Sinking Ship Effect

Simple idea I thought of awhile back:

Atmospheric density is that of a gradient. Things disappearing from bottom to top is simply a result of the aspects of that gradient. That is, the lowest points offer the greatest density, and compound depending on your line of sight.

Of course, the variance in density for objects such as ships won't be as drastic given their limited size, but I don't have math to prove or disprove my idea. If anyone can bring up some math to prove or disprove, that'd be nice.

Interesting conjecture, but to my understanding the density of the atmosphere only changes a minute amount. Air is considered, for all practical purposes, uniform on the surface. Wind causes greater changes in air pressure than 'gravity' in the difference in height from eye level to ground.

Pretty much spot-on, Divito. The atmolayer gradient alone doesn't fully account for the sink, but compounded by the effects of natural perspective it creates the illusion.

Pretty much spot-on, Divito. The atmolayer gradient alone doesn't fully account for the sink, but compounded by the effects of natural perspective it creates the illusion.

I believe this thread's aim was to alleviate the pressure off of the "natural perspective" FE defines.

nice try, but atmospheric effects simply can't be that different only 100 feet apart: you are assuming the air 100 feet above sea level is thinner than the air at the top of mount everest! that would imply total vacum at 300 feet above sea level!

I believe this thread's aim was to alleviate the pressure off of the "natural perspective" FE defines.

Kind of. Awhile back I was just generally thinking of the atmosphere in general and thought of the gradient and how that would affect things. After I initially thought of it, I realized it could somewhat be a better idea for the sinking ship effect.

I believe this thread's aim was to alleviate the pressure off of the "natural perspective" FE defines.

Come off it - it's not like FET just made up the laws of perspective, OBSERVE ANY OBJECT IN PHYSICAL SPACE and have them empirically proven to you.

Come off it - it's not like FET just made up the laws of perspective, OBSERVE ANY OBJECT IN PHYSICAL SPACE and have them empirically proven to you.

Observing a celestial object disappear behind or 'under' the horizon is hardly "proof" of FE laws of perspective.

I think you should also know that I would like to believe in FE and am supportive of alternate theories. I only support RE because I see more evidence in favor of RE.

Simple idea I thought of awhile back:

Atmospheric density is that of a gradient. Things disappearing from bottom to top is simply a result of the aspects of that gradient. That is, the lowest points offer the greatest density, and compound depending on your line of sight.

Of course, the variance in density for objects such as ships won't be as drastic given their limited size, but I don't have math to prove or disprove my idea. If anyone can bring up some math to prove or disprove, that'd be nice.

you didn't specify a proposed mechanism of action for things disappearing.  is it due to the well-understood principles of refraction as it behaves in the earth's atmosphere?  or possibly an increasingly greater ability for aerosol suspension and thus visibility-blocking haze?  (which i would buy.)

but not suggesting a mechanism is not necessarily a flaw with the idea so far.

here is a potential problem though: why is the horizon increasingly closer and more sharp, the lower in elevation you view the world from?  when viewing from near water-level (e.g. from a boat or beach), the horizon is closer and relatively more defined and crisp than fairly well "sunken" objects behind it, which are necessarily significantly farther from the horizon (or else they wouldn't appear very sunken).  obviously this argument is from a re viewpoint.  but since you are arguing for the plausibility of an fe viewpoint (i think), that should be expected.

example (from this post): in this shot from approx 25 ft. above water level, the horizon is nearby and razor-sharp, while the more distant sunken object is suffering from atmospheric visibility problems:



in contrast, in this shot from approx 150 ft. elevation, the horizon is behind the (no longer "sunken") object, and the horizon is even more hazy.

you didn't specify a proposed mechanism of action for things disappearing.  is it due to the well-understood principles of refraction as it behaves in the earth's atmosphere?  or possibly an increasingly greater ability for aerosol suspension and thus visibility-blocking haze?  (which i would buy.)

The mechanism for why the gradient makes objects become increasingly less visible?

Elevation (obviously not with water), atmospheric density, refraction and other effects, pollution, etc...

here is a potential problem though: why is the horizon increasingly closer and more sharp, the lower in elevation you view the world from?  when viewing from near water-level (e.g. from a boat or beach), the horizon is closer and relatively more defined and crisp than fairly well "sunken" objects behind it, which are necessarily significantly farther from the horizon (or else they wouldn't appear very sunken).  obviously this argument is from a re viewpoint.  but since you are arguing for the plausibility of an fe viewpoint (i think), that should be expected.

