Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective

• 124 Replies
• 14141 Views
?

Nolhekh

• 1669
• Animator
Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« on: July 11, 2010, 07:57:14 PM »
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
Quote
On the sinking ship, Rowbotham describes a mechanism by which the hull is hidden by the angular limits of perception - the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent on which the hull is so close to the surface of the ocean that the two are indistinguishable. The ship's hull gets so close to the surface of the water as it recedes that they appear to merge together. Where bodies get so close together that they appear to merge is called the Vanishing Point. 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 vanishing point is not created when perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree.  The vanishing point is a zero dimensional point on a two-dimensional surface,for example: the human retina, that represents a point where two parallel lines appear to meet.  Obviously parallel lines don't meet within any finite distance, therefore the vanishing point is an infinite distance away.  The reason it's called a vanishing point is because it is the point at which no object regardless of any size can be seen.  For this to be possible it's distance has to be infinite.  To say that the vanishing point must be a finite distance away leads to the misconception that objects can pass the vanishing point.  Since the vanishing point in fact represents infinite distance, this is not possible.  This prevents the theorized illusion that boats are 'sinking' behind a flat body of water because of perspective.

In the sinking ship example, we see the hull disappear before the masts.  Rowbotham claims this is due to the hull shrinking to invisible smallness.  However if this is the case, the rest of the boat has to appear to shrink proportionally to the hull!  Does this happen?  If the hidden part of the vessel can be visibly superimposed over what is hiding it, then it hasn't disappeared due to perspective.  If you can imagine the shape of the part of the boat that is invisible where it should be then it hasn't disappeared due to perspective.

markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 41771
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #1 on: July 11, 2010, 09:45:37 PM »
Tom and Rowbotham seem to confuse vanishing point with limit of angular resolution.
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.

?

TheJackel

• 1269
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2010, 07:56:54 PM »
Tom and Rowbotham seem to confuse vanishing point with limit of angular resolution.

Ahh it's not.. Angular resolutions is finite at the vanishing point son.. And it would be impossible for the Sun to vanish completely below the horizontal point regardless of what you think the angular resolution is much less retain a complete full faced flat 2d circle without out angular altercation of the so called "spotlight" to shine horizontally across the flat plane as it sets below the horizon. . And this isn't possible if the Sun is a so called flat disk shining down on a flat Earth at a specific altitude.. This logic collapses because this Disk that is setting as a full circle in the west can't magically be facing full circle down where the Sun is thus in high noon position, or rising in another location at the eastern side lol.. You do understand the angular epic fail in this correct? Hence I can prove your FE argument false by hanging a Flash light on the ceiling and walking away from it in a dark room.. Hence I can't make it set face forward east or west without taking the flash light off the ceiling and shining it across the horizontal plane LOL... Sorry kids but I can call several countries and places across the globe to establish the falsity of a flat Earth and the Sun disk flashlight hanging in the sky theory lol..

So you have to explain in terms of 2D disk, or Sun Disk flashlight shining down on Earth can retain it's perfect circle face at all angles regardless of position on the globe all at the same time.

those seeing the sun setting see : O
Those seeing the sun rising in the East see: O
Those who are now at high noon see : O
Those furthest north and south see: O

That's impossible in the magical flashlight theory across a flat plane son.

here is what an Easter and western setting would look like in terms of the shape of the Flat dish spotlight sun above the vanishing point or horizon line  :  --

As the Sun gets closer it would shape into a horizontal oval until it reached directly overhead to where it would finally show a complete circle.  Hence your flat disk Sun Spotlight can shine and face all directions as a perfect circle all at the same time without being a sphere.. The disk sun and the flat Earth theory is utterly laughable.

So the next time you see the Sun setting to the west, Call the countries where the sun is high noon, mid afternoon, mid morning, dusk, and early morning during a sun rise and ask them what shape the sun is, where it is, what angle it's at in the sky, and what time it is... Add the data, and you will figure out why the Earth is not Flat and that the Sun is indeed not some magical Spotlight Disk..

« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 08:31:27 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

Nolhekh

• 1669
• Animator
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2010, 09:02:56 PM »
If the earth is flat, and sunrises/sets can still occur without the sun ever actually crossing the plane of the earth, the only possible explanation is "bendy light."  Coincidentally, this bendy light would also make the earth look curved, and cause the "sinking ship" effect.

