of less than one minute of a degree, and it is therefore invisible; whilst the angle subtended by the space between the mast-head and the surface of the water is considerably more than one minute, and therefore although the hull has disappeared in the horizon as the vanishing point, the mast-head is still visible above the horizon. But the vessel continuing to sail, the mast-head gradually descends in the direction of the line A, W, until at length it forms the same angle of one minute at the eye of the observer, and then becomes invisible.

Those who believe that the earth is a globe have often sought to prove it to be so by quoting the fact that when the ship's hull has disappeared, if an observer ascends to a higher position the hull again becomes visible. But this, is logically premature; such a result arises simply from the fact that on raising his position the eye-line recedes further over the water before it forms the angle of one minute of a degree, and this includes and brings back the hull within the vanishing point, as shown in fig. 84.


Fig. 84.

The altitude of the eye-line E, H, being greater, the horizon or vanishing point is formed at fig. 2 instead of at fig. 1, as in the previous illustration.

Hence the phenomenon of the hull of an outward bound vessel being the first to disappear, which has been so universally quoted and relied upon as proving the rotundity of the earth, is fairly, both logically and mathematically, a proof of the very contrary, that the earth is a plane. It has been misunderstood and misapplied in consequence of an erroneous view of the laws of perspective, and the unconquered desire to support a theory. That it is valueless for such a purpose is now completely demonstrated.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2007, 11:08:07 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #84 on: July 09, 2007, 11:12:07 AM »
Quote
Sure, if by experimental evidence you mean bad and flawed diagrams. Rowbotham's explanation works on the basis that waves will obscure your view at the horizon. This is simply false. We have already shown you how on a flat plane this is impossible. This is why his explanation is flawed.

That's not Rowbotham's explanation for the effect at all. The wave argument was mine alone. Dr. Rowbotham argues a different point for the effect. From Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe:

CHAPTER XIV.
EXAMINATION OF THE SO-CALLED "PROOFS" OF THE EARTH'S ROTUNDITY.--WHY A SHIP'S HULL DISAPPEARS BEFORE THE MAST-HEAD.


... [numerous blatherings]
And all of this is refuted with devastating effect by repeating:

Since TomB seems unable to handle the concepts of algebra, I'll do the math for him. Of course, he probably won't be able to understand this, but I'd thought I'd try it anyway.

Let there be an observer on a calm sea approaching a major port with a tall skyline. Let there be one tallest (and farthest from the observer) obstacle (here a wave) blocking the observer's view of the port. Let the baseline, mean sea level, of the FE be represented by the lower blue line. This line is straight and level. Let the light of sight, or more precisely the ray of light, from the lowest visible part of the skyline to the observer be the second blue line. This straight line just clears the crest of the blocking wave.



Define the following variables:
o: the height of the observer above the mean sea level.
w: the height of the wave from trough to crest
s: the height of the lowest part of the skyline visible to the observer
d: the distance from the observer to the wave
e: the distance from the observer to the lowest (and nearest) point of the skyline visible to the observer

We know by premise that d is less than or equal to e. We know that given the calm day that the wave height, w, must be less than the observer's height, o. If not the boat would be at peril of swamping. Since only the crest of the wave rises above the mean sea level, the height of the obstruction is w/2. Since o>w, then o>w/2. Therefore the angle from the observer to the wave must be below eye level. Therefore s is maximized when d = e. Therefore, max(s)=w/2. Furthermore, since h>w/2, o must be greater than s.

So, on a FE the observer must be able to see all of the skyline at all times except for the lower portion that is at least less than he or she is off the water.


*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #85 on: July 09, 2007, 11:16:08 AM »
Quote
And all of this is refuted with devastating effect by repeating:

Dr. Rowbotham does not argue the effect to WAVES. Your post is completely irrelevant.

What I posted was the official explanation for the sinking ship effect, what the Flat Earth Society currently holds as accurate.

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #86 on: July 09, 2007, 11:19:37 AM »
Quote
And all of this is refuted with devastating effect by repeating:

Dr. Rowbotham does not argue the effect to WAVES. Your post is completely irrelevant.

What I posted was the official explanation for the sinking ship effect, what the Flat Earth Society currently holds as accurate.
Mathematically, you can readily switch skyline and observer to the same effect. You do even do it in your head. As far as waves go, I really don't care what it is that he wants to argue obscures the hull of the ship. The math defeats his argument quickly.

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #87 on: July 09, 2007, 01:04:18 PM »
Quote
And all of this is refuted with devastating effect by repeating:

Dr. Rowbotham does not argue the effect to WAVES. Your post is completely irrelevant.

What I posted was the official explanation for the sinking ship effect, what the Flat Earth Society currently holds as accurate.

Quote
must be carried further over the eye-line

I've already proven this wrong with 3d renderings, which rowbotham did not have!
All of his diagrams are wrong, as proven by my POV-RAY renderings.  If you fully support my renderings, how do you support the flawed diagrams of ENAG?

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #88 on: July 09, 2007, 02:13:29 PM »
Quote
Sure, if by experimental evidence you mean bad and flawed diagrams. Rowbotham's explanation works on the basis that waves will obscure your view at the horizon. This is simply false. We have already shown you how on a flat plane this is impossible. This is why his explanation is flawed.

That's not Rowbotham's explanation for the effect at all. The wave argument was mine alone. Dr. Rowbotham argues a different point for the effect. From Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe:

Wrong. Rowbotham uses the wave argument in his "Perspective on the Sea" section of Chapter 14. This argument is the reason he gives for why an object cannot be brought back into view upon using a pair of binoculars or a telescope. Try reading your own source more closely next time.

As for what you posted, I showed why it was wrong in the following thread: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=14325.120. You never addressed the OP there, you just chimed in later on and commented on matters which had diverted from the topic. In any case, I've shown (referencing some of Rowbotham's diagrams) precisely what is wrong about his argument. Furthermore, Dogplatter actually agrees that perspective as Rowbotham outlines isn't enough to explain the sinking ship phenomenon.

Dogplatter then invokes the wave explanation (which Rowbotham also uses later on) to account for the phenomenon as obseved. This is the same explanation you have invoked a number of times. This thread showed precisely why the wave explanation is wrong. Then you threw in that point about the true vanishing point being obscured by the atmosphere and how that would allow distant waves to appear to break the horizon. I took your argument and showed you point-by-point what was wrong with it. Instead of replying, you post Rowbotham's original explanation.

I was addressing your point specifically, I asked you to do the same for mine but you showed urself to be completelly incapable. Again I ask you to address my reply to your argument point-by-point if you still want to defend your position. That's how debating works.
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..

Re: Tom Bishop and perspective (good visual renderings)
« Reply #89 on: July 09, 2007, 05:19:06 PM »
I love Dr. Rowbotham's "math" it always make me laugh, i would have hated to have been his math teacher in school. I could just see him "but teacher 2+2 is three because the sun rised in the east and then you look at a bird it flaps its wings and my apple tree had 3 apples on it so therefore 2+2 is three"
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.