The horizon being "sharp" is simply the aspect of perspective. I take it you've seen the photo of train tracks converging in the distance with things beyond it or even experienced that first hand. The same aspect applies to the horizon. The vanishing point and subsequent convergence exists at that point and line. The boat or whatever you happen to be viewing starts out below that line (horizon), and eventually overcomes that point, and eventually converges. It's not much more special than that.

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on December 20, 2007, 10:39:00 PM

you didn't specify a proposed mechanism of action for things disappearing.  is it due to the well-understood principles of refraction as it behaves in the earth's atmosphere?  or possibly an increasingly greater ability for aerosol suspension and thus visibility-blocking haze?  (which i would buy.)

The mechanism for why the gradient makes objects become increasingly less visible?

The mechanism for why objects would seem to disappear from the bottom up.

Quote from: cpt_bthimes on December 20, 2007, 10:39:00 PM

you didn't specify a proposed mechanism of action for things disappearing.  is it due to the well-understood principles of refraction as it behaves in the earth's atmosphere?  or possibly an increasingly greater ability for aerosol suspension and thus visibility-blocking haze?  (which i would buy.)

The mechanism for why the gradient makes objects become increasingly less visible?

Elevation (obviously not with water), atmospheric density, refraction and other effects, pollution, etc...

ok, i'm with you.  a little vague (and still doesn't explain how those effects combine to produce the effect), but we can go with it.  for starters, there doesn't seem, to me at least, any gross contradictions with observation.  although the effect works on much larger scales of altitude than i think you might be implying.

The horizon being "sharp" is simply the aspect of perspective. I take it you've seen the photo of train tracks converging in the distance with things beyond it or even experienced that first hand. The same aspect applies to the horizon. The vanishing point and subsequent convergence exists at that point and line. The boat or whatever you happen to be viewing starts out below that line (horizon), and eventually overcomes that point, and eventually converges. It's not much more special than that.

i know you know that doesn't make a lick of sense.  and i know you know that bishop's laws of perspective are so utterly preposterous that they literally defy debate, nor are they consistent, nor are they even the accurate representation of rowbotham's drug-induced fantasy universe.  but where do you start?  it's a system built upon logical fallacy after fallacy, faulty reasoning, incorrect understanding of perspective, and really fucking bad assumptions.  it is pointless to dissect it.  the task would be like disassembling "the lord of the rings" and all it's magic.  you know that.  i know that. 

yes, i could spend 8 or 16 hours painstakingly disassembling it point by laboriously labored [redundant] magical point.  if you want to call me on that (i would if roles reversed), then touche, point won in advance.  but man - i seriously have better things to do with my time.  so does singularity.  and so do you in all probability. 

fortunately, we don't need to dissect it.  just showing how it does not explain repeated observation after observation is sufficient to falsify it.  fe says: "these observation do not support fe laws of perspective.  therefore, the observations are incorrect/fake/conspiracy or not what it blatantly and repeatedly seems to be.  or your telescope isn't magical enough.  etc."  rather than saying simply, "huh, let's get back to you on that."

The mechanism for why objects would seem to disappear from the bottom up.

They don't; convergence.

i know you know that doesn't make a lick of sense.  and i know you know that bishop's laws of perspective are so utterly preposterous that they literally defy debate, nor are they consistent, nor are they even the accurate representation of rowbotham's drug-induced fantasy universe.  but where do you start?  it's a system built upon logical fallacy after fallacy, faulty reasoning, incorrect understanding of perspective, and really fucking bad assumptions.  it is pointless to dissect it.  the task would be like disassembling "the lord of the rings" and all it's magic.  you know that.  i know that. 

yes, i could spend 8 or 16 hours painstakingly disassembling it point by laboriously labored [redundant] magical point.  if you want to call me on that (i would if roles reversed), then touche, point won in advance.  but man - i seriously have better things to do with my time.  so does singularity.  and so do you in all probability. 

fortunately, we don't need to dissect it.  just showing how it does not explain repeated observation after observation is sufficient to falsify it.  fe says: "these observation do not support fe laws of perspective.  therefore, the observations are incorrect/fake/conspiracy or not what it blatantly and repeatedly seems to be.  or your telescope isn't magical enough.  etc."  rather than saying simply, "huh, let's get back to you on that."

