Perspective & Perception : The Sky-Dome.

  • 3 Replies
  • 2398 Views
?

Ryan Onessence

  • 325
  • All and neither; make of it what you will
Perspective & Perception : The Sky-Dome.
« on: May 20, 2012, 03:50:06 PM »
Perspective & Perception : The Sky-Dome.
 

Disclaimer: a line like so denotes a suggested rest/memory retention point to avoid info overload. The following presentation equals 7 pages of size 12 TNR font. The content herein is not especially scientific, it is logical, mostly sensorily verifiable thought provocative analyses, which are best approached with curiosity and an open mind.
 
Synopsis.

Herein will be detailed reasons to suggest why the anomalies at the brink of ones perceptual scope are neither evidence that Earth's surface is flat or curved - convex or concave

The Horizon Line:

Apparently the Horizon at sea-level, for an observer with a height of 1.70m standing on the ground, is 4.65 km. It rests at ones relaxed eye level.

If one is to hold their gaze to the highest angle they can, whilst standing straight without tilting their head, the highest point in which they can see is actually further than 4.65km. This fact has lead many to assume that this means that the horizon is the distance in which things begin to drop behind the curvature of the earth, when actually natural eyesight has an uneven threshold to which it is limited and the Horizon line - the medium band of this threshold has the closest retention. This is because the eyes lenses are receptive not projective and the pupil is the part of the organ which absorbs/attracts the light into the rods and cones which then filter the optical data such as colour depth etc. that the brain then creates a 3D image of.

However the visual threshold is limited to different distances depending on the level of the atmosphere it is receiving from. Variables in the saturation of light and its angle/arc-velocity, moisture and air pressure (which create distortions/accentuations or diminishment of the actual size and or distance to which sense data can be received), are what determines the limit of ones visual scope at any given angle.

The horizon line is the area of ones visual threshold which is limited the most,

Because:

1. light has travelled the furthest to get there.
2. The arc-velocity (otherwise known as bendy-light) is at the greatest compression thus acting as a filter on the retention rate of visual reception.

3.The atmosphere is at its most dense serving as a further filter.

4. Additionally as potential weather variables:
Natural lens-like refraction (the effect of an image projecting closer or further away than it is) and further velocity of arcing – resulting in the appearance being compressed so to appear smaller due to moisture and or ice crystals at low altitude, this being dependant on the weather and/or season.

All of these variables account for a number of potential combinations of reasons for why an object may appear further away or closer than it is in reality.
[b/]
The reverse of what has been explained here can account for why the limit of one's scope is extended further as the angle of gaze is elevated above the horizon.

_____________________________________

Thought experiment:

If the atmosphere were not present and one were suspended in the centre of a huge sphere, the distanced of the spheres surface would be equally far away from every point with no distortions, provided the light source were also emanating from the central vantage point.
 
This would mean one's perception of the sphere's inner surface would have no distortions of distance ratio, every possible angle of observation would be seen as the exact same distance. Hence, if the sphere were then to expand outward it would eventually pass beyond the limit of ones visual threshold.

The true limit of one's threshold is as good a guess as anyone's, as this experiment in reality is practically improbable. The optical distortions of distance lead us to 2 conclusions which support the hypothesis of a limited threshold to the visual scope of living beings.

1. It is not possible to see forever with the naked eye, this is why telescopes are required to observe the outer cosmos - there is a definite point upon which objects begin to shrink beyond observation.   
 
 2. This therefore means that what is observable in the sky as stars and luminous astronomical objects that are further away than the highest known point of the atmosphere, are beaming light through it which  saturates the air particles within the range of one's  scope...

Its note worthy to understand that the size of observable stars according to the popularly held Copernican world view, is taken for granted. One's immediate senses cannot show them that they are as large and as far as they are said to be, for the simple fact that one does not view the light from the point of origin. The light seen has travelled to ones scope of perception.

All proposed distances of the stars are calculated in contrast by the estimated distance and size of our own sun by comparison to the intensity of light and Einstein's speed of light equation. This does not take into account that space may be spherically warped and variate in Aetheric density. Even Einstein supposed there were an Aether. There are no measuring instruments that can directly measure actualised distances of a stars light.

The notions presented so far can now serve as a means to discuss the perceptual phenomena of objects disappearing beyond the horizon and the uncertainties which surround the assumed speculations that are so often taken as given truths.
These “truths” have been habitually ingrained into each generation and no one has bothered to question the foundations upon which they stand because they are presented as fact, when in fact they are elaborate assumptions supported by a number of complementary guesses, which all more or less fit together nice enough so as to make relative sense.
_____________________________________

Now you can get to know an alternate point of view.

