Discussion of Vanishing Points

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

Don't you know that you should be able to present contrary evidence? We're waiting...

Don't you know that you should be able to present contrary evidence? We're waiting...

Sooo... I need to go in Canada for that?
Let me think about that... who's paying the documentary trip? An what kind of contrary proof would be acceptable to you? A photo? Sure, let me fire up the CS3...

Quote from: Gulliver on September 08, 2007, 06:24:25 PM

Don't you know that you should be able to present contrary evidence? We're waiting...

Sooo... I need to go in Canada for that?
Let me think about that... who's paying the documentary trip? An what kind of contrary proof would be acceptable to you? A photo? Sure, let me fire up the CS3...

Did I say anything about going to Canada?

I was thinking that I need to go to that special place... actually, you're right, the pic is taken from the US shore.
Still, a photo can be a proof for you?

If what Tom says is true about the 1/4 and then the boat gets too far away to see...
GET AN F-ING TELESCOPE OR BINOCULARS!

If what Tom says is true about the 1/4 and then the boat gets too far away to see...
GET AN F-ING TELESCOPE OR BINOCULARS!

The boat disappears due to atmospheric haze. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. Ergo, a telescope will not restore the boat.

You also changed the argument from "it disappears 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.

Yep, that's what happens. Ask anyone who has seen the phenomenon personally. The ship does not sink all the way, but dips its hull 1/4th of the way into the sea and then fades out completely.

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.

Just as your perspective illustration shows, only a small part of the ship is obscured before it fades out due to atmospheric haze. This is why the ship sinks 1/4th of the way into the sea as it recedes, because the waves are intersecting with the line of sight.

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

The sun actually is affected by the atmospheric haze. Notice that the sun is much dimmer and hazier when it is near the horizon compared to when it is overhead at noonday. The sun is pretty bright and can shine through this atmospheric haze like a foglight through fog.

Sun sinking into the horizon:
The sun appears to sink into the line of the horizon because the vanishing point on a Flat Earth is a finite distance away.

It is often challenged that the vanishing point on a flat surface would be an infinite distance away, but if the vanishing point were an infinite distance away on this earth then a distant ship sitting on the top of the horizon line would also be an infinite distance away. It's not. The ship is relatively close when it is sitting on top of the horizon line, not tens of thousands of miles away.

Hence, we see that the vanishing point is really quite near to the observer. The receding sun appears to descend into the horizon due to basic perspective laws and then sinks into the horizon because the sun is intersecting with the vanishing point. Despite the sun not being visible, it's light is still apparent in the sky for a few hours after its setting until the sun recedes far enough that all rays of its light are obscured by the haze of the non-transparent atmosphere.

Size of the sun at sunset:
The sun does not shrink as it recedes due to the natural property of light shining on a non-transparent medium. See ENaG for examples.

And of course, Tom will only return to the thread if there's a post he can rebute and will completely ignore the ones he can't.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 07, 2007, 11:26:36 PM

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.

The ship isn't the vanishing point.  What crazy logic leads you to think that?  And it's not sitting on the horizon line, as the horizon line is at the end of the earth or where your vision ends.  But the vanishing point is infinite.  If the ship was sitting on the vanishing point, you wouldn't see it even with a perfectly clear atmosphere and everything.

I'm serious, what makes you think the ship is on the vanishing point.  What rules of perspective or even common sense lead you to believe this?

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

The zoomed in image you present shows waves colluding and combining past eye level to obscure 1/4th of the distant Toronto skyline.

As a rebuttal, lets check this image against other sea-level images of Toronto from across Lake Ontario taken on days with different weather and wave conditions:



This image was taken from http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html, where the photographer describes it as a "View of Toronto Skyline (53km across the lake) through Canon Rebel digital camera 28 to 400mm zoom."

You should note that Toronto is not broken by the horizon line. How does Round Earth Theory explain this?

This particular image is devastating to the globe theory, because at 30 miles across Lake Ontario the earth should drop nearly 600 feet (60 stories). Quite clearly, we can see objects at the bottom of the Toronto skyline that are not 600 feet in hight.

Here's the math:



Suppose that the earth is a sphere with a radius of 3,963 miles. If you are at a point P on the earth's surface and move tangent to the surface a distance of 1 mile then you can form a right angled triangle as in the diagram.

Looking over a distance of 1 mile, we can use the theorem of Pythagoras:

a² = 3,963² + 1² = 15,705,370

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.000126 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.000126 - 3,963 = 0.000126 miles above the surface of the earth.

