"Wave effect" hiding ships etc explained! (w/ pics zomg)

Here's how it works!!!!!



Remember.. objects don't disapear because they get SMALLER.. they disappear first because they are OBSTRUCTED by something.

(Obstructed = SOMETHING BETWEEN YOUR EYES AND YOUR TARGET .. don't try and re-word this so that there does not have to be an object between your eyes and your target.. for example saying that the horizon is always at eye level = IRRELIVENT. If there's nothing between your eyes and your target, there is nothing to stop you from seeing it. End.)

There are depressions in the ocean swelling as well. I think your picture fails to depict those.

There are depressions in the ocean swelling as well. I think your picture fails to depict those.

Pretend that they got covered up in the maximum-height-waves on the 2nd pic, mmmkay.

Right after we "pretend" the earth is round, right?

Right after we "pretend" the earth is round, right?

Nope. If you study the diagram closely, you'll notice that the hypothesis actually involves a flat-earth model.
(and a wave-monster ofcourse)

Tom will take your post and put that line at the base of the object. He will fail to take into account the fact that the waves that would be in the way would also decrease in height as they get farther away (or appear to decrease in height).

Hence the thread Wave Crests and Sunsets.

Last frame is teh pwnage.

Hence the thread Wave Crests and Sunsets.

Yeah but that one was all "messy" and it concluded a RO while I conclude a FE.

Fixed image with the perspective rule of the horizon line being always at eye level:



References:

Cartage College tells us this about the horizon line:

Horizon line - is always at eye level. Picture yourself at the seashore and looking out at the ocean you notice that the water meets the sky at your eye level. This never changes. You may be in an airplane 1000 feet up and the level that the ocean meets the sky is still at your eye level! Or you may be lying down on the beach and the ocean level drops with you. Think of it as an invisible plane that cuts through everything, that always exists at eye level.

Hint: Your horizon line always falls at eye level regardless of where you're looking. For instance, if you are looking down, your eye level remains at the height of your eyes, not down where you are looking.

From "The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception" by James Jerome Gibson we read:

"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."

In the book Perception and Psychophysics we read that we can use the fact of the horizon being at eye level with the observer to judge the size of distant objects:

Before we can assess the role of horizon information about size, we need to consider the different ways in which an observer can use the horizon. For a standing observer viewing objects on the same ground plane, the explicit or implicit horizon line intersects objects at the observer’s eye height, thereby specifying the absolute size of the object as a multiple of the observer’s eye height (Sedgwick, 1973). This size information is independent of the distance of the object from the observer.

To cement the idea that the horizon is alway at eye level with the observer, here is an excerpt from the Perspective Handbook:

Horizon line and Eye level

Anyone who has ever been to the seaside will have seen a horizon (as long as it wasn't foggy). This is the line you see far away, out to sea. It's the line where the water stops and the sky starts. There are horizon lines everywhere, but usually you don't see them because something like a hill or a tree or a house is in the way.

You always see the horizon line at your eye level. In fact, if you change your eye level (by standing up, or sitting down) the horizon line changes too, and follows your eye level. Your eye level always follows you around everywhere because it's your eye level. If you sit on the floor the horizon is at your eye level. If you stand up, it's at your eye level. If you stand on top of a very tall building, or look out of the window of an aeroplane, the horizon is still at your eye level. It's only everything else that appears to change in relation to your eye level. The fact is, that everything looks the way it does from your point of view because you see it in relation to yourself. So if you are sitting looking out of the window of an airliner everything is going to look shorter than you because at this moment you are taller (or higher) than everything else.

Sir R. Ball from the London Journal of 18th July reflects on the experience of a hot air balloon flight:

"The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon a considerable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead of convex, and to recede during rapid ascent, whilst the horizon and balloon seemed to be stationary."

Therefore as the red block recedes into the distance it will, from the view of the observer, appear to shrink into the waves which intersect with the line of sight. The ship will appear to sink from the bottom up.

No matter how long we stretch out the distance between the observer and the red block, there will always be an area where the waves breach the line of sight.

If the observer is on a hill higher than the ship, the line of the horizon is still at eye level, thus creating an area where the waves, no matter how small, could intersect with the line of sight.


The challenge "The waves three quarters of the way wouldn't be put above eye level by perspective beceause they would be shrinking proportionally, thanks to perspective, thus never actually intersecting the line of sight." can be answered by the following:--

If that were true it would be impossible for a ship to lay atop the horizon. If that were at all accurate a receding ship ship would continually shrink into the horizon infinitely, never breaching the line which divides sea and sky.