Fig 1.
http://s1098.photobucket.com/albums/g369/Ryan_Onessence/?action-view&current=PerspectiveA-1.jpg

Firstly the depiction in figure 1. can set a frame of reference as to how things are in reality, before perceptual distortions are accounted for. Bear in mind the diagram is not drawn to scale so does not cater to a specific over all shape of the earth's surface. It is depicted as a straight surface for simplicities sake – being that it mostly envisages the spans of the suggested area of one's immediate observation.

Whilst Observing fig 1. take the point upon which the sun is perched and contend with that level of altitude. The distance between the surface of the beach/ocean
and that altitude can be set as absolute, in so much that that altitude exists all across the world and is always the same general distance from the depicted surface level.

Next take note of the line of sight that extends from the person standing on the beach from the left over to the orange point just beyond the boat. In Fig 2 - a little further down the page, the person and the orange point are labelled as a and b.

Now the key to fathom how objects on the horizon distort, is the fact that in reality a straight line from eye level will run geometrically parallel to the surface of the earth all the way to the horizon and once beyond - depending on the cosmology one contends with – the 2 lines will either, a. continue knack and knack given the Earth is flat, or b. the surface will dip away from the line of sight or c. it will rise up and intersect it - in the same way as the rectilineator experiments conducted by the Koreshan Society/Religion along the beach of Florida during the early 1900's, are said to have proven Cyrus R Teed's hypothesis that the Earth is concave i.e. that we are inside a hollow world, and the atmosphere's appearance is an illusion of bending light.

The nature of perception is that things shrink as they get further away and eventually disappear from sight as they become smaller than the eyes reach of visual reception - not to be confused with clarity, for one with short sight can still receive light into the retina from the same limit as one with “perfect” long sight, the eye's lens are what determine the resolution of clarity, and the retina is the base part which taps the quantum medium or substratum which light propagates through. The retina's radial limit of the quantum medium is more or less the same for all people, it's limit of scope is a product of the eyes innate design as a whole, and its finite constituents  are the main reason for why the yield of size retention of objects, diminishes outwardly i.e. stuff shrinks but resolution can be kept crisp if one's lenses are focused for long sight. If one is short sighted the retina is still  accessing objects from the same scope limit but the objects are blurry instead and may appear closer than the limit actually is.
_____________________________________

In light of these factors one can comprehend the implications of perspectives that are explained with the help of figure 2.

Fig 2. 
http://s1098.photobucket.com/albums/g369/Ryan_Onessence/?action-view&current=Perspectiveb.png

Note: the boats deck being drawn level with the horizon is not intended to suggest that a boats deck will always appear at horizon level as it gets closer to it. It may appear above it before disappearing out of sight. The illustration is merely showing how the boat will shrink toward the vanishing point, this will occur anywhere from both the top and the bottom of the boat according to where the horizon line sits in relation, and will change depending on distance. Hence the deck at times may appear below, on or above the horizon

The surface of the Earth can now be seen as tapering up toward the line of sight. The horizon is now shown as how it appears for an observer, resting at eye level i.e. where the orange point b is marked. The surface of the ocean and the base of the atmosphere converge toward one another and the seem where they meet is  where the horizon-line sits for the observer (point b.)

Because perception causes everything to shrink to some extent as the limit of ones scope diminishes, the horizon line is therefore the point upon which things become somewhat tiny before they disappear altogether (if not so tiny that they cannot be seen at all from or before they reach such a distance). Hence an object will begin to compress and shrink to some extent as it passes beyond.

Its also note worthy to consider that the actual horizon line itself appears before the exact limit of which the eye's retina can receive light from. A way to compare this effect is with two straight edges or even finger tips will suffice. Hold them against a plain background with ample lighting and you will see how as you bring the edges together holding them very close without actually touching them, there will be a slight bleed over effect whereby they appear as if they are touching. It's sort of like how when a droplet of water is touched the spherical shape of the droplet will immediately de-form as it clings to and spreads out across whatever surface it is in contact with. Except where two straight objects are concerned the convergence of both edges, exactly parallel, produces this merging effect as tho they seem to become like liquid able to expand into one another before they actually make physical contact. This is thus synonymous with the effect produced by the surface of the ocean and the base of the atmosphere as they produce the horizon line - especially because they are of different reflective calibre so there is an intermingling of their unique reflective signatures, this effect will be refer to as the phantom limit. Therefore some light is being received from a point which resides beyond the phantom limit and can add to the additional factors of atmospheric lensing conditions and the arc-velocity's compression of bending light. Note: this implies that sometimes the phantom limit may reduce or cancel out these factors and vice versa.
_____________________________________

