Problem with the "Perspective Effect"

I don't quite understand how the perspective effect. It rises from below the horizon, so how come only the top half is visible? If the perspective effect was true, wouldn't things fade into vision, rather than cut off the bottom of the object? (be it the sun, boats or whatever.)

The perspective effect was an acceptable explanation (sort of) when Rowbotham (circa 1850) could say that the Sun is just a big blur, and so is the Moon. Great telescopes were not available to the general public and photos taken from telescopes were rare.

Now both photos of the Moon and of the Sun are simple to get and simple to photograph. There is no place for a "perspective effect" when millions have good telescopes and millions more take photographs of the Sun and Moon.

You might also remember the "Mars canals" that Percival Lowell saw but that now we have clearly seen that do not exist. Many things will be seen by the desperate.

The Vanishing Point is a finite distance away, rather than an infinite distance away taught in art schools (man cannot perceive infinity). This causes bodies to intersect and merge with the horizon as they recede into the Vanishing Point.

Consult Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe.

The Vanishing Point is a finite distance away, rather than an infinite distance away taught in art schools (man cannot perceive infinity). This causes bodies to intersect and merge with the horizon as they recede into the Vanishing Point.

Consult Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe.

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim? How do you know that "man cannot perceive infinity"? How do you know that your supposition (that the VP is a finite distance away) causes bodies to intersect and merge with the horizon as they recede into the VP?

We reject EnaG in whole since the author could not perform a simple experiment to measure the apparent size of the Sun as it set and its "peer-review" failed to catch this grievous error.

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

Read Earth Not a Globe.

How do you know that "man cannot perceive infinity"?

Described in Earth Not a Globe.

How do you know that your supposition (that the VP is a finite distance away) causes bodies to intersect and merge with the horizon as they recede into the VP?

All answered in Earth Not a Globe.

Man may not be able to 'perceive infinity', but I don't see why he couldn't see a fairly large distance. Why is the bottom section of the Sun completely invisible, but the part a fraction of a degree above it in plain sight? It's hardly too small for someone to see.

Quote

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Quote

How do you know that "man cannot perceive infinity"?

Described in Earth Not a Globe.

Quote

How do you know that your supposition (that the VP is a finite distance away) causes bodies to intersect and merge with the horizon as they recede into the VP?

All answered in Earth Not a Globe.

Read and rejected for the stated reasons. Do pay attention.

Man may not be able to 'perceive infinity', but I don't see why he couldn't see a fairly large distance. Why is the bottom section of the Sun completely invisible, but the part a fraction of a degree above it in plain sight? It's hardly too small for someone to see.

The true sun during sunset would be a tiny dot in the distance. It's image is magnified as it recedes due to the magnification properties of the atmosphere.

See Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

excellent suggestion. I'm getting my new copy of ENaG  in 2 days :]

The true sun during sunset would be a tiny dot in the distance. It's image is magnified as it recedes due to the magnification properties of the atmosphere.

See Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

Then, if you look at the Sun with a telescope and a solar filter while it begins to disapear over the horizon, you should be able to see the entire Sun, should not you?

excellent suggestion. I'm getting my new copy of ENaG  in 2 days :]

Please do not buy it, since that gives money to the promoters of anti-science and will cause the unnecessary death of part of a tree.

Follow the links on Tom Bishop's signature and see what you are buying before it is too late.

2 late. I bought it from Barnes and Noble's website yesterday. I am very eager to read it.

Then, if you look at the Sun while it begins to disapear over the horizon with a telescope and a solar filter, you should be able to see the entire Sun, should not you?

The sun is at such a distance away from the observer during its setting (over 6,000 miles) that the perspective lines are indiscriminate between a telescope and the naked eye.

A ship disappears sooner and is at a closer altitude to the horizon, however, and it is indeed possible to restore a half-sunken ship with a telescope, as many accounts in the literature demonstrate.

The Vanishing Point is a variable. The higher above the earth a receding body is, the later it will intersect with the Vanishing Point. That's why a flock of birds passing overhead will intersect with the horizon sooner than a jet airplane.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 16, 2009, 06:01:54 PM

The true sun during sunset would be a tiny dot in the distance. It's image is magnified as it recedes due to the magnification properties of the atmosphere.

See Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

Then, if you look at the Sun with a telescope and a solar filter while it begins to disapear over the horizon, you should be able to see the entire Sun, should not you?

In http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26660.msg619407#msg619407 you will see how Tom Bishop does not know what magnification means, thinking that magnification is the same as dispersion. He believes that the atmosphere magically decides to magnify the Sun when it suits him and not when it does not, and gives no reason whatsoever for this very convenient phenomenon. He does not even accept that if the atmosphere did magnify the image of the Sun it would also make it several times less bright.