Quite clearly, ships do appear above the line of the horizon all the time. Even if the observer is at an altitude above the ship, the ship will still breach the horizon line. The ship can still lay atop the horizon. Therefore, if ships can breach the line of sight, so can the waves.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/125/354768249_e32ca8588e_o.jpg

Here we have a picture of a man sitting at the edge of a cliff side next to a bicycle. In the distance we can see average fishing boats above the line of the horizon. We can practically see entire hulls of the ships above the horizon line. It is now beyond doubt that receding ships can ascend above the horizon line.

From 5, 10, 50, or 100 feet in the air, receding boats will ascend past the line of the horizon as they recede. Every child knows this. We can see that almost the entirety of the visible boat is above the level of the horizon in the image. Unless it is argued that the hull of that distant boat is enormous and higher than the cliff upon which the man sits, there is no other recourse than to admit that an object lower than the observer's altitude can recede and ascend past the line of the horizon.


To the challenge "the horizon on a flat earth is infinitely far away" we answer with an analogy:--

An ant has a horizon located a few inches away.

A mouse has a horizon located about six feet away.

A human has a horizon located about thirty miles away.

An eagle has a horizon located over a hundred miles away.

Ergo as we increase altitude we are increasing our vantage point. The horizon is finite, changing with our altitude. Thus, the higher we go, the farther we can see and detect.

In macro photography there is a limit to the horizon. It is usually on the range of feet depending on the height of the camera from the ground. Hence, sufficient proof that the distance to the horizon is finite, tied to the altitude of the observer.

If the horizon were located an infinite distance away from the observer, how is it possible for a ship to sit atop the horizon without being infinitely far away from the observer?

Fixed image with the perspective rule of the horizon line being always at eye level:

So.. wait.. what exactly is between the observer and the big red square? You seem to have put it even HIGHER.. making it EASIER to see.

Except that the observer is looking away from it. IE: there is nothing between the observer and the object. I don't really care about the horizon. The point is that the amount of things between person and target = 0. Putting it HIGHER will not make it disappear behind anything (unless there happens to be a blimp just above the object.. which makes perfect sense.. unlike your "corrected" image)

The only way that your corrected image makes sense is if the flat plane were to tilt downwards just a tad.. so that there would be something between the observer and the target.

..

I think I should remind you that the horizon appearing at eye level is not an optical allusion with any strange properties. It's simply how perspective works. Try laying on the ground so you have "mouse perspective". Everything beyond 6 feet is not invisible, and neither does it disappear from bottom-up. Why? There's nothing between you and your target. (not even in your image..)

I tried it with a pen in a 20ft hallway. If anything the small obstructions in my way (cords and so forth) actually moved down and out of my way so I could see the pen clearer (since it was higher.. like in your pic! .. except I wasn't staring at the floor like in your pic). I'm pretty sure I could put the pen far away enough until it simply disapeared from perspective.

*bump*
Where'd Tom go?



"Get up! You must get up!" -Bambis jerk dad.

So.. wait.. what exactly is between the observer and the big red square? You seem to have put it even HIGHER.. making it EASIER to see.

Take careful note of the earth around you. You will find that the land ascends to eye level. The entire earth appears concave with you at the lowest point.

The land is tilted upwards due to perception. This perceptual tilt allows the waves and disturbances of the land or sea to breach the level of the eye where the angle of the land approaches the point of the horizon.

Objects will  shrink as they recede, naturally shrinking into the disturbances which breach the line of sight. This shrinking of objects as they recede will cause the waves of the sea to obscure it from the bottom up.

Except that the observer is looking away from it. IE: there is nothing between the observer and the object. I don't really care about the horizon. The point is that the amount of things between person and target = 0. Putting it HIGHER will not make it disappear behind anything (unless there happens to be a blimp just above the object.. which makes perfect sense.. unlike your "corrected" image)

Thought experiment:

Let us imagine that we are located on the fourth story of a building next to the coast of the pacific ocean. Our level above the surface of the sea is 48 feet. We have a very powerful laser pointer. There is a sailboat down near the shore next to our building. The height from the sea to the hull is 10 feet. The height of the hull to the mast is 15 feet.

At the start of our experiment we take our powerful laser pointer, point it out the window, and shine it down at the deck of the ship. Next we call up the captain of the vessel and tell him to head out to sea. The captain of the boat sets sail directly opposite from us out into the pacific ocean. As the ship recedes we keep the dot of the laser pointer directly on the deck of the ship at all times. To ensure our accuracy we keep in constant communication will a deck-hand, ensuring that the dot of the laser pointer stays on the deck of the ship as the ship recedes from us.