Well as I've said before, I just usually ignore Tom and his ideas. That includes his ideas about perspective. I'm dealing with the very real and apparent perspective that is apparent to the everyday person. I will try to clarify my original expanded post to help make it easier to understand.

Going back to the train track example, find that picture or just imagine what you've seen yourself. You have your parallel lines (tracks) eventually converging, a "horizon" line, and finally the sky and other associated surroundings converging from the top and sides, all into the vanishing point.

Now, imagine a train on those tracks. Given your actual position, and for the purpose of my idea, you're in such a position that the train is below the horizon line on the tracks. If it starts to move, it will eventually (depending ultimately on your POV) rise above that horizon line before it eventually converges with the rest of the picture you're viewing and moves beyond the vanishing point.

Adding in the aspects of the compounding nature of the gradient and other airborne effects at lowest level (in which they're at their highest), it will appear that the bottom vanishes first.

To explain magnification and the subsequent observations, the compounding effects of aerial issues, perspective, and the vanishing point still exist; they just end up being farther than that of the human eye.

i think i understand your argument.

first, to address a minor - and i think incorrect - point, which even if wrong doesn't necessarily affect the legitimacy of your argument:

Now, imagine a train on those tracks. Given your actual position, and for the purpose of my idea, you're in such a position that the train is below the horizon line on the tracks. If it starts to move, it will eventually (depending ultimately on your POV) rise above that horizon line before it eventually converges with the rest of the picture you're viewing and moves beyond the vanishing point.

in this scenario, as i've understood your description, the train wouldn't rise above the horizon line, ever - as long as it is below the horizon line at any time during your viewing it from a fixed perspective.

and like i said, i think i understand the main thrust of your argument now, that was helpful clarification.  i'll quickly summarize what i think you said, you can tell me if i got it wrong: we see the vanishing point literally higher in the sky, than we do any part of the train (as long as we can see the train).  the closer the train is to us, the better we will be able to see it because the reflected light has less atmo to travel through before reaching us.  however, the vanishing point is also visible, because it is effectively "higher" relative to our elevated viewing position, and thus is less affected by the atmospheric gradient you have proposed.  the reflected light has less scattering density or whatever to deal with.  the net result of this is that, somewhere in between us and the vanishing point, is (for two competing reasons) the most opaque.  closer [lower] is clearer, and higher is clearer.  it is in this middle area, that things can disappear.

am i understanding?  if so, i would say the photos i showed above disproves it, because we can clearly see the horizon, and we can clearly see that it is not the vanishing point.  unless you want to argue that it's not the horizon, it's nothing more than a common surge of water between us and the ship.  (so common that it's in every shot.)

but the fact that we can see a ship beyond the horizon, demonstrates 1) the "laws" of perspective are great help in art, and are an obvious phenomenon, but some of it is irrelevant to reality.  [e.g. why are there never any fe discussions about two-point perspective?]

for example, there is no "vanishing point" in reality.  thing just appear smaller, eventually to the point where the angular resolution of our eyes fail to detect them.  but don't suddenly disappear like a singularity.  [i don't think that is what you are arguing.]  if a pea disappears thanks to perspective, replace it with an elephant.  or a pryamid.  or a planet.  or a galaxy.  etc.  secondly, even on a flat earth, the gradeschool concepts of perspective lines and vanishing points are of limited usefulness, because there are hills, mountains, huge convex and concave areas, etc., getting in the way of the vanishing point at the end of a perfectly flat plane of perspective lines mapped to the earth.  similarly, on a re, a hill of ocean gets in the way.  if you imagine yourself standing on a plane, then the earth falls away in every direction and you have no plane, no perspective lines, and no vanishing point as they relate to the earth.  or if instead, you pick a distant object and make that an integral part of your viewing plane, then a hill of water or/or land will be between you, with a fake horizon.  just like the pictures above.

i've said this before, but i'll say it again: Robotham says, late in his book, that he once watched a ship go over the horizon, then looked through a telescope and was able to see it again. BUT, he completely fails to mention whether the telescope was at the same height, or several hundred feet higher than his original position!
that is a very important distinction, which he completely ignored!

cpt_bthimes produced several pictures showing the same distant object from different heights, demonstrating the substantial difference this makes!

i've said this before, but i'll say it again: Robotham says, late in his book, that he once watched a ship go over the horizon, then looked through a telescope and was able to see it again. BUT, he completely fails to mention whether the telescope was at the same height, or several hundred feet higher than his original position!
that is a very important distinction, which he completely ignored!

