Sinking Ship experiment Results

  • 487 Replies
  • 90449 Views
?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #420 on: December 08, 2009, 01:36:46 PM »
The vanishing point is always at eye level.

Please cease posting and return to your community college.
What? What if you are looking down? Surely it is somewhere along the vector you are looking down. Unless you irrationally assume that there is an "up" and a "down", which are human constructs formed from our balancing mechanisms.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #421 on: December 08, 2009, 01:38:24 PM »
The vanishing point is always at eye level.

Please cease posting and return to your community college.
What? What if you are looking down? Surely it is somewhere along the vector you are looking down. Unless you irrationally assume that there is an "up" and a "down", which are human constructs formed from our balancing mechanisms.

The vanishing point is still at the horizon when you look down.

The vanishing point is always at the level (altitude) of the eye.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 02:21:14 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #422 on: December 08, 2009, 01:46:08 PM »
The vanishing point is always at eye level.

Please cease posting and return to your community college.
What? What if you are looking down? Surely it is somewhere along the vector you are looking down. Unless you irrationally assume that there is an "up" and a "down", which are human constructs formed from our balancing mechanisms.

The vanishing point is still at the horizon when you look down.

The vanishing point is always at the level (altitude) of the eye.

Quote
The clapping of my hands always kills a fairy.

The act of producing fluctuations in the air sends undetectable supersonic shock waves that target the nearest fairy and ruptures its skull.

Please explain why your statement has more credibility than mine. Yours is a pure misunderstanding of perspective, and is aligning vision to right angles. Just because you cannot detach yourself from the notion of an "up", "down" and "horizontal" (all of which are just structures we use to handle input of the world), doesn't mean light is always aligned to right angles.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #423 on: December 08, 2009, 02:16:13 PM »
The vanishing point is always at eye level.

Please cease posting and return to your community college.
What? What if you are looking down? Surely it is somewhere along the vector you are looking down. Unless you irrationally assume that there is an "up" and a "down", which are human constructs formed from our balancing mechanisms.

The vanishing point is still at the horizon when you look down.

The vanishing point is always at the level (altitude) of the eye.

Tom,

When I look vertically down a long elevator shaft, I can detect a vanishing point.

The point is, you don't know what a vanishing point is.  You are confused because Robotham gets mixed up with geometric perspective lines and human limits of resolution, without any mathematics to back up his ambiguous "drawings".  His explanation just raises more questions.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #424 on: December 08, 2009, 02:18:02 PM »
Quote
Please explain why your statement has more credibility than mine. Yours is a pure misunderstanding of perspective, and is aligning vision to right angles. Just because you cannot detach yourself from the notion of an "up", "down" and "horizontal" (all of which are just structures we use to handle input of the world), doesn't mean light is always aligned to right angles.

I didn't say anything about light. I'm speaking of perspective in relation to the surface of the earth. The point where the perspective lines meet will be at the level of your eye. When you look into the distance the lands appear to rise in altitude until they reach your eye level. Where the lands stop is the horizon. The vanishing point is always on the horizon, which is at the level of the eye.

When you walk to the top of a skyscraper you are changing your perspective lines, and thus it takes more and more lands to ascend to your eye level. Ergo, you can see further.

Just the same, if you were to look down an infinitely deep well lit with lamps throughout its extent, the perspective lines relating to the sides of the shaft would appear to approach each other until they met at a point in the far distance.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #425 on: December 08, 2009, 02:19:19 PM »
When I look vertically down a long elevator shaft, I can detect a vanishing point.

When we speak about perspective lines we're speaking of those in relation to the earth.

No one's talking about  perspective lines in relation to the sides of wells. We're talking about the lines in relation to the earth.

Quote
The point is, you don't know what a vanishing point is.

Wrong. The vanishing point is where the perspective lines meet.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 02:24:30 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #426 on: December 08, 2009, 03:46:51 PM »

The vanishing point is always at eye level.

Please cease posting and return to your community college.

One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.

Unfortunately, that wasn't what you stated, thus the questioning.  Please cease posting.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #427 on: December 08, 2009, 03:59:23 PM »

The vanishing point is always at eye level.

Please cease posting and return to your community college.

One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.

Unfortunately, that wasn't what you stated, thus the questioning.  Please cease posting.

The perspective lines in relation to the earth recede until they meet at a point in the distance.

The vanishing point in relation to the earth's surface is always at eye level, whether it be on ground level, on top of a sky scraper, or at the summit of Mt. Everest.

