In the interest of freeing up The FE sun thread and organizing the argument I am reposting this as a new thread.
Perspective can logically be determined and supported by simply examining the aspects of sight.Consider a room. The far wall appears rectangular whereas the lines defining the edges of the other walls, ceiling, and floor converge toward the center. Why does perspective behave this way? It's because the further portions of the wall appear smaller as all approach the vanishing point. Examining the concept of converging lines for a moment, one might question why object appear smaller based only their distance. The answer is simple: The further away an object is, the smaller the angle an object has when meeting the eye, or a smaller percentage of your vision detects that objects.
Basically, the greater the distance an object is, the smaller the angle it is perceived. The smaller the angle it is perceived, the smaller the object appears. As the companion cube in the picture approaches an infinite distance, the angle approaches zero degrees.
Therefore, without other influences on your vision, an object would be visible at all distances. The resolution of the eye, variance in particles, temperature related atmospheric distortions, pollution and particulate matter, etc. all place limits on the vision preventing the eye from seeing objects an infinite distance away. I do think it is important to stress however, that there is no reason for perspective to selectively cut portions of vision out.
The image above was taken from ENaG to demonstrate the massive failing of Rowbotham's theory. As the hole in the disk gets further away, it does get smaller but at no point does it fill. Limitations of the eye would eventually blend the area around the hole with the hole once the entire structure is verging on invisible to the naked eye, but the portion of the whole and the sign itself shrinks uniformly and proportionality. If you can see something equally large to the hole at the same distance as the hole, than the hole is still visible. This applies to the ships that have a very noticeable top portion and the bottom is hidden from view. This cannot be explained by perspective, but instead curvature of the Earth.
I should also note that the sinking ship effect, as explained by Rowbotham, quotes a source that merely notes the limitations of the human eye and how an object no longer becomes visible after a certain distance. He immediately classifies this observation limitations as a
law of perspective without justification.
Rowbotham then claims, without a shred of evidence, that perspective naturally creates the effect that portions of objects become indistinguishable to the eye due to great distance. Besides the obvious flaw that perspective shouldn't account for obstacles and imperfections, the notion that only the lower half of an object vanishes as it moves away is ridiculous. Even though the object as a whole has supposedly reached this magic distance, selectively cutting out only the bottom section within your vision disobeys all reason. This fails to include the fact that the ground and area above this region remain unaffected.
This is a sketch Rowbotham included to illustrate the effect on objects as distance increases. It is based
solely on Rowbotham's version of perspective and allows me to illustrate my questions. Compare the wheels to the shape (much like a half circle) on top of the locomotive. Might I ask why distance, the alleged direct cause of the disappearing effect) causes the wheels to vanish but not the shape above? Might I ask why has no one else discovered this phenomenon? Might I ask why I cannot observe it when I test it?
The truth is that perspective doesn't behave this way, nor does it have any reason to. Rowbotham fabricated his physics, experiments, and results in order to arrive at his predetermined conclusion of a Flat Earth. I personally believe it was a elaborate joke that Bishop fell for. Since Rowbotham has been more than sufficiently proved wrong, his perspective theory can no longer be cited as evidence. Yes Bishop, I'm talking to you.