The FE sun is impossible [revisited]

Quote

1. Presenting why perception would work that way.

The way it works is described clearly in the literature listed in my signature link. If you had bothered to READ THE MATERIAL you wouldn't be asking these questions.

Perspective works exactly the way it is taught in art schools except that at a certain point in the distance the perspective lines will become so close together that they appear to merge. This is called the Vanishing Point. It's an effect due to the angular limits of the human eye. The Vanishing Effect occurs where the eye cannot resolve any further, causing distant bodies to appear to merge into the earth's surface as they shrink into the distance.

Cyrus Teed described the perspective effect which causes distant ships to disappear from the bottom up in his book Cellular Cosmogony

So if we get images taken from above the seas and swells (maybe 70 feet or so), but without land in the way, those would be valid images?  I am just checking.  Because if we are able to get images above the sea and swell, that would mean that they aren't interfering with the visibility of the ship's hull, and even something as simple as binoculars would be able to bring an 800 foot ship's hull back into view.  Am I interpreting that correctly?

-The perspective is wrong because it tries to draw perspective lines from the view of a third person, not the observer: Perspective is an observer-only phenomenon.

-The sun's constant size is now attributed to "bendy light", an admission by FEers that Robothem was wrong, surely?

-The mechanism for tides is completely without foundation, evidence, or common-sense.  It's a "gludge" to get the moon out of the equation.

For all that Tom goes on about ENAG, if someone redid the Bedford Level experiment well away from the oceans ability "to curve in the telescope",

Strange that my shots show only a few metres of hull being hidden by "waves" for the ships but the island has 10s of metres of land hidden by those very same waves.

The way it fails is described clearly in my post listed above in this discussion. If you had bothered to READ THE POST you wouldn't be responding this way. For like the billionth time, I read ENaG.

This is true as under the condition you are suggesting it shrinks uniformly; not from the bottom up.

I already explained why this is flawed. I will slap you with the link again:

Quote

The way it fails is described clearly in my post listed above in this discussion. If you had bothered to READ THE POST you wouldn't be responding this way. For like the billionth time, I read ENaG.

Then you should read Earth Not a Globe again, because apparently you didn't comprehend the material well enough.

Quote

This is true as under the condition you are suggesting it shrinks uniformly; not from the bottom up.

Right. As a ship recedes it will shrink uniformily and be obscured from the bottom up by either waves and swells in the foreground (if on the ocean), or by the eventual angular limits of the human eye as described in the literature (if on a calm body of water such as a lake or canal).

Quote

I already explained why this is flawed. I will slap you with the link again:

Really? Where did you prove that the human eye had an infinite angular resolution and that the Vanishing Point did not exist?

First, learn to spell uniformly.
If the line of sight is at the topmost point of the highest wave, no more sight of the boat will be lost than the height of that wave. The water was far too calm in those pictures to lose that much off the bottom of the ship. Eye sight is actually greater than the wave height allowing us to see past higher waves anyways.

what about the REALLY calm days on lake Erie, the water barely moves at all, how can waves be blocking my view of the ship?

Dyno isn't that high up in the shots where the ship is sunken. Dyno's camera is right near the water's surface, maybe three feet above sea level when he's looking out at the partially obscured ship.

I gave a picture without a scale or any numbers. The concept is the same no matter the height or distance. 

Quote

I gave a picture without a scale or any numbers. The concept is the same no matter the height or distance. 

Not if the observer is below the height of the highest wave or swell between the observer and the ship's hull.

You can see the waves were not over 3 feet in height above the rest of the water.

Quote

You can see the waves were not over 3 feet in height above the rest of the water.

Are you kidding? At my local beach a high wave suitable for surfboarding comes in every fourteenth wave or so like clockwork.

What actual evidence do you have that there were no high waves or swells between Dyno's camera and the ship's hull?

The fact that the waves in the foreground, for ALL the pictures, are calm.

By the shape, abundance, and contrast. I think it's rather obvious, but if you are having difficulty, compare them to this image and note the lack of variation.

Quote

By the shape, abundance, and contrast. I think it's rather obvious, but if you are having difficulty, compare them to this image and note the lack of variation.

I don't see anything hidden in that picture.

.. and why are you looking for something that's hidden? 

How can you tell how high those waves are by looking at Dyno's picture? 