As the ship sails into the distance we are inclining the angle of the laser pointer upwards little by little. At a certain point the ship will recede to a point where its deck is exactly lined up with the line of the horizon. The hull of the ship is backgrounded by sea and the mast of the ship is backgrounded by sky. Our laser pointer is now pointing at both the deck of the ship and the horizon line. The two are aligned perfectly.

Now, how is this thought experiment possible? Our laser is pointing at the line of the horizon (eye level, 90 degrees parallel), but our laser is also pointing at the deck of the ship 38 feet below our altitude.

Clearly, it is without a doubt possible for the deck of a ship to be aligned with the horizon line. So how is this situation possible?

Quote

So.. wait.. what exactly is between the observer and the big red square? You seem to have put it even HIGHER.. making it EASIER to see.

Take careful note of the earth around you. You will find that the land ascends to eye level. The entire earth appears concave with you at the lowest point.

The land is tilted upwards due to perception. This perceptual tilt allows the waves and disturbances of the land or sea to breach the level of the eye where the angle of the land approaches the point of the horizon.

Quote

Except that the observer is looking away from it. IE: there is nothing between the observer and the object. I don't really care about the horizon. The point is that the amount of things between person and target = 0. Putting it HIGHER will not make it disappear behind anything (unless there happens to be a blimp just above the object.. which makes perfect sense.. unlike your "corrected" image)

Thought experiment:

Let us imagine that we are located on the fourth story of a building next to the coast of the pacific ocean. Our level above the sea is 48 feet. We have a very powerful laser pointer. There is a sailboat down near the shore next to our building. The height of the hull from sea is 10 feet. The height of the mast is 15 feet.

At the start of our experiment we take our powerful laser pointer, point it out the window, and shine it on the deck of the ship. Next we call up the captain of the vessel and tell him to head out to sea. The captain of the boat sets sail directly opposite from us out into the pacific ocean. As the ship recedes we keep the dot of the laser pointer directly on the deck of the ship at all times. To ensure our accuracy we keep in constant communication will a deck-hand, ensuring that the dot of the laser pointer stays on the deck of the ship as the ship recedes from us.

As the ship sails into the distance we are inclining the angle of the laser pointer little by little. At a point the ship will recede to a point where its deck is exactly lines up with the line of the horizon. The hull of the ship is backgrounded by sea and the mast of the ship is backgrounded by sky. Our laser pointer is now pointing at both the deck of the ship and the horizon line. The two are aligned perfectly.

Now, how is this thought experiment possible? Our laser is pointing at the line of the horizon (eye level, 90 degrees parallel), but our laser is also pointing at the deck of the ship 38 feet below our altitude.

Clearly, it is without a doubt possible for the deck of a ship to be aligned with the horizon line. How is this situation possible?

Therefore, we see that perception causes the land and sea to ascend to eye level, thus creating the situation I've just described.

You offer no evidence that the laser will ever point horizontally. You'll welcome to perform the experiment and get back to us. Of course, we'll have to insist that you provide unimpeachable documentation since you've lied about your other experiments.

what tom is talking about is more of a right triangle problem as opposed to a perspective problem: as the ship moves out to sea the hypotenuse will get larger to the angle will get more and more slight until the laser beam will no longer be able to point on the deck

You offer no evidence that the laser will ever point horizontally. You'll welcome to perform the experiment and get back to us. Of course, we'll have to insist that you provide unimpeachable documentation since you've lied about your other experiments.

Eye level is defined as horizontal.

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Chaptaign tells us:

Q:  You have a photograph of a person in front of a sunset over the sea. Relative to the person in the picture, how tall is the photographer?

A:  Although it looks impossible at first, this problem does indeed have a solution. The important fact here is that the horizon is always at eye level. This is because we can assume the earth is flat. If you look up, you see the sky. If you look down, you see the ground. Thus to see the point transition between earth and sky, the horizon, you must look exactly horizontally. Assuming that the photographer holds the camera at eye level to take a picture, the placement of the horizon in the picture is the height of the photographer's eyes. Thus if the horizon is above the eyes of the person in the picture, the photographer is taller, whereas if the horizon is below the eyes of the person in the picture, the photographer is shorter.

Ergo, we see that you are absolutely wrong.

What evidence do you have showing that the horizon sits below eye level?

No, Tom.