LOL.  If he was using the telescope from the same height, why would it be worth mentioning?  For an experiment like this it would clearly be implied.

yes, but if it was actually not, it would mean everything he claimed to have seen throught the telescope would be a complete and utter lie!

yes, but if it was actually not, it would mean everything he claimed to have seen throught the telescope would be a complete and utter lie!

Oh noes! 

Um, too bad you don't have any actual evidence that that's the case, or real reason to suspect so, for that matter.








 

i think i understand your argument.

first, to address a minor - and i think incorrect - point, which even if wrong doesn't necessarily affect the legitimacy of your argument:

Quote

Now, imagine a train on those tracks. Given your actual position, and for the purpose of my idea, you're in such a position that the train is below the horizon line on the tracks. If it starts to move, it will eventually (depending ultimately on your POV) rise above that horizon line before it eventually converges with the rest of the picture you're viewing and moves beyond the vanishing point.

in this scenario, as i've understood your description, the train wouldn't rise above the horizon line, ever - as long as it is below the horizon line at any time during your viewing it from a fixed perspective.

and like i said, i think i understand the main thrust of your argument now, that was helpful clarification.  i'll quickly summarize what i think you said, you can tell me if i got it wrong: we see the vanishing point literally higher in the sky, than we do any part of the train (as long as we can see the train).  the closer the train is to us, the better we will be able to see it because the reflected light has less atmo to travel through before reaching us.  however, the vanishing point is also visible, because it is effectively "higher" relative to our elevated viewing position, and thus is less affected by the atmospheric gradient you have proposed.  the reflected light has less scattering density or whatever to deal with.  the net result of this is that, somewhere in between us and the vanishing point, is (for two competing reasons) the most opaque.  closer [lower] is clearer, and higher is clearer.  it is in this middle area, that things can disappear.

am i understanding?  if so, i would say the photos i showed above disproves it, because we can clearly see the horizon, and we can clearly see that it is not the vanishing point.  unless you want to argue that it's not the horizon, it's nothing more than a common surge of water between us and the ship.  (so common that it's in every shot.)

but the fact that we can see a ship beyond the horizon, demonstrates 1) the "laws" of perspective are great help in art, and are an obvious phenomenon, but some of it is irrelevant to reality.  [e.g. why are there never any fe discussions about two-point perspective?]

for example, there is no "vanishing point" in reality.  thing just appear smaller, eventually to the point where the angular resolution of our eyes fail to detect them.  but don't suddenly disappear like a singularity.  [i don't think that is what you are arguing.]  if a pea disappears thanks to perspective, replace it with an elephant.  or a pryamid.  or a planet.  or a galaxy.  etc.  secondly, even on a flat earth, the gradeschool concepts of perspective lines and vanishing points are of limited usefulness, because there are hills, mountains, huge convex and concave areas, etc., getting in the way of the vanishing point at the end of a perfectly flat plane of perspective lines mapped to the earth.  similarly, on a re, a hill of ocean gets in the way.  if you imagine yourself standing on a plane, then the earth falls away in every direction and you have no plane, no perspective lines, and no vanishing point as they relate to the earth.  or if instead, you pick a distant object and make that an integral part of your viewing plane, then a hill of water or/or land will be between you, with a fake horizon.  just like the pictures above.

Didn't have time to fully read your post, but as soon as I have a chance to actually sit down and play with my idea, I'll try to get some pictures together to try and explain a little further and reply to your points.

And to see if my idea actually works; I think it's not too bad though.

Observing a celestial object disappear behind or 'under' the horizon is hardly "proof" of FE laws of perspective.

I think you should also know that I would like to believe in FE and am supportive of alternate theories. I only support RE because I see more evidence in favor of RE.

I was talking more along the lines of looking at something as mundane as a table. That objects seem to reduce in size and apparent proximity to the ground with increased distance is empircally self-evident.

and NOBODY, especially Tom Bishop, has even the TINYEST evidence that Robotham actually did ANY of the things he wrote in his book!
so saying his book is "proof" is pathetically naive and stupid, to put it politely!

I honestly cannot believe that this perspective argument is coming up. "Basic laws of perspective" you say, "obvious empirical evidence" you say. You are insane. Even if you are correct about the whole "sinking into the ground" thing, it cannot be due to perspective. Perspective is nothing more than the appearance of objects becoming smaller as they move further away. All of the "laws" of perspective that people love to reference so much are simply due to trivial trigonometry. I'm even going to demonstrate with a picture.