This helps one fathom that in the case that an object is large enough so as to not shrink into obscurity before passing beyond the horizon (such as a large boat) that at some point it will be subject to the   
phantom limit and the anomalies described, where the level just above the horizon (the base of the atmosphere) and the surface of the ocean do not blend in equal ratio to one another's reflective signature (of optical lensing and refraction) thus causing indiscernible blending of distances between ones true limit of scope and the phantom limit.

To fully grasp what is meant by this statement a visualisation can be done.

Imagine the horizon line as a line drawn on paper and then draw another line directly above and touching it, so that the initial line is now thicker. Continue to add layers thus increasing the thickness of this line, except each addition is less bold than the original. So what's being visualised is a gradient with the horizon line symbolised by the boldest at the base, all the lines that progress above become softer. This is because the lines above are symbolising a less dense level of refraction whereby the clarity compresses less as the arc-velocity takes a more obtuse stride, meaning it doesn't curve at as intense an angle so the geometry of the ray is less acute before it reaches ones eyes thus allowing larger volumes of distance to magnify than the horizon's phantom limit. This effect also occurs to the levels below the horizon tho it is imperceivable to the physical perception because the ocean is not as transparent and where the ground is concerned it isn't transparent at all. This is still relevant however regarding the compression of objects as they shrink into the distance, for although the ocean or ground is closer than the levels of one's limit below the horizon, the quantum medium that they reside upon is still occupying the eye's scope of reception. Think of it as a field of transmission, so the ocean is denser and thus one can only see the immediate level - much closer than what the eye's retina is tapping as a field of quantum energy which extends beyond the apparent surface's distances - thus the lower half of the field of scope is still at a quantum level extending to the same innate limit as the upper hemisphere of one's scope, hence point e in fig 2 represents the mirror of the upper limit of one's scope i.e. points a-c-d-f-b. This is also indicative that the distances in front of the apparently reflected surface - be it ocean or ground, are occupied by the lowest levels of the atmosphere which are invisible in front of the perceivable surface below the horizon. Thus they are also subject to compression (diminished clarity) as they proceed outward up to the horizon, tho this is obvious, it is only apparent - as with all atmospheric perception - when a distinct object of reference is occupying such levels of this otherwise invisible effect upon the atmosphere. 

Now getting back to the line-gradient visualisation,
Each line that progresses above the horizon but which is still within the scope of one's true limit, represents an amount of compression, whereby objects shrink to sizes of less discernible clarity and resolution. As this occurs the definition of objects being compressed such as a boats hull, may begin to blend into or be obscured by the ocean as different levels of lensing magnification and resolution-deterioration occur due to a combination of both the phantom limit and numerous refraction factors that have been addressed.   

This entails that the horizon line - being the boldest of the gradient i.e. the densest level of distance between the phantom limit and the true limit, will compress the hull of a boat more than the higher softer levels of gradient above which the mast - being a much greater vertical length than the hull - will therefore occupy. This renders the mast of boats and ships as the last thing to be seen as they pass beyond the true point of the horizon's limit. The effect of the ocean and hull blending together is a result of the gradients of clarity - refraction/magnification of the closer levels of water in contrast with further away levels of the hull; the hull residing in between the phantom limit and the true limit thus resulting in obscurity as the water before the phantom limit is magnified by closer gradients of clarity of which receive and reflect light at less acute arc-velocity compression than the phantom limit
_____________________________________

In the case that a cloud appears to be hugging the horizon line, this can be attributed to the fact that the cloud is much higher than it appears due to the compression and curving incline of one's scope. If you recall the example that was shown earlier where the sun was used to gauge a reference point of altitude in fig 1. this will make more sense.

Any line that could represent a given altitude is subject to the same perceptual distortions as the surface of the Earth, that being  decline from a point at any level directly above ones head, which  steadily sweeps down toward the horizon in the same manner that the Earth sweeps upwards.