One important difference, however, is that the on flat earth the surface would appear as a convex parabolic curve, while on round earth, the curvature would be globular.  If this can be measured, then it would prove one of the theories.

parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2010, 09:59:18 PM »
One important difference, however, is that the on flat earth the surface would appear as a convex parabolic curve

No, it won't appear like that. What made you come up to such a ridiculous conclusion?
« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 10:09:25 PM by parsec »

• 523
• Its a trap!
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2010, 10:07:46 PM »
One important difference, however, is that the on flat earth the surface would appear as a convex parabolic curve

No.
Thats a pretty indepth post, can a mod please flag him with a warning?
And the Bendy light stuff is a joke <.<

EnglshGentleman

• Flat Earth Editor
• 9548
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2010, 10:54:22 PM »
One important difference, however, is that the on flat earth the surface would appear as a convex parabolic curve

You seem to misunderstand EA. The surface doesn't change at all do to bendy light. Bendy light explains the sun going over the horizon among many things. The sun appears to go down because the light is coming in from an angle.

ClockTower

• 6462
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2010, 11:13:12 PM »
One important difference, however, is that the on flat earth the surface would appear as a convex parabolic curve

You seem to misunderstand EA. The surface doesn't change at all do to bendy light. Bendy light explains the sun going over the horizon among many things. The sun appears to go down because the light is coming in from an angle.
Aside from the bad quoting (which I do often enough myself), I believe that you didn't read Nolhekh's post correctly Please review. Thanks.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 12:48:27 AM by ClockTower »
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

EnglshGentleman

• Flat Earth Editor
• 9548
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2010, 11:20:16 PM »
One important difference, however, is that the on flat earth the surface would appear as a convex parabolic curve

You seem to misunderstand EA. The surface doesn't change at all do to bendy light. Bendy light explains the sun going over the horizon among many things. The sun appears to go down because the light is coming in from an angle.
Aside from the bad quoting (which I do often enough myself)

Purposeful?

?

TheJackel

• 1269
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2010, 11:40:17 PM »
If the earth is flat, and sunrises/sets can still occur without the sun ever actually crossing the plane of the earth, the only possible explanation is "bendy light."  Coincidentally, this bendy light would also make the earth look curved, and cause the "sinking ship" effect.

One important difference, however, is that the on flat earth the surface would appear as a convex parabolic curve, while on round earth, the curvature would be globular.  If this can be measured, then it would prove one of the theories.

LMAO,

I can prove this wrong via laser, or even a basic set of mirrors at equal distance, level, and angle.. You clearly have no idea how light refracts, or bends..  And regardless of this, it still would epically fail to address the problem I provided you lol.. Apparently there is a reading comprehension problem as to why bending light will not magically fix the problem lol.. To some observers, the flash light would be at the far east horizon facing an observer with it's full 360 degree circular shape (O), while it also be facing the far west horizon with a full 360 degree circular shape (O), and these two observers alone completely falsify your FE argument, and Sun disk spotlight argument.. When we add the observer directly under the Sun to the other stated observers the Sun again has the full 360 degree circle Shape (O).. Hence this is now 3 sides of a Circular disk you claim to be a Flat spotlight disk shining down on Earth..  But it gets worse, I can add 2 more points of reference of two more observers at the furthest points north and south relative to the other 3 observers and yet again establish a 360 degree circle Shape (O).. No amount of "light bending" is going to fix this kiddo.. That's 5 sides (below, east, west, north, and south) with 360 degree full view all at the same time. This makes the flat Sun Disk spotlight a laughable joke because the only possible observer to see a perfect 360 disk would be the person directly underneath the spot light LOL..  So going in order north south east, west, and point of view directly under the sun, the Sun's shapes would look like this:  ---, ---, ---, ---, O  with the (O) disk shape representing high noon only according to a flat earth, or according to the physics, geometry, and angular perception of a flat disk spotlight moving along a flat plane.. And bending light isn't going to fix this no matter if you bend the light even a full 90 degrees lol..

If you think I'm wrong.. Go out at night and hang a Flashlight from a tree branch and walk away from it LOL.. FE fails entirely by a merely simple flashlight experiment that anyone perform in their own back yard. No matter how far you get from it, your bendy light nonsense is going to epically fail. Your flashlight from the tree isn't going to magically follow your eyes and start shining horizontally in your direction much less all other directions LOL.. So your friend on the West side isn't going to see the (O) facing him either.. The only observer that's going to see the (O) will be the one directly under the the flashlight lol..