The science of optics is just an inopportune hindrance to his free thought.

Quote

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Quote

How do you know that "man cannot perceive infinity"?

Described in Earth Not a Globe.

Quote

How do you know that your supposition (that the VP is a finite distance away) causes bodies to intersect and merge with the horizon as they recede into the VP?

All answered in Earth Not a Globe.

How do you know that Rowbotham had a clue as to what he was talking about concerning perspective?

And PS.,

Tom Bishop has never accepted that perspective is a term from drawing disciplines, not from science. He cannot accept that what Rowbotham knew about perspective was the simplifications used in the drawing of three dimensional objects prior to the use of CAD-CAM. (Computer aided design-Computer aided manufacturing).

Several people have asked Tom Bishop to show any science book where his laws of perspective are described, and he has never been able to show any science book that agrees with him.

And PS.,

Tom Bishop has never accepted that perspective is a term from drawing disciplines, not from science. He cannot accept that what Rowbotham knew about perspective was the simplifications used in the drawing of three dimensional objects prior to the use of CAD-CAM. (Computer aided design-Computer aided manufacturing).

Several people have asked Tom Bishop to show any science book where his laws of perspective are described, and he has never been able to show any science book that agrees with him.

Thanks for the info, as it's pretty obvious that Rowbotham had no idea on how true perspective works.

I can't believe Tom and other people continually cling onto something that has been proven wrong, it's just mind boggling.

And PS.,

Tom Bishop has never accepted that perspective is a term from drawing disciplines, not from science. He cannot accept that what Rowbotham knew about perspective was the simplifications used in the drawing of three dimensional objects prior to the use of CAD-CAM. (Computer aided design-Computer aided manufacturing).

Several people have asked Tom Bishop to show any science book where his laws of perspective are described, and he has never been able to show any science book that agrees with him.

Well, it actually worse than that. Rowbotham, as well, applied such "laws of perspective" indiscriminately to serve his own desires. We must reject his work with a vengeance accordingly.

In http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26660.msg619407#msg619407 you will see how Tom Bishop does not know what magnification means, thinking that magnification is the same as dispersion.

The act of magnification disperses light. Educate yourself please.

Several people have asked Tom Bishop to show any science book where his laws of perspective are described, and he has never been able to show any science book that agrees with him.

Pick up a copy of Earth Not a Globe or one of the other pieces of science literature in my signature link.

Quote

In http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26660.msg619407#msg619407 you will see how Tom Bishop does not know what magnification means, thinking that magnification is the same as dispersion.

The act of magnification disperses light. Educate yourself please.

The point of the poster was that magnification is not the same as dispersion, as your claim requires. Yes, magnification does in an orderly manner disperse light. No, dispersion does not mean magnification. Do use logic correctly.

The point of the poster was that magnification is not the same as dispersion, as your claim requires. Yes, magnification does in an orderly manner disperse light. No, dispersion does not mean magnification. Do use logic correctly.

Pick up a dictionary. Dispersion is the act of spreading out. Therefore light passing through a magnifying glass undergoes dispersion.

Read more, post less.

I can't believe Tom and other people continually cling onto something that has been proven wrong, it's just mind boggling.

Where did anyone prove that Rowbotham was wrong?

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 16, 2009, 08:48:26 PM

The point of the poster was that magnification is not the same as dispersion, as your claim requires. Yes, magnification does in an orderly manner disperse light. No, dispersion does not mean magnification. Do use logic correctly.

Pick up a dictionary. Dispersion is the act of spreading out. Therefore light passing through a magnifying glass undergoes dispersion.

Read more, post less.

Read more accurately. I said that magnification does in an order manner disperse light. Your logic error is assuming the dispersion causes magnification. It's a sophomoric error that I assume you'll want to correct.  A implies B does not mean that B implies A. Logic is your friend. Grab a high school text and educate yourself. You'll be glad you did!

Quote from: avsfan987 on March 16, 2009, 07:23:16 PM

I can't believe Tom and other people continually cling onto something that has been proven wrong, it's just mind boggling.

Where did anyone prove that Rowbotham was wrong?

Here in this Forum for one...
1) Inaccurate measurement of the apparent size of the setting Sun.
2) Claiming that our view of the Sun is actually just a projection onto the atmosphere.
3) Claiming that an object thrown from the mast of a traveling ship will exhaust its forward motion.

Of course, since all of these (and more) are wrong, and since the "peer-review" you claim failed to locate these error, we must reject of all EnaG and its Review.

Read more accurately. I said that magnification does in an order manner disperse light. Your logic error is assuming the dispersion causes magnification. It's a sophomoric error that I assume you'll want to correct.  A implies B does not mean that B implies A. Logic is your friend. Grab a high school text and educate yourself. You'll be glad you did!