This means that the base of a cloud hugging the horizon is in fact occupying a high altitude and is relatively further away then the top of the cloud. So the cloud's base existing at a level of altitude higher than the horizon is therefore subject to more atmospheric lensing effects that magnify it since the arc-velocity of light at that altitude sweeps up into higher less dense levels and therefore propagates forward into the perceptible range. Hence where it appears at the horizon line is not where it originates (it is not on the surface of th eworld just appears to be so due to the downward slant of its altitude at a larger distance; magnified forward by an obtuse arc-velocity angle), so it is not subject the effects of the phantom limit which has influence on objects that do originate at or  closer to the horizon in so far as being the actual surface of the world where light has hit the most acute angle rendering the scope of objects within its magnification as diffused by the acute compression effect – akin to if one intentionally blurs/unfocuses their eyes whilst looking at a sharp line – it dilutes and becomes semi-transparent, add to this the fact that light further away - arriving at the appearance of the horizon line from a higher altitude is less obtuse in compression (more clarified/sharp) so then projects through this transparency of the lower acute compression and appears closer than things which diffuse right upon the horizon line/surface of the world.
[/size]       

« Last Edit: May 20, 2012, 03:54:13 PM by Ryan Onessence »
http://soundcloud.com/orin-zolis/sets/world-music-ethnic-beats/

Knowledge gained via academic means and intelligence are not mutually inclusive. Those who assume authority and superiority over conventionally uneducated persons would be wiser to keep this in mind.

?

Ryan Onessence

  • 325
  • All and neither; make of it what you will
Re: Perspective & Perception : The Sky-Dome.
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2012, 03:55:47 PM »
Overview:

The conclusion that can be drawn from this presentation, is that the horizon line - riddled with potentially and or absolutely misleading anomalies of light - is of no discernible quality so as to determine the shape of the Earth. The notion that the mast of ships and boats being the last part to remain observable as they pass beyond horizon, is evidence of the Earth's curvature is a misunderstood assumption that has been repeatedly believed. The calculation of curvature renders the distance that amounts to any shift in a convex degree large enough to get a boat's hull dipping “below” the horizon  is a much larger distance than that of 4.7km. It would seem according to figures that the distance before apparent curvature should be noticeable is much larger than 4.7km. Here is a site with some figures that support this notion -http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/qq/database/QQ.09.02/shirley3.html   It states that every mile, the earth curves 8 inches considering 4.7 km is about 3 & 1/3 km then that's only about 32 inches of curvature from ones position to the horizon line which appears to slant upward anyway negating any perceivable curvature – scratching your head? *chuckle* I sure was.

The fact that a boat will disappear behind the horizon   to an observer at ground level - being around 4.7km away – in the exact same manner as it will when viewed form an elevated altitude, which renders the horizon at a further distance, is there fore evidence that boats are traversing a flat ocean surface when their mast's are the only thing observable from ground level at roughly 4.7km away.
_____________________________________
   
Hot air balloonists have been know to comment on how the horizon line always remains perpendicular to relaxed eye level, some even state it persists as such above some of the highest safe altitudes for breathing without an oxygen tank. Some have also documented in books about how the resulting concave appearance of the horizon - as it rose with them - produces the appearance of being in a large bowl and that the surface beneath them went dim as tho they were rising above the threshold of their perceivable limit of scope. This dimness would make sense if one were to contend with the notion of bending light, as it would account for why within the atmosphere there are certain folds of refracted light which will only enter ones eye from specific altitudes. This means that some rays bypass the surface of the earth below ones exact location, while others meet it, hence leaving the surface dim if one is above the fold of light which would illuminate the Surface if they were in position  to receive it. Once one gets above the sky dome, the folds which pertain to atmospheric refraction no longer apply and one receives the longest arcs of light reflecting off the Earth's surface, thereby yielding to the appearance of the “Earth Ball” or the lit portion of the terrestrial plane - by a seeming “spotlight effect”.     

All of these perceptual anomalies are simply that, effects which appear as something that they really are not. The general assumption that can be made however is that technology can't prove that the appearance of the sky-dome (from within it) lends toward anything other than the notion that the earth is flat.
[/size]
http://soundcloud.com/orin-zolis/sets/world-music-ethnic-beats/

Knowledge gained via academic means and intelligence are not mutually inclusive. Those who assume authority and superiority over conventionally uneducated persons would be wiser to keep this in mind.