Perspective allows small things in the way to obscure bigger things in the distance. When you hold out a penny an arms length away perspecive allows it to block out the sun. Does that mean that a penny is as large as the sun?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on October 01, 2008, 11:54:02 AM

Perspective allows small things in the way to obscure bigger things in the distance. When you hold out a penny an arms length away perspecive allows it to block out the sun. Does that mean that a penny is as large as the sun?

So if we get images taken from above the seas and swells (maybe 70 feet or so), but without land in the way, those would be valid images?  I am just checking.  Because if we are able to get images above the sea and swell, that would mean that they aren't interfering with the visibility of the ship's hull, and even something as simple as binoculars would be able to bring an 800 foot ship's hull back into view.  Am I interpreting that correctly?

So if we get images taken from above the seas and swells (maybe 70 feet or so), but without land in the way, those would be valid images?  I am just checking.  Because if we are able to get images above the sea and swell, that would mean that they aren't interfering with the visibility of the ship's hull, and even something as simple as binoculars would be able to bring an 800 foot ship's hull back into view.  Am I interpreting that correctly?

Quote

So if we get images taken from above the seas and swells (maybe 70 feet or so), but without land in the way, those would be valid images?  I am just checking.  Because if we are able to get images above the sea and swell, that would mean that they aren't interfering with the visibility of the ship's hull, and even something as simple as binoculars would be able to bring an 800 foot ship's hull back into view.  Am I interpreting that correctly?

You are correct, except that it might take something a little better than binoculars to bring back a body lost to the Vanishing Point. The accounts in the literature mostly used telescopes. But Binoculars might do it if sufficiently powerful, who knows.

Tom, object never actually "disappears" at the vanishing point. The just get smaller and smaller.

Quote

Tom, object never actually "disappears" at the vanishing point. The just get smaller and smaller.

And how is man supposed to see infinitely as a body shrinks into the distance if his eyes do not allow him to?

There will be a point when a body shrinks so small into the horizon that the eye cannot distinguish sea from hull.

And how is man supposed to see infinitely as a body shrinks into the distance if his eyes do not allow him to?

There will be a point when a body shrinks so small into the horizon that the eye cannot distinguish sea from hull. This limit to the human eye is called the Vanishing Point. Samuel Birley Rowbotham articulates that the vanishing point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.

The smallest detectable visual angle produced by a single fine dark line against a uniformally illuminated background is also much less than foveal cone size or regular visual acuity. In this case, under optimal conditions, the limit is about 0.5 arc seconds, or only about 2% of the diameter of a foveal cone. This produces a contrast of about 1% with the illumination of surrounding cones. The mechanism of detection is the ability to detect such small differences in contrast or illumination, and does not depend on the angular width of the bar, which cannot be discerned. Thus as the line gets finer, it appears to get fainter but not thinner.

Quote

.. and why are you looking for something that's hidden? 

I don't see a half obscured island in that picture.

What point are you trying to make with it?

By the shape, abundance, and contrast. I think it's rather obvious, but if you are having difficulty, compare them to this image and note the lack of variation.

This is where the use of a telescope or binoculars come in.  The binoculars or telescope magnify the image and overcome the lower limit of visual acuity.

Quote

This is where the use of a telescope or binoculars come in.  The binoculars or telescope magnify the image and overcome the lower limit of visual acuity.

Well yes, that's why people have been able to restore half sunken hulls on lakes and canals by looking at it through a telescope.

Thanks for keeping up.

Quote

This is where the use of a telescope or binoculars come in.  The binoculars or telescope magnify the image and overcome the lower limit of visual acuity.

Well yes, that's why people have been able to restore half sunken hulls on lakes and canals by looking at it through a telescope.

Thanks for keeping up.

Your assuming that the hull will disappear before the rest of the ship as a function of perspective. As something appears to become smaller in size, the whole becomes less visible at the same rate. We already discussed this. It appears to shrink UNIFORMLY.

No no Tom, whole ship shrinks (not sinks), at the same rate.   This is not what you or Rowbothem (with his perspective lines) are saying.   Please refer to be previous post on the relationship between distance and apparent size.

Quote

This is where the use of a telescope or binoculars come in.  The binoculars or telescope magnify the image and overcome the lower limit of visual acuity.

Well yes, people have been able to restore half sunken hulls on lakes and other calm bodies of water by looking at it through a telescope, proving that they were not really behind the convexity of the earth.

Thanks for keeping up.

On a calm surface when the ship shrinks into the Vanishing Point it appears to sink into the water as it recedes because it is at such a distance that the eye cannot discern the hull from the sea.