The horizon line rises when you rise.

Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #428 on: December 08, 2009, 05:03:53 PM »

The vanishing point is always at eye level.

Please cease posting and return to your community college.

One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.

Unfortunately, that wasn't what you stated, thus the questioning.  Please cease posting.

The perspective lines in relation to the earth recede until they meet at a point in the distance.

The vanishing point in relation to the earth's surface is always at eye level, whether it be on ground level, on top of a sky scraper, or at the summit of Mt. Everest.

The horizon line rises when you rise.

Yes, you can see further past the curvature the farther up you go.  Why didn't you just say that the first time?
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #429 on: December 09, 2009, 05:20:36 AM »
I still don't understand why you can't see two lines converging at tom bishop's vanishing point, even though they're going off to the horizon.

Would a shrinking effect making it appear that ships are going beyond the horizon make turbulent ship wakes converge at the vanishing point?

http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2009/07/ship-wakes-and-round-earth.html
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #430 on: December 09, 2009, 05:28:22 AM »
I still don't understand why you can't see two lines converging at tom bishop's vanishing point, even though they're going off to the horizon.

Would a shrinking effect making it appear that ships are going beyond the horizon make turbulent ship wakes converge at the vanishing point?

http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2009/07/ship-wakes-and-round-earth.html

In that image the vanishing point occurs before the turbulent wake converges. The wake is too wide and thus disappears into vertical perspective before it meets to a point horizontally.

The wider the body, the longer it will take to merge to a point horizontally. If it meets the level of the eye before coming to a point horizontally, it disappears because it has met the vanishing point.

You can also imagine standing on a tall building and looking at a city below you. As the city recedes it appears to ascend to the level of the eye. Once it has met the level of the eye, the vanishing point occurs. The city could very well be wide enough that it hasn't horizontally met a point, but that matter is inconsequential, since it is the vertical perspective lines which make the vanishing point.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2009, 05:32:29 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #431 on: December 09, 2009, 05:33:36 AM »
I still don't understand why you can't see two lines converging at tom bishop's vanishing point, even though they're going off to the horizon.

Would a shrinking effect making it appear that ships are going beyond the horizon make turbulent ship wakes converge at the vanishing point?

http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2009/07/ship-wakes-and-round-earth.html

Quote
Yes, you can see further past the curvature the farther up you go.  Why didn't you just say that the first time?

Quote
Turbulent ship wakes stream aft of vessels and are commonly seen from the stern of a ship. But did you know that these wakes prove that the Earth is round? Look at the left and right edges of the wake. They form two fairly sharp lines that converge in the distance toward the horizon as a result of perspective. But they don?t meet at a point, as they would if the Earth was flat and the line-of-site was infinite. Rather, they?re separated by a small amount of space at the horizon where the observer?s finite line of sight is tangent to the spherical Earth.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #432 on: December 09, 2009, 10:59:47 AM »
The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.

Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #433 on: December 09, 2009, 11:18:13 AM »
The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.
You forgot the part about where that happens above the horizon.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17796
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #434 on: December 09, 2009, 11:25:32 AM »
The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.
You forgot the part about where that happens above the horizon.

Too bad we can't see it, being vertically squished from the vanishing point into imperception.

Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #435 on: December 09, 2009, 11:28:50 AM »
The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.
You forgot the part about where that happens above the horizon.

Too bad we can't see it, being vertically squished from the vanishing point into imperception.

And you can use the same lines to determine the vanishing point's location.  Above the horizon.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #436 on: December 09, 2009, 12:02:51 PM »
The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.
You forgot the part about where that happens above the horizon.

Too bad we can't see it, being vertically squished from the vanishing point into imperception.

You're going to say that a good telescope will restore the wakes' vanishing point.  I can feel it.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #437 on: December 10, 2009, 08:10:32 AM »
The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.
You forgot the part about where that happens above the horizon.
Too bad we can't see it, being vertically squished from the vanishing point into imperception.
You're going to say that a good telescope will restore the wakes' vanishing point.  I can feel it.
That's where I was leading this.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #438 on: December 10, 2009, 08:22:50 AM »
This is the part where you are at odds with your ENTIRE philosophy. You are taking what has been observed and saying it is not so. Instead you resort to making up theories that are completely contradictory to what has been empirically observed.

The whole reason FEer's take issue with a round earth is because "look around, obviously the earth is flat." LOOK AT THE PICTURE.