All I had to do was add 3 or more points of reference, add the angles, note the shape of the sun and we thus have FE failure on an Epic level ;P

And it gets worse as you continue to add  more points of references that deal with the angle in which the sun is in the sky from both the horizon and the individuals point of perspective.. If you collect all the data from around the world in regards to who can see the Sun at any given moment, the data shows the impossibility of a flat disk spot light sun, and a flat Earth due to the angles, and the math associated from all points of reference.. The math alone will show the curvature of the Earth according to all the points of reference in accordance to the suns position and shape within the sky, and horizons..

This is why FE tries to diagram a single persons perspective or or point of reference when using diagrams such as the above.. And notice the Bendy light guy doesn't give the position of the sun LOL and then calculate how light bends, and refracts from it Seriously, we are this stupid, and we know why the Earth isn't flat LOL.

« Last Edit: July 13, 2010, 11:57:25 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

EnglshGentleman

• Flat Earth Editor
• 9548
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #10 on: July 13, 2010, 11:41:59 PM »
If the earth is flat, and sunrises/sets can still occur without the sun ever actually crossing the plane of the earth, the only possible explanation is "bendy light."  Coincidentally, this bendy light would also make the earth look curved, and cause the "sinking ship" effect.

One important difference, however, is that the on flat earth the surface would appear as a convex parabolic curve, while on round earth, the curvature would be globular.  If this can be measured, then it would prove one of the theories.

LMAO,

I can prove this wrong via laser, or even a basic set of mirrors at equal distance, level, and angle.. You clearly have no idea how light refracts, or bends

Prove me wrong then. How exactly would you prove it with a mirror and laser?

ClockTower

• 6462
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #11 on: July 14, 2010, 12:50:13 AM »
One important difference, however, is that the on flat earth the surface would appear as a convex parabolic curve

You seem to misunderstand EA. The surface doesn't change at all do to bendy light. Bendy light explains the sun going over the horizon among many things. The sun appears to go down because the light is coming in from an angle.
Aside from the bad quoting (which I do often enough myself)

Purposeful?

Not all, just 'inherited' the open 'quote' when using the on-board quoting button. So, do you understand that because something appears to be different, it many not be?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17732
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2010, 01:10:24 AM »
Quote
The vanishing point is not created when perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree.  The vanishing point is a zero dimensional point on a two-dimensional surface,for example: the human retina, that represents a point where two parallel lines appear to meet.  Obviously parallel lines don't meet within any finite distance, therefore the vanishing point is an infinite distance away.

Humans cannot see to infinity. There must be a point where the parallel lines appear to merge, as train tracks might merge in a geometric diagram.

Whether these tracks are 15 miles long or 1500 miles long, the human eye cannot see where they end because the human eye cannot see to infinity.

Quote
The reason it's called a vanishing point is because it is the point at which no object regardless of any size can be seen.
For this to be possible it's distance has to be infinite.  To say that the vanishing point must be a finite distance away leads to the misconception that objects can pass the vanishing point.  Since the vanishing point in fact represents infinite distance, this is not possible.

The vanishing point cannot represent infinite distance because humans cannot see to infinity.

The vanishing point occurs as far as the human eye can see. This is neither an infinite distance away, or particularly far from the observer.

Quote
In the sinking ship example, we see the hull disappear before the masts.  Rowbotham claims this is due to the hull shrinking to invisible smallness.  However if this is the case, the rest of the boat has to appear to shrink proportionally to the hull!

The body does shrink in proportion.

Quote
Does this happen?  If the hidden part of the vessel can be visibly superimposed over what is hiding it, then it hasn't disappeared due to perspective.  If you can imagine the shape of the part of the boat that is invisible where it should be then it hasn't disappeared due to perspective.