Quote

You offer no evidence that the laser will ever point horizontally. You'll welcome to perform the experiment and get back to us. Of course, we'll have to insist that you provide unimpeachable documentation since you've lied about your other experiments.

Eye level is defined as horizontal, dumbshit.

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Chaptaign tells us:

First puzzle:

You have a photograph of a person in front of a sunset over the sea. Relative to the person in the picture, how tall is the photographer?

The answer:

Although it looks impossible at first, this problem does indeed have a solution. The important fact here is that the horizon is always at eye level. This is because we can

assume the earth is flat. If you look up, you see the sky. If you look down, you see the ground. Thus to see the point transition between earth and sky, the horizon, you must look exactly horizontally. Assuming that the photographer holds the camera at eye level to take a picture, the placement of the horizon in the picture is the height of the photographer's eyes. Thus if the horizon is above the eyes of the person in the picture, the photographer is taller, whereas if the horizon is below the eyes of the person in the picture, the photographer is shorter.
[/list]

Ergo, we see that you are absolutely wrong.

What evidence do you have showing that the horizon sits below eye level?

Nothing like assuming you're right to prove that you're right.
The RE Primer documents that you're wrong with the Mount Everest 360^o as one example. Of course, we've told you this before.

Nothing like assuming you're right to prove that you're right.

That's a quote directly from the University of Illinois. What evidence do you have showing the University incorrect?

The RE Primer documents that you're wrong with the Mount Everest 360^o as one example. Of course, we've told you this before.

The horizon of the Mount Everest panorama you presented was very obviously obscured by fog. The viewing distance in that scene was less than a few miles. Don't even try to present that trash here as evidence, you dumb sack of shit. Here's another Mt. Everest panorama, taken on a day without fog, showing that the horizon is clearly at eye level at that altitude:

http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen2/full22.html

Quote

Nothing like assuming you're right to prove that you're right.

That's a quote directly from the University of Illinois. What evidence do you have showing them incorrect?

Quote

The RE Primer documents that you're wrong with the Mount Everest 360^o as one example. Of course, we've told you this before.

The horizon of the Mount Everest panorama you presented was clearly obscured by fog. Don't even try to present that trash here as evidence, you dumb sack of shit. Here's another Mt. Everest panorama showing that the horizon is clearly at eye level at that altitude:

http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen2/full22.html

That's stunning!  TomB, I suggest you make a FE primer and include that 'experiment' in it!

Quote

Nothing like assuming you're right to prove that you're right.

That's a quote directly from the University of Illinois. What evidence do you have showing them incorrect?

Uhhh. Let's see. Oh yes! I remember now. It's right in the quote itself. Thanks goodness. I thought you had me there. Using a photography course to challenge physics, you were so close to make an argument. Whew!

Quote

The RE Primer documents that you're wrong with the Mount Everest 360^o as one example. Of course, we've told you this before.

The horizon of the Mount Everest panorama you presented was clearly obscured by fog. Don't even try to present that trash here as evidence, you dumb sack of shit. Here's another Mt. Everest panorama showing that the horizon is clearly at eye level at that altitude:

http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen2/full22.html

That's so silly. "Obscured by fog" is such a useless excuse. Gee, would you care to point out where the eye-level is obscured? Oh, can you provide any proof of the camera angle? You know that would be needed to make your point. Oh, and the experiment has other evidence besides the 360^o shot.

BTW, TomB, I appreciate the terms of endearments, but I'm just not interested. Thanks anyways.

Quote

So.. wait.. what exactly is between the observer and the big red square? You seem to have put it even HIGHER.. making it EASIER to see.

This perceptual tilt allows the waves and disturbances of the land or sea to breach the level of the eye where the angle of the land approaches the point of the horizon.

..I'm not even sure what that sentence even means. Are you sure you're not using a random text generator?
I'm also not sure how land appearing higher as it gets further (we're aware of this) somehow makes close up objects obscure larger, further away objects, with nothing in-between. This effect only seems to happen for things crossing the horizon.. you've shown ships completely above the waves, all the way up to the horizon yourself.. until they cross it. If small obstructions gradually obscure your object, it should gradually disapear.. not remain almost perfectly visible until it reaches the horizon.

Also, the experiment: I think you just effictively proved (sort of.. not a real experiment) that if you can point a laser pointer at something, you can see it. (maybe if you hold it next to your head)
The only way to break the laser pointer beam is if something gets in the way.
Nothing will get in the way if the Earth is flat (see your pic, or my pic.. imagine the beam is both the laser pointer and your line of sight.. if there's nothing to obstruct one, there's nothing to obstruct the other..)
I think you're missing the base concept of "if there is nothing between you and your viewing target, you can see it".

That's so silly. "Obscured by fog" is such a useless excuse.

Obscured by fog is exactly right. Your image portrayed a scene where visibility ranged less than a few miles. Go ahead and post the link here so we can laugh at you.

Oh, can you provide any proof of the camera angle?

Can you provide proof of the camera angle for your panorama? Nope.

Oh, and the experiment has other evidence besides the 360o shot.

Nope. Your argument went as follows: "The horizon descends as you ascend in altitude. See this foggy panorama for proof."

Quote

That's so silly. "Obscured by fog" is such a useless excuse.

Obscured by fog is exactly right. Your image portrayed a scene where visibility ranged less than a few miles. Go ahead and post the link here so we can laugh at you.

Quote

Oh, can you provide any proof of the camera angle?

Can you provide proof of the camera angle for your panorama? Nope.

Quote

Oh, and the experiment has other evidence besides the 360o shot.

Nope. Your argument went as follows: "The horizon descends as you ascend in altitude. See this foggy panorama for proof."

Let's review.
Is the 360^o photograph obscured by fog? No.
Can you point out where the eye-level is obscured by fog? No answer. Imagine that.
Do you provide documentation for the camera angle? No answer. Imagine that.
Do you understand that a 360^o photo documents its camera angle inherently? Clearly not. You know a physics course would do you wonders.
Does the RE Primer contain other proof for this experiment? Yep. You just chose to ignore it just like a dog who can only hear his master's whistle. You have no critical thinking skills.

Exactly. How about Taipei 101? If the assumption that the earth is flat was true(which it's not), I would be able to clearly see Taipei 101, because it is higher than ANY wave, or ANY building. Yet, I'm not able to. Which proves that since the world is round, we are not able to see Taipei at all, not even the Empire State Building, even though I am 20 min from Manhattan. This proves the post above and my point. This is when there is NO FOG Tom. This proves that the EARTH IS NOT FLAT!!!!

It looks like there are no responses to mypost. You avoid the facts, as usual. This is so like most of the FET believers.

Exactly. How about Taipei 101? If the assumption that the earth is flat was true(which it's not), I would be able to clearly see Taipei 101, because it is higher than ANY wave, or ANY building. Yet, I'm not able to. Which proves that since the world is round, we are not able to see Taipei at all, not even the Empire State Building, even though I am 20 min from Manhattan. This proves the post above and my point. This is when there is NO FOG Tom. This proves that the EARTH IS NOT FLAT!!!!

There are other things that can obscure objects in the distance - the atmosphere, rayleigh scattering, dust, smog, dirt, etc... all of which have been mentioned before. 

It looks like there are no responses to mypost. You avoid the facts, as usual. This is so like most of the FET believers.

Hey, I'm still waiting for a description of exactly what object goes between the observer and the target.

Remember that Tom is the only FEer who hangs around here really, and it's in doubt whether or not he even believes it, or is just trying to be a funny stereotype. It's basically a troll-war.

"The only conspiracy is these forums" ;p

Is the 360^o photograph obscured by fog? No.

Let's directly compare your hokey panorama to my panorama.

Is your panorama horizon obscured by fog? Yep.

Is your panorama presented in low quality? Yep.

Is your panorama affected by a fish eye lens? Yep.

Is your panorama angled upwards? Yep.

Do you understand that a 360^o photo documents its camera angle inherently? Clearly not. You know a physics course would do you wonders.

If that's how you feel then perhaps you should get on explaining the discrepancies between your panorama and mine. The panorama I've presented here has clear and outstanding differences contradicting yours.

Does the RE Primer contain other proof for this experiment? Yep. You just chose to ignore it just like a dog who can only hear his master's whistle. You have no critical thinking skills.

Lets see what other "proof" your piddly attempt at humor presents:

"RE predicts that the horizon will be below eye level. Ferruccio provided this computer simulation of the view of the Round Earth’s horizon at eye level from a height of 30,000 feet and a field of vision of 90^o. Notice that the sky (black) fills significantly more than the Earth (gray). "

Well you see Gulliver, that's not proof at all. In fact, my Everest panorama completely and directly contradicts Ferruccio's mathematical and geometric prediction; showing us that the earth's horizon does not descend with altitude and is not curved in the manner predicted. Hence, giving us additional evidence for a Flat Earth.