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #439 on: December 14, 2009, 04:10:36 AM »
Again, from this picture, you can see that the horizon of the Earth is curved. Another win for RE.





If the Earth were in fact flat, the top and bottom purple lines should be an equal distance from the middle line, but as we see, the bottom purple line is more than twice the distance from the red line than the top one is.

And before anyone asks, I made sure that the red line intersected with the horizontal middle of the picture.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 04:15:30 AM by The Earth is ROUND!!!!!!! »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #440 on: December 14, 2009, 06:00:42 AM »
That's great of you for making sure the red line is in the middle, but how much was that picture cropped?

It's not proof for curvature.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42012
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #441 on: December 14, 2009, 06:12:10 AM »
Actually, that bit of curvature could easily be attributed to barrel distortion from a wide angle lens.  The fact that the turbulent wake does not recede to a sharp point like it should on a FE is much more significant and harder to dismiss.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #442 on: December 14, 2009, 06:39:55 AM »
I've brought it up. Tom gave some BS "I don't understand how perspective works" excuse.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #443 on: December 14, 2009, 10:31:17 AM »
Actually, that bit of curvature could easily be attributed to barrel distortion from a wide angle lens.  The fact that the turbulent wake does not recede to a sharp point like it should on a FE is much more significant and harder to dismiss.

I don't believe so, because if it were barrell distortion, the curvature on each side of the picture should be equal, unless there are cameras that have a one-sided effect, which I have never heard of.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42012
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #444 on: December 14, 2009, 10:38:41 AM »
Actually, that bit of curvature could easily be attributed to barrel distortion from a wide angle lens.  The fact that the turbulent wake does not recede to a sharp point like it should on a FE is much more significant and harder to dismiss.

I don't believe so, because if it were barrell distortion, the curvature on each side of the picture should be equal, unless there are cameras that have a one-sided effect, which I have never heard of.

Or if the camera wasn't exactly level.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #445 on: December 14, 2009, 10:40:34 AM »
Actually, that bit of curvature could easily be attributed to barrel distortion from a wide angle lens.  The fact that the turbulent wake does not recede to a sharp point like it should on a FE is much more significant and harder to dismiss.

I don't believe so, because if it were barrell distortion, the curvature on each side of the picture should be equal, unless there are cameras that have a one-sided effect, which I have never heard of.

Or if the camera wasn't exactly level.

Good point. :D
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #446 on: December 15, 2009, 04:30:36 PM »
ok, what is the first thing that makes you think that the earth is flat? im sure most of you would say perception. now, think of a very very very small bug on a beach ball. think about how it would perceive it. flat. its just perception. all your lame theories are obsolete. those pictures do not prove that light bends upwards because you do not have anything to measure the speed of the light. it has been proven that when light bends, it is because it is slowing down. thats how we can see. our eye lenses slow it down so our brains can observe it. this is the technology they put into cameras. the cameras have lenses to slow down the light. the only thing those pictures prove is that the earth is indeed a sphere because as you increase your elevation, your perception is corrected.

Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #447 on: December 16, 2009, 05:00:54 AM »
ok, what is the first thing that makes you think that the earth is flat? im sure most of you would say perception. now, think of a very very very small bug on a beach ball. think about how it would perceive it. flat. its just perception. all your lame theories are obsolete. those pictures do not prove that light bends upwards because you do not have anything to measure the speed of the light. it has been proven that when light bends, it is because it is slowing down. thats how we can see. our eye lenses slow it down so our brains can observe it. this is the technology they put into cameras. the cameras have lenses to slow down the light. the only thing those pictures prove is that the earth is indeed a sphere because as you increase your elevation, your perception is corrected.

You possess all this "knowledge", yet can't find the 'Shift' key?
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #448 on: December 16, 2009, 06:44:13 AM »
ok, what is the first thing that makes you think that the earth is flat? im sure most of you would say perception. now, think of a very very very small bug on a beach ball. think about how it would perceive it. flat. its just perception. all your lame theories are obsolete. those pictures do not prove that light bends upwards because you do not have anything to measure the speed of the light. it has been proven that when light bends, it is because it is slowing down. thats how we can see. our eye lenses slow it down so our brains can observe it. this is the technology they put into cameras. the cameras have lenses to slow down the light. the only thing those pictures prove is that the earth is indeed a sphere because as you increase your elevation, your perception is corrected.
Refraction is not light bending.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42012
Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« Reply #449 on: December 16, 2009, 09:04:18 AM »
Refraction is not light bending.

Actually, that's exactly what refraction is.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.