Discussion of Vanishing Points

Vanishing Point: (n) in scientific perspective, the place where all the converging orthogonals meet (the vanishing point is usually on the horizon line).

TOM BISHOP VANISHING POINT MODEL:


This is wrong.  The Vanishing Point is an infinite distance away, even though the point where our sight ends is finite.  And even then, it can be extended with the use of telescopes.  A correct diagram would be this:


and a perspective drawing:


The wave theory is wrong.

careful, they'll say the waves are in on the conspiracy too.

I think the correct drawing should include atmosphere, dust and/or water wapors. In this case, you will loose sight of ship easily (as is happening in reality).

I think the correct drawing should include atmosphere, dust and/or water wapors. In this case, you will loose sight of ship easily (as is happening in reality).

The only thing in the way in your image is the water particles, not the waves at all, and we already knew that objects would eventually fade away behind the atmosphere and water vapor.. not solidly from the bottom up.

Correct.  Ships wouldn't sink, they'd fade.

Also, I've shown how Toms model works, IE:


And no one ever said what object would be between the observer and the target.

If the guy in the picture is a borg, and that's a laser beam pointing at whatever he's looking at, then if the laser hits it, he can see it. (same with your picture) If there's nothing blocking the laser, there's nothing blocking his sight.

So.. yeah.. go RE.

Guess it's time to shutdown the website, huh.

You have ignored the perspective in your drawings. The closer waves should apear BIGGER to the observer than the far away ones, not the same. The ship will apear smaller and smaller till eventually will become smaller than the waves close to the observer.
Nice drawing skills thou

You have ignored the perspective in your drawings. The closer waves should apear BIGGER to the observer than the far away ones, not the same. The ship will apear smaller and smaller till eventually will become smaller than the waves close to the observer.
Nice drawing skills thou

1) The ship and the waves shrink, therefore the ship will not be obscured by shorter waves near the ship.

2) My perspective drawing:


The lines appear to be converging to me.

3) Since the boat will probably be bigger than the waves, the waves must have a minimum height of your eye level.

4) The horizon looks pretty flat, so at least one patch of water must be as high as your eye level in all directions along the ocean in order to make the horizon appear flat.

Horizont seems to be at eye level because our brain tells us that. It might not be acurate .
I didn't say it will be obscured by shorter waves near the boat, but by the NORMAL waves close to you - their angular size can be bigger than the one of the boat at that distance.

Forget the horizon.  The point is that since the boat is taller than said waves, the waves must be at least your height in order to block said boat.

Here are some charts showing the necessary height of an object between the viewer and the object being viewed:

Line of sight and object are the same height.


Line of sight is shorter than object.


Line of sight is taller than object.

Elemental perspective errors... You don't understand that an object 1 mile away will look smaller than one a foot away. In your drawings the objects 1 mile away are the same height as the one 1 foot away.
A 10 yard boat will look evetually as a 1 inch wave if is far enough. And if it goes farther, it will be smaller than the resolving pover of your eye or other optical instrument so it will disapear.
The mast will disapear last because the boat body will be first to be obstructed by waves beeing closer to the water.

Elemental perspective errors... You don't understand that an object 1 mile away will look smaller than one a foot away. In your drawings the objects 1 mile away are the same height as the one 1 foot away.
A 10 yard boat will look evetually as a 1 inch wave if is far enough. And if it goes farther, it will be smaller than the resolving pover of your eye or other optical instrument so it will disapear.
The mast will disapear last because the boat body will be first to be obstructed by waves beeing closer to the water.

That's laughable. Do draw us a picture of your silliness. Oh and check out Trekky's contribution to the RE Primer in Experiment #0013 and then explain that.

Objects get smaller as they increase in distance.

You have ignored the perspective in your drawings. The closer waves should apear BIGGER to the observer than the far away ones, not the same. The ship will apear smaller and smaller till eventually will become smaller than the waves close to the observer.
Nice drawing skills thou

Haha what the hell. I can't tell if you're joking. That looks like.. my image.. at least the rediculousness of it.

So if I'm standing up at a beach, with waves no higher than my feet, and theres a cyborg laser shooting out of my eye across the water towards a distant boat.. the FIRST WAVE AT MY FEET will get in the way of the laser at my EYE LEVEL?

Closer things do appear bigger.. and lower, out of your way. But that's not even important.. you're trying to use photography class to disprove phyics class. Yes, things appear bigger.. so what? This optical effect has no effect on the number of things between my eye-laser and my target (which is 0).

*Also they get lower at the same rate they get bigger, so even if you COULD destroy phyics with photography.. it still wouldn't work. Try lying on a flat floor and obscuring a distant object from the bottom up with a small object. Doesn't work. The close objects move way down and out of your line of sight.

------- BONUS ROUND -------

Oh, I found the problem. There's a tidal wave about to kill the observer. The tidal wave is also obscuring the target.

Wait.. things get bigger, starting at the horizon, instead of getting smaller, starting at the observer. Also, the observer doesn't get bigger. Does this mean that an ant behind me is bigger than me until I turn around and look?  It's like Schroedinger's Cat I say!

------- BONUS #2 -------

How do you only have 30 posts but you're spouting the same gibberish as your average FE trolls?

...Tom?

What happened to Tom anyways. I caught him saying something smart... TWICE.
He must have exploded.

...Tom?

If you've ever actually observed the effect for yourself you'd know that as a distant ship recedes it sinks about 1/4th of the way into the sea and then fades out completely. The ship does not sink all the way into the sea. The ship sinks just a little and then completely disappears due to the atmosphere. I encourage you to observe the effect personally.