Re: Perspective & Perception : The Sky-Dome.
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2012, 04:33:10 PM »
I think there are many spherical earths, ours being one of them, however the "greater earth" is flat and infinite. As I said before the greater earth connects all smaller spherical earths.
JJA voted for Pedro

?

Nolhekh

  • 1669
  • Animator
Re: Perspective & Perception : The Sky-Dome.
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2012, 06:08:48 PM »
I managed to get through the section on the horizon line, and, while I agree with your synopsis, have to disagree with a number of details.  I'll address the rest later when I have time.

The Horizon Line:

Apparently the Horizon at sea-level, for an observer with a height of 1.70m standing on the ground, is 4.65 km. It rests at ones relaxed eye level.
While the horizon does rest at eye level, it does not represent the limit of one's vision.  The furthest distance visible is dependant on the size of the object visible.  If the size and distance of an object mathematically result in the angular size of the object being less than one arc second, the physical shape of that object will become indiscernable to the naked eye. 
Quote

If one is to hold their gaze to the highest angle they can, whilst standing straight without tilting their head, the highest point in which they can see is actually further than 4.65km. This fact has lead many to assume that this means that the horizon is the distance in which things begin to drop behind the curvature of the earth, when actually natural eyesight has an uneven threshold to which it is limited and the Horizon line - the medium band of this threshold has the closest retention. This is because the eyes lenses are receptive not projective and the pupil is the part of the organ which absorbs/attracts the light into the rods and cones which then filter the optical data such as colour depth etc. that the brain then creates a 3D image of.
It is correct that the eyes lenses do not recieve the light, but merely refract the light rays from a common point source onto a focal point on the retina, which recieves and sends colour information, and two-dimensional information only.  Depth is interpreted from having two vantage points (eyes) and using the parallax between them to judge depth.  There is nothing about the optical properties of the eyes that causes them to have different limits of vision due at different inclinations.  The eye's lens and retina have the same shape when it's angled 45 degrees up as when it's level, and therefore the same refractive and receptive properties at both angles, and therefore there is no change in perspective when you look at the sky.
Quote
However the visual threshold is limited to different distances depending on the level of the atmosphere it is receiving from. Variables in the saturation of light and its angle/arc-velocity, moisture and air pressure (which create distortions/accentuations or diminishment of the actual size and or distance to which sense data can be received), are what determines the limit of ones visual scope at any given angle.
this is correct as far as I can tell
Quote

The horizon line is the area of ones visual threshold which is limited the most,
Because:

1. light has travelled the furthest to get there.
2. The arc-velocity (otherwise known as bendy-light) is at the greatest compression thus acting as a filter on the retention rate of visual reception.

3.The atmosphere is at its most dense serving as a further filter.

4. Additionally as potential weather variables:
Natural lens-like refraction (the effect of an image projecting closer or further away than it is) and further velocity of arcing – resulting in the appearance being compressed so to appear smaller due to moisture and or ice crystals at low altitude, this being dependant on the weather and/or season.

All of these variables account for a number of potential combinations of reasons for why an object may appear further away or closer than it is in reality.
[b/]
The reverse of what has been explained here can account for why the limit of one's scope is extended further as the angle of gaze is elevated above the horizon.[/size][/font]
I'm not sure that anything should appear closer or further away than in reality, so I see no reason to address your reasoning to support this phenomenon.

I should point out that there are two horizons.  This is very important when discussing perspective.  There is the visible horizon, that is the apparent line the divides sea from sky, and there is the true, mathematical horizon, which represents a direction that is truely horizontal from eye/camera level.  This distinction is important because the visible horizon would be subject to all of the phenomena you have just listed, plus the curvature of a concave earth, and can therefore deviate from the true mathematical perspective, and become either below or above truely horizontal.  But due to all of these same phenomena, the actual distance of the visible horizon can vary greatly.  In the context of a round earth, the actual edge of the earth is the limit, give or take a few kms due to refraction.  For a flat earth, same thing in the context of bendy light, and without bendy light, the horizon represents whatever distance becomes less than 1 arc second from the edge of the spotlight sun.  So, your conclusion here, I guess, is technically correct, but my point is that there is no actual fixed visual threshold.

I apologise if I misinterpreted the gist of your message, I feel like I'm not actually arguing your points precisely.  I struggle greatly with my communication skills, and your vocabulary and syntax are more formal than I'm used to.  I remain confident in my powers of spatial reasoning, however, and hope I have communicated the conclusions I've made with my strengths well enough for you to understand them, even if they don't adress your points precisely.