Diagram 1: Here the object's actual distance from our center of vision is y. Its apparent distance is theta. Even as y remains constant, as x approaches infinity, theta approaches 0. That is, the object appears closer to the center of our vision as it moves further away even though it is physically not moving closer. This is because theta = arctan(y/x) and arctan(0) = 0.

Diagram 2: Here the object's distance from the observer is x, it's actual height is y, and it's apparent height is theta. Yet again, as the object moves further away y remains constant, x approaches infinity, and consequently theta approaches 0. To simplify the math, let's just assume that the object is vertically centered in our vision (this only affects the coefficients). We can split the triangle in half along the horizontal and thus get theta/2 = arctan(y/2x) and yet again arctan(0) = 0. So as the object moves further away, it appears to be smaller even though its actual height is not changing.

See? All that you have is relative position and trigonometry. Now, using only those two things explain to me with math (and preferably diagrams) how "simple perspective" causes the bottom of objects to appear to sink into the ground!

nice work.  i generally do not engage any of the fe perspective argument shenanigans, because it is un-winnable; un-winnable because rowbotham laws of perspective are simply a matter of faith, and nothing more.  it cannot be demonstrated, it cannot be proven, there is zero observational evidence to support it, it doesn't even make sense or operate on the principles of self-consistency.  and even though observation routinely disproves it, rowbotham perspective is immune from disproof, as well.  after all, you cannot disprove that which someone holds dearly on untested faith alone.

so, it is utterly, fantastically, catastrophically...pointless.

Yay, cpt_bthimes!

I honestly cannot believe that this perspective argument is coming up. "Basic laws of perspective" you say, "obvious empirical evidence" you say. You are insane. Even if you are correct about the whole "sinking into the ground" thing, it cannot be due to perspective. Perspective is nothing more than the appearance of objects becoming smaller as they move further away. All of the "laws" of perspective that people love to reference so much are simply due to trivial trigonometry. I'm even going to demonstrate with a picture.



Diagram 1: Here the object's actual distance from our center of vision is y. Its apparent distance is theta. Even as y remains constant, as x approaches infinity, theta approaches 0. That is, the object appears closer to the center of our vision as it moves further away even though it is physically not moving closer. This is because theta = arctan(y/x) and arctan(0) = 0.

Diagram 2: Here the object's distance from the observer is x, it's actual height is y, and it's apparent height is theta. Yet again, as the object moves further away y remains constant, x approaches infinity, and consequently theta approaches 0. To simplify the math, let's just assume that the object is vertically centered in our vision (this only affects the coefficients). We can split the triangle in half along the horizontal and thus get theta/2 = arctan(y/2x) and yet again arctan(0) = 0. So as the object moves further away, it appears to be smaller even though its actual height is not changing.

See? All that you have is relative position and trigonometry. Now, using only those two things explain to me with math (and preferably diagrams) how "simple perspective" causes the bottom of objects to appear to sink into the ground!

Thanks for bringing this diatribe that has nothing to do with my OP in this thread. It's much appreciated.

I do apologize, but as soon as perspective was brought up I wanted to make sure that it did not receive fare consideration.

Well, real perspective can be discussed in line with my idea, because it actually takes place.

As for Tom's notions of perspective and any rebuttals, they can be kept elsewhere.

I don't think atmospheric distortion would cause an object to disappear from the bottom up, the change is just too small.

Yeah, wouldn't any atmospheric affects apply to the water as well? That is, how the could the atmosphere obscure the bottom of the boat but not the water upon which it rests? It doesn't seem possible that this would result in the top of the boat appearing to be resting on the edge of the water.

this morning looking out the window, i actually see the effect devito was talking about (i think).  well, something close to it at least.  there is actually see a "fog of atmosphere" (smog actually), which appears most dense near the horizon.    as the land stretches out below me and away from me, visibility gets steadily worse.  however, very far away, i see distant mountains rising out of the haze.  so in this isolated context, it would appear that devito's argument is sound.

one of a few problems though, is that it is just low-lying smog, which by it's very nature is often very low-lying (because part of the component is fog).  it isn't necessarily an intrinsic part of atmospheric visibility.  and on some days, it's not there at all. 

another problem with the argument (as i understand it), is the pictures of the hard, sharp horizon line with just the top of a distant ship far beyond it.

so while my observed ilustration doesn't necessarily prove anything, it neither necessarily disproves anything.  but at least i've seen an example of his argument (i think).