Here's some logic for you.

1. Dispersion means to spread out.

2. Magnification involves the spreading out of light rays.

T. Magnification involves Dispersion.

You lose.

Here in this Forum for one...
1) Inaccurate measurement of the apparent size of the setting Sun.
2) Claiming that our view of the Sun is actually just a projection onto the atmosphere.
3) Claiming that an object thrown from the mast of a traveling ship will exhaust its forward motion.

Of course, since all of these (and more) are wrong, and since the "peer-review" you claim failed to locate these error, we must reject of all EnaG and its Review.

Where did anyone PROVE that Rowbotham's explanations for those things about the sun were incorrect?

Quote

Read more accurately. I said that magnification does in an order manner disperse light. Your logic error is assuming the dispersion causes magnification. It's a sophomoric error that I assume you'll want to correct.  A implies B does not mean that B implies A. Logic is your friend. Grab a high school text and educate yourself. You'll be glad you did!

Here's some logic for you.

1. Dispersion means to spread out.

2. Magnification involves the spreading out of light rays.

T. Magnification involves Dispersion.

You lose.

Your claim: Dispersion means magnification. Your proof leads us to: Magnification involves dispersion. Your proof does not support your claim. Do get the text, please!

Quote

Here in this Forum for one...
1) Inaccurate measurement of the apparent size of the setting Sun.
2) Claiming that our view of the Sun is actually just a projection onto the atmosphere.
3) Claiming that an object thrown from the mast of a traveling ship will exhaust its forward motion.

Of course, since all of these (and more) are wrong, and since the "peer-review" you claim failed to locate these error, we must reject of all EnaG and its Review.

Where did anyone PROVE that Rowbotham's explanations for those things were incorrect?

Anyone applying the Zetetic principles would quickly reach the conclusion that he was wrong. I remember a high school ballistics experiment that proved #3 wrong. Did you miss school that day? I notice his error in #2 every time I see the Sun. I notice his error in #1 with each sunset I watch. You are still believing what you observe, aren't you? For someone who looks out his window to make observation, you sure seem reluctant to look at the sky.

Pick up a copy of Earth Not a Globe or one of the other pieces of science literature in my signature link.

You have still failed to show that any book in your list, including Rowbothams ENaG, is science literature. And also still no peer review of Rowbothams work by scientist . You do realize that if you could dig up any scientist(scientists as people who have some degrees about maths, physics and such things. not just self-taught people like most of us here) who have done similar work or supported Rowbotham, then it would make your quest easier.

Your claim: Dispersion means magnification. Your proof leads us to: Magnification involves dispersion. Your proof does not support your claim. Do get the text, please!

I never claimed that all dispersion is magnification. I did claim that all magnification is dispersion, though.

Read more. Post less.

Anyone applying the Zetetic principles would quickly reach the conclusion that he was wrong. I remember a high school ballistics experiment that proved #3 wrong. Did you miss school that day? I notice his error in #2 every time I see the Sun. I notice his error in #1 with each sunset I watch. You are still believing what you observe, aren't you? For someone who looks out his window to make observation, you sure seem reluctant to look at the sky.

Where did you prove that Rowbotham's explanations for the sun were wrong? I don't see any proof. Where's the proof?

You have still failed to show that any book in your list, including Rowbothams ENaG, is science literature. And also still no peer review of Rowbothams work by scientist . You do realize that if you could dig up any scientist(scientists as people who have some degrees about maths, physics and such things. not just self-taught people like most of us here) who have done similar work or supported Rowbotham, then it would make your quest easier.

Of course it's science. The Library of Congress even lists Flat Earth Literature under the section Science Reference Guides: http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/flatearth.html

Who knows better, the Library of Congress, or you?

Quote from: zork on March 17, 2009, 12:02:56 AM

You have still failed to show that any book in your list, including Rowbothams ENaG, is science literature. And also still no peer review of Rowbothams work by scientist . You do realize that if you could dig up any scientist(scientists as people who have some degrees about maths, physics and such things. not just self-taught people like most of us here) who have done similar work or supported Rowbotham, then it would make your quest easier.

Of course it's science. The Library of Congress even lists Flat Earth Literature under the section Science Reference Guides: http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/SciRefGuides/flatearth.html

Who knows better, the Library of Congress, or you?

  Alright, seems that I must be more specific and specify that someone from hard sciences not social sciences. I agree that psychology, philosophy, literature and history and even journalism is science but I expect you to refer me some science work which isn't some psychological profiling of Rowbothams work or person or just historical or bibliographical story. So, any hard science references, please?