The ship can be restored with the aid of a telescope, demonstrating that it is not actually hiding behind a "hill of water" as Round Earth Theory suggests.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon

Also see:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 01:14:42 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

zork

• 3319
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2010, 01:21:37 AM »
The ship can be restored with the aid of a telescope, demonstrating that it is not actually hiding behind a "hill of water" as Round Earth Theory suggests.
It can't really. Your Rowbotham didn't actually see hull sink and then he didn't restore it. He just wasn't able to see with naked eye the full ship and when he then took telescope then he did see the full ship and Voilą, the ship is restored. When it actually wasn't. It was just his bad eyesight.
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

ClockTower

• 6462
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2010, 01:26:22 AM »
The ship can be restored with the aid of a telescope, demonstrating that it is not actually hiding behind a "hill of water" as Round Earth Theory suggests.
It can't really. Your Rowbotham didn't actually see hull sink and then he didn't restore it. He just wasn't able to see with naked eye the full ship and when he then took telescope then he did see the full ship and Voilą, the ship is restored. When it actually wasn't. It was just his bad eyesight.
If TB's point was correct, then a digital zoom of, or a magnifying glass over, the picture of Toronto skyline from across the lake in New York would restore the Tower, but it doesn't. (Remember that the photo captures all the same photons that your eye would have received.) One has to wonder about Tom's credibility when he makes claims that simply are not true.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Hortensius

• 213
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2010, 04:03:29 AM »
Humans cannot see to infinity.
... because the human eye cannot see to infinity.
... because humans cannot see to infinity.

No? Why not?
Horentius is correct.

?

Hortensius

• 213
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2010, 04:05:10 AM »
The ship can be restored with the aid of a telescope, demonstrating that it is not actually hiding behind a "hill of water" as Round Earth Theory suggests.

Not true.
Horentius is correct.

?

Nolhekh

• 1669
• Animator
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2010, 06:54:19 AM »
Humans cannot see to infinity. There must be a point where the parallel lines appear to merge, as train tracks might merge in a geometric diagram.

There is no point where parallel lines appear to merge.  A point is a zero dimensional entity.  parallel lines appear to merge at an angle, not a point.  They actually merge at the vanishing point.  And the whole point of the vanishing point is that represents infinity, since that is the distance humans can't ever see!

Quote
Whether these tracks are 15 miles long or 1500 miles long, the human eye cannot see where they end because the human eye cannot see to infinity.
yes, there is a limit, but that limit does not occur at the vanishing point.  Vanishing point has zero width, while the tracks, beyond human vision have width measured in angular units.  Therefore the limit of human vision does not coincide with the vanishing point.

Quote
The vanishing point cannot represent infinite distance because humans cannot see to infinity.
The whole point of the vanishing point is that it represents infinity.  Notice the word "vanishing"  next to the concept of "humans not being able to see."  The vanishing point is not some physical object that humans are expected to see.  It's a zero dimensional entity.  It has zero thickness.  an object with finite distance has > zero thickness even if too small to be seen.  a zero thickness entity representing distance will yield a divide by zero error, which often means infinity.

Quote
The vanishing point occurs as far as the human eye can see. This is neither an infinite distance away, or particularly far from the observer.
Again you describe a one dimensional entity, not a point.  The vanishing point is a point, which is zero dimensional.

Quote
The body does shrink in proportion.
Show me this

Quote
The ship can be restored with the aid of a telescope, demonstrating that it is not actually hiding behind a "hill of water" as Round Earth Theory suggests.
again show me

Quote
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon

Also see:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

I don't want stories.  I want photographs of these observations from at least three separate occasions.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 03:13:55 PM by Nolhekh »

?

Nolhekh

• 1669
• Animator
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2010, 07:10:18 AM »
One important difference, however, is that the on flat earth the surface would appear as a convex parabolic curve

You seem to misunderstand EA. The surface doesn't change at all do to bendy light. Bendy light explains the sun going over the horizon among many things. The sun appears to go down because the light is coming in from an angle.
And the true horizon looks lower than the astronomic horizon, because the light is coming in from an angle.

markjo

• Content Nazi
• The Elder Ones
• 41771
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #19 on: July 14, 2010, 07:13:54 AM »
There must be a point where the parallel lines appear to merge, as train tracks might merge in a geometric diagram.

No, there doesn't.
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.

?

Nolhekh

• 1669
• Animator
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #20 on: July 14, 2010, 03:18:53 PM »
Evidence that the earth does not appear flat:

ClockTower

• 6462
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2010, 03:20:44 PM »
Evidence that the earth does not appear flat:
Nicely done. Thanks.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 03:36:27 PM by ClockTower »
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

bowler

• 871
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2010, 03:22:24 PM »
I like.

Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17732
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #23 on: July 14, 2010, 04:48:02 PM »
Actually, the images are drawn wrong. Perspective always ends at the horizon. Never above it.

« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 04:51:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

TheJackel

• 1269
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #24 on: July 14, 2010, 04:59:06 PM »
If the earth is flat, and sunrises/sets can still occur without the sun ever actually crossing the plane of the earth, the only possible explanation is "bendy light."  Coincidentally, this bendy light would also make the earth look curved, and cause the "sinking ship" effect.

One important difference, however, is that the on flat earth the surface would appear as a convex parabolic curve, while on round earth, the curvature would be globular.  If this can be measured, then it would prove one of the theories.

LMAO,

I can prove this wrong via laser, or even a basic set of mirrors at equal distance, level, and angle.. You clearly have no idea how light refracts, or bends

Prove me wrong then. How exactly would you prove it with a mirror and laser?

Some Fun Videos!

(3 Dimensional mirage..the fun video for giggles)

Marshall et al. gedanken experiment of the quantum superpposition of a mirror (oscilating part of a Michelson interferometer) interacting with single photon is consequently interpreted by relative decoherence.Such relative decoherence (based on the spontaneous superposition breaking (effective hiding)) on the photon (quantum object) caused by mirror (measurement device) is sufficient to model real measurement.

All I have to do is take two fixed mirrors facing each other (equal in hight, and size) and reflect a focused beam of light over a distance of X into each other. According to your Bendy light the mirrors would never reflect a laser beam into each other without having to adjust one of the mirrors to compensate to such a bend, or over a shorter distance reflect each others image. By looking in the mirror, and tracking a focused beam of light we can see that your example is false. Long distance laser tests, light refraction, particle physics, all prove that no such bend as you described is how light works here on earth.. So according to you the focused beam, or laser should bend over a distance to which we can easily measure according to your Diagram. And sadly for you, that's not how it works

The Best way I can show this is with laser light shows and military night Optics.. You can feel free to show me the Bendy light

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fb8_1179834832&o=1

Again you can feel free to show me your magical bending light..
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

ClockTower

• 6462
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #25 on: July 14, 2010, 05:12:58 PM »
Actually, the images are drawn wrong. Perspective always ends at the horizon. Never above it.

Do tell us what evidence you have to back up your claim: "Perspective always ends at the horizon.". We see straight perspective lines being up the horizon in many cases, but only one is needed to prove you wrong, yet again. Oh and Nolhekh provided that.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #26 on: July 14, 2010, 05:15:20 PM »

The Earth on those pictures is flat!

Another victory for FE!!!

?

TheJackel

• 1269
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #27 on: July 14, 2010, 05:27:03 PM »

Quote
The Earth on those pictures is flat!

Another victory for FE!!!

LOL, Talk about moronism, That does not show a flat Earth you idiot lol.. Oh wow, and you wonder why people like you are to stupid to have this conversation LOL.. If you want to play circular Troll games you might actually want to get an education first. Do yourself a favor and learn what a circumference , radius, and what diameter is to understand why this isn't going to show curvature or a flat plane in regards to the size of the planet. If you want to talk stupid, go back to retard school and re-educate yourself..

Those pictures are why the Bending light theory in FE is a laughable joke, and you might want to watch the IR videos to understand why that is..

FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

Tom Bishop

• Flat Earth Believer
• 17732
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2010, 05:29:35 PM »
Actually, the images are drawn wrong. Perspective always ends at the horizon. Never above it.

Do tell us what evidence you have to back up your claim: "Perspective always ends at the horizon.". We see straight perspective lines being up the horizon in many cases, but only one is needed to prove you wrong, yet again. Oh and Nolhekh provided that.

Perspective always ends at the horizon.

It might be possible to angle some lines on a paint program to where the image perspective lines end above the horizon. But they really don't.

« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 08:31:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

TheJackel

• 1269
Re: Rowbotham and Bishop's misconception of perspective
« Reply #29 on: July 14, 2010, 05:34:19 PM »
You do know that the close you get to the ground the closer the vanishing point is? the Horizon can in fact be above the vanishing point.. You obviously don't consider elevation, and not just in terms of the camera, but geologically.

But yes if you had a definite perfect horizon to judge from it would exactly meet the horizon line. Earth however has elevations and this is why a higher point of view is necessary to establish a more accurate VP and Horizon line. The higher the point of view the better the FOV to establish an accurate horizon line and whether or not it's flat, or curved.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 05:50:35 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?