explain to me

Tom Bishop, you have no right to post anything citing perspective if you unwilling to debate perspective itself.

I've demonstrated through thought experiment how the angle of light rays of an overhead receding body must become shallower as it recedes. Therefore I've established that as the sun recedes from an observer the angle of its light upon the observer's retina must gradually become horizontal.

Next I've explained how the sun's horizontal light is much more scattered than the sun's vertical light, having to travel a much longer horizontal distance through the atmosphere to reach the observer. Since all wavelengths have been filtered out except the longest ones, a reddish hue appears upon the sky and clouds.

Who has created this thought experiment?

Quote from: Gabe on December 13, 2007, 01:58:15 PM

Tom Bishop, you have no right to post anything citing perspective if you unwilling to debate perspective itself.

I've demonstrated through thought experiment how the angle of light rays of an overhead receding body must become shallower as it recedes. Therefore I've established that as the sun recedes from an observer the angle of its light upon the observer's retina must gradually become horizontal.

You didn't say how it works though, unless i missed it somewher. could it not just be what I said in response?

[/quote]

Next I've explained how the sun's horizontal light is much more scattered than the sun's vertical light, having to travel a much longer horizontal distance through the atmosphere to reach the observer. Since all wavelengths have been filtered out except the longest ones, a reddish hue appears upon the sky and clouds.


[/quote]

yeah, that's the same in round earth aswell

Going along the lines of Gaz... your ideas on why the sunset has different colours is fine. As stated, that's just a fundamental truth that works in both models.

However, even with your thought experiment included - that doesn't explain the sun's rays lighting up the bottom of clouds. Especially if you have a dense cloud mass that has the sky pretty well covered that gets lit up only after the sun begins to set below that level.

Short version: An object moving away to infinity along the Horizon, never actually drops *below* the horizon yes? No matter how you try to interpret the laws of perspective, that's just the way things are observed.

In reference to your hypothetical thought experiment - an example would be to put a cloud layer at the horizon. Would you ever see the plane drop below it? No.

Short version: An object moving away to infinity along the Horizon, never actually drops *below* the horizon yes? No matter how you try to interpret the laws of perspective, that's just the way things are observed.

Where do we observe an infinite plane where bodies perpetually approach, but never touch, the horizon line?

If you've never seen an infinite plane, how can you know what would happen on one?

The only infinite plane I know of is the earth. So therefore there is a pretense for bodies intersecting with the vanishing point after a finite distance.

Quote

Short version: An object moving away to infinity along the Horizon, never actually drops *below* the horizon yes? No matter how you try to interpret the laws of perspective, that's just the way things are observed.

Where do we observe an infinite plane where bodies perpetually approach, but never touch, the horizon line?

If you've never seen an infinite plane, how can you know what would happen on one?

.The only infinite plane I know of is the earth So therefore there is a pretense for bodies intersecting with the vanishing point after a finite distance.

Yet we are on a round earth

Quote from: TheEngineer on December 13, 2007, 01:37:21 PM

Quote from: Forum Rules

* Excessive flaming.
 heated discussion can be cool, personal attacks are not.
Please do not degrade or discourage others, by posting things such as "You are an 'idiot' or 'moron'", etc.

Wow that's like half the members.

It only applies to new people and jerks. Once you are a real member as long as you don't make the mods hate you, only porn will get you banned.

how can you know what would happen on one?

Common sense.

Brilliant Tom. Your argument for a flat earth requires altering the laws of perspective in a way different from all evidence and logic and you try to support it as a law of perspective with the flat the the Earth is an infinite flat plane. You do know circular logic is a fallacy right?

Common sense.

Common sense allows us to know what would happen on an environment man has never seen or experienced?

How can you prove or demonstrate that a receding body would never appear to dip below the horizon line on an infinite plane?

Common sense.

LOL. There's your problem.

Quote from: Gabe on December 13, 2007, 05:54:49 PM

Common sense.

LOL. There's your problem.

That's Tom's problem

You sound rather condescending for someone who admitted there was no answer to the FE dilemma.

What does that have to do with common sense being your problem?

Quote

Short version: An object moving away to infinity along the Horizon, never actually drops *below* the horizon yes? No matter how you try to interpret the laws of perspective, that's just the way things are observed.

Where do we observe an infinite plane where bodies perpetually approach, but never touch, the horizon line?

If you've never seen an infinite plane, how can you know what would happen on one?

