Do Stars Move?

its to scale thats why. i do see your point though. are you saying that over that distance its hard to tell? only the scaled picture its easy to see.

Such a small diagram is entirely incompatible with demonstrating perspective. Perspective behaves differently depending on the size of the scene. See the Cessna vs Jet example I described above:

For a visual imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.

Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 13, 2012, 11:27:49 AM

The stars are moving at a constant pace into the horizon. They don't build up near the horizon line and wouldn't change configuration.

Regardless if you move to another location on the earth, or you wait for the stars to move, they are not going to build up and change configuration on the horizon line if they are descending at a constant pace in relation to each other.

this quote in particular needs more reasoning. if i was to walk down the road at a constant pace