The reason the ship sinks 1/4th of the way into the sea is due to a cumulation of waves along the surface of the sea and a higher chance of large waves between observer and ship due to the distances involved.

If it was down to atmospheric effects then the horizon would be a hazy blur, much the same as fog. Is it? No. The horizon is a clear and definite line

A definite line

How do you only have 30 posts but you're spouting the same gibberish as your average FE trolls?

What? I cannot spout gibberish from the start? I must wait 1000 posts?
Damn, what kind of crazy forum is this?
BTW... I want a laser eye like yours to test the RE theory.

Avec la fog the crisp line at the edge vanishes

As I said before, a ship can be obscured by a one inch or shorter wave, but only if YOU are shorter than the wave!

Yes, PART of the ship can be obscured by smaller waves, as these two red lines show, but to obscure the WHOLE ship, the waves must be as tall as you at least.

Oh, and talking about perspective, if these ships are farther than the waves obscuring them, then when you move to the LEFT or RIGHT, the wave will move a seemingly farther distance then the boat, therefore making the ship visible again.

The horizon would look bumpy, not a straight line.  I mean really bumpy as in sometime there are 6-30 foot waves and sometimes there aren't, with a huge bump right in front of the ship.

And by the way, how do we know a ship ALWAYS comes in front of the boat?  ALWAYS centered so that the wave captures the view of the entire length of the ship.

AND WE HAVE'NT even talked about that!  The waves would have to be as long across as the boat, therefore probably not obscuring the whole thing.

There are SO MANY holes in this theory.  You guys need a better one.

DIAGRAM:


PERSPECTIVE:

Quote

...Tom?

If you've ever actually observed the effect for yourself you'd know that as a distant ship recedes it sinks about 1/4th of the way into the sea and then fades out completely.

Funny, that never happens with the sun or moon, which are much much much further away.

You also changed the argument from "it disapears from the bottom up due to waves" to "it DOESN'T disapear from the bottom up.. it starts too, and then fades away". Dun dun dun. Since I've never seen this, and you just changed your entire argument, I'm going to assume that that doesn't actually happen with ships.. since it doesn't with anything else.

You forget that as the boat gets further away, the waves which could block it get smaller TOO. Can the waves at my feet block the boat? No, they're directly below me. What about the waves halfway between me and the boat? No, due to your own crazy perspective rules, they appear far BELOW the boat.. not as far below as the ones at my FEET, but far below none the the less.  By the time a wave actually gets visually "high" enough to block the boat, it's now 1/100th of a centimetre high, while the boat is hundreds of times larger.

Quote from: KingBunny on September 07, 2007, 10:24:05 PM

How do you only have 30 posts but you're spouting the same gibberish as your average FE trolls?

What? I cannot spout gibberish from the start? I must wait 1000 posts?
Damn, what kind of crazy forum is this?

Well since most FE believers on this site are just trolls due to there only being.. like.. 10 FE believers in the world.. it's odd that someone would come along and start spouting the "standard doctrine". Maybe you're just FE believer #11.
(also, because you said "elemental perspective errors" which totally sounded like Tom)

BTW... I want a laser eye like yours to test the RE theory.

One can be yours, for the low low price of $9.95!
Get a laser pointer and hold it next to your head.

Anything the laser beam hits, you can see.
Anything you can see, the laser beam can hit.

I specifically mentioned a laser beam to make it clear that rules-of-photography do not cancel out rules-of-physics..

I love this picture:  The wave height would have to increase so dramatically.



Scale Model.  The numbers show how tall a wave must be to obscure the tower.

I love this picture:  The wave height would have to increase so dramatically.

(img)

Scale Model.  The numbers show how tall a wave must be to obscure the tower.

(img)

That is an AWESOME picture. (the first one... 2nd didn't load)

If you look just one MILIMETER below the horizon, you can see that the waves are too small to even see.. so by logic, the one's AT the horizon are even SMALLER.. unless of course it's the big waves even LOWER down obscuring the tower.. which we can clearly see are wayyyy below the tower because of how perspective works.

I find it funny that this was the first reason people realized the Earth was round, and now it's just "thrown on" as random proof.. and that the idea that this is wrong is behind aprox. 1 billion insanely complicated theories to make up for it.

Quote

...Tom?

If you've ever actually observed the effect for yourself you'd know that as a distant ship recedes it sinks about 1/4th of the way into the sea and then fades out completely. The ship does not sink all the way into the sea. The ship sinks just a little and then completely disappears due to the atmosphere. I encourage you to observe the effect personally.

The reason the ship sinks 1/4th of the way into the sea is due to a cumulation of waves along the surface of the sea and a higher chance of large waves between observer and ship due to the distances involved.

False. TomB lies again. There's no magic 1/4 business going on. Look at Experiment #0013 in the RE Primer for proof otherwise.

And once again, Gulliver shuts down the thread by pointing to The Primer in which Tom Bishop will have no rebuttal. Deja Vu.

I love the primer.

And once again, Gulliver shuts down the thread by pointing to The Primer in which Tom Bishop will have no rebuttal. Deja Vu.

I thought that the photo already shut down the thread. Proof = no more FE'ers.

Victory dance, anyone?

What the hell.. I subconciously thought that that was the Statue of Liberty outside of New York for some reason until just now.. wow.. The CN tower looks nothing like the Statue of Liberty.

As I said, nice Photoshop skills 
Don't you know that all pictures can be edited?