0.000126 miles = 12 in * 5,280 ft * 0.000126 mi = 7.98 inches

Hence after one mile the earth drops approximately 8 inches.


Ergo, looking across 30 miles the Pythagorean theorem becomes:

a² = 3963² +30² = 15,706,269

and when we square root that figure we get a = 3,963.113549 miles

Thus your position is 3,963.113549 - 3,963 = 0.113549 miles above the surface of the earth

0.113549 miles = 5,280 ft * 0.113549 mi = 599.53872 feet

Hence after 30 miles the earth drops approximately 600 feet.


See Chapter 2 of Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Robowtham for a handy chart.

As a rebuttal, lets check this image against other sea-level images of Toronto from across Lake Ontario taken on days with different weather and wave conditions

Misleading people again, eh Tom?
The photo you posted has not been taken at sea leve.
Threfore your rebuttal loses.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 08, 2007, 09:40:47 PM

As a rebuttal, lets check this image against other sea-level images of Toronto from across Lake Ontario taken on days with different weather and wave conditions

Misleading people again, eh Tom?
The photo you posted has not been taken at sea leve.
Threfore your rebuttal loses.

Proof? Each of the photographer's other images on that website were taken at ground level. Why not this one?

Was the photographer in an airplane? Was the photographer in a hot air balloon for this shot?

Nah, you're just in denial.

See ENaG and the other Flat Earth Literature for previous experimental and observational evidence showing distant objects appearing when they should not.

If the vanishing point was the boat, then that would mean the vanishing point was a fixed point.  Can you walk to the vanishing point or with binoculars in a clear environment see beyond the vanishing point?  No!  The vanishing point is not a finite distance away.  Imagine yourself on a flat plane looking at a point a finite distance away.  Is this the vanishing point?  Take out binoculars and see beyond the point, keeping in mind that this is a clear environment.  Will you be able to see beyond the vanishing point?

...Yes, I see the points at which the railroad ties meet the tracks. Yes, I can follow them up
toward the vanishing point. But how many points must I traverse? Geometrically, the vanishing
point is at an infinite distance from me. I only see finitely many points at which the ties join the
rail.

Quote from: nicolin on September 08, 2007, 09:49:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 08, 2007, 09:40:47 PM

As a rebuttal, lets check this image against other sea-level images of Toronto from across Lake Ontario taken on days with different weather and wave conditions

Misleading people again, eh Tom?
The photo you posted has not been taken at sea leve.
Threfore your rebuttal loses.

Proof? Each of the photographer's other images on that website were taken at ground level. Why not this one?

Was the photographer in an airplane? Wat the photographer in a hot air balloon for this shot?

Nah, you're just in denial.

See ENaG and the other Flat Earth Literature for previous experimental and observational evidence showing distant objects appearing when they should not.

If a boat 1/4 the height of the CN tower it would have been completely gone a long time ago.. according to you, obscured by fog. But the top half of the CN tower is perfectly clear. You can't ignore that photo by posting a different one from a different angle. The first photos still exists. you can clearly see that the waves which pose the slightest threat to covering up the CN tower are so small you can hardly see them.. NOT half the height of the CN tower. Not even visible.

How can waves which are so small so as to not even be visible cover up HALF of the CN tower.. or even a tiny portion of it, for that matter?

How could the LARGE WAVES which are clearly far BELOW the CN tower due to perspective cover it up?

What exactly is covering it up? Because it's clearly not the waves.. or atmosphere.. and there's nothing else there.

Well, it wasn't taken at sea level because lake ontario isn't sea level... you confuse ground and sea level Tom, as you use both interchangably

Quote from: nicolin on September 08, 2007, 09:49:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 08, 2007, 09:40:47 PM

As a rebuttal, lets check this image against other sea-level images of Toronto from across Lake Ontario taken on days with different weather and wave conditions

Misleading people again, eh Tom?
The photo you posted has not been taken at sea leve.
Threfore your rebuttal loses.

Proof? Each of the photographer's other images on that website were taken at ground level. Why not this one?

Was the photographer in an airplane? Was the photographer in a hot air balloon for this shot?

Nah, you're just in denial.

See ENaG and the other Flat Earth Literature for previous experimental and observational evidence showing distant objects appearing when they should not.

You left out on a hill and in a tall building. You fail to demonstrate your "1/4" of the boat claim. Clearly 1/4 of the CN Tower is not obscured in your photo.

See The RE Primer and other current scientific research for recent and well-documented evidence showing distant objects appearing when they should.