The only infinite plane I know of is the earth. So therefore there is a pretense for bodies intersecting with the vanishing point after a finite distance.

man that made no sense whatsoever.  that has got to be the single most contorted piece of "logic" i've ever read.  i'm not even sure if you are arguing for or against perspective.

it would seem (though hard to tell) you are contradicting yourself, with earlier arguments about atmospheric haze limiting visibility distance.  now it seems you are saying the sun touches the horizon due to vast distances (infinity?) and perspective.

none of which accounts for the observation that the sun stays the same size throughout it's arc across the sky, rather than shrinking in size as it recedes in the distance.

you have already established that you don't understand a thing about perspective, so any argument where you say the word "perspective" is already moot.

I've demonstrated through thought experiment how the angle of light rays of an overhead receding body must become shallower as it recedes. Therefore I've established that as the sun recedes from an observer the angle of its light upon the observer's retina must gradually become horizontal.

and that explains...what?  your "thought experiment" is worth about as much as your credibility.  sun still not below clouds.  end of story.

Next I've explained how the sun's horizontal light is much more scattered than the sun's vertical light, having to travel a much longer horizontal distance through the atmosphere to reach the observer. Since all wavelengths have been filtered out except the longest ones, a reddish hue appears upon the sky and clouds.

there's the magic explanation i was waiting for.  i thought the ones i offered you were better (refraction or reflection), but of course you couldn't just say "yeah that one you just said".  it's amazing how the scattering of light that magically lights the clouds only works in the few brief moments just before and after the sun sets.  and what explanation do you have for the obvious highly directional nature of said cloud-bottom lighting?  kind of violates the basic principle of lighting from diffuse scattered light, huh?

finally, how do you explain how the area of (highly directional) bottom lighting gradually moves across the bottom of the clouds from farthest from east to west as the sun sets?

Quote

Short version: An object moving away to infinity along the Horizon, never actually drops *below* the horizon yes? No matter how you try to interpret the laws of perspective, that's just the way things are observed.

Where do we observe an infinite plane where bodies perpetually approach, but never touch, the horizon line?

If you've never seen an infinite plane, how can you know what would happen on one?

The only infinite plane I know of is the earth. So therefore there is a pretense for bodies intersecting with the vanishing point after a finite distance.

Ok, is it just me... or did you completely contradict yourself. According to you, we all see an infinite plane each and every day on the good Flat Earth. Therefore that point is moot.

As far as physical bodies intersecting after a finite distance - are you saying the sun actually 'does' drop down and somehow 'collide' with the planet? No matter how you slice it, two objects that are travelling in true parallel will never touch right? Therefore, no matter what kind of refraction you come up with, the suns light is not going to get 'below' the clouds during a sunset if it is hundreds of miles above them.

Even if you try to say it's somehow bouncing up off of the infinite plane of ice, the concentrated area of sunlight from the sun itself as it sets is just basic observational "duh". Also, no amount of refraction is going to keep the Sun from getting smaller, and smaller, and smaller - if you are to use your intersecting vanishing point theory. If it has to get so far away to do this strange feat, then you've lost perspective, as it would also for some strange reason seem to be moving north by then as it continued on it's orbit around the Earth.

Edit: Sorry cpt. I got to writing my own post and didn't see you already pointed out the light concentration and posed the east-west / north-south path issue already.

Edit: Sorry cpt. I got to writing my own post and didn't see you already pointed out the light concentration and posed the east-west / north-south path issue already.

no problem.  few things in life are as fun as a good dog-pile.  even more so when they deserve it.  i didn't pose the north/south problem though.  that is a good point.

Quote from: Gabe on December 13, 2007, 01:50:05 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on December 13, 2007, 01:37:21 PM

Quote from: Forum Rules

* Excessive flaming.
 heated discussion can be cool, personal attacks are not.
Please do not degrade or discourage others, by posting things such as "You are an 'idiot' or 'moron'", etc.

Wow that's like half the members.

It only applies to new people and jerks. Once you are a real member as long as you don't make the mods hate you, only porn will get you banned.

I had such a strong urge to post porn here. But instead, click here

I had such a strong urge to post porn here. But instead, click here

Screw you! I actually clicked that.

Quote from: Forum Rules

* Excessive flaming.
 heated discussion can be cool, personal attacks are not.
Please do not degrade or discourage others, by posting things such as "You are an 'idiot' or 'moron'", etc.

10-4.  i actually did poke around for forum rules but didn't find any immediate obvious links.  granted, i didn't try incredibly hard.  plus, most forum rules are pretty much common sense.  i admit to having some anger/aggression issues.  i'm glad you're watching.  provides a reason to practice self-control.

so: hugs, theengineer!  have you considered a career in psychiatry?

have you considered a career in psychiatry?

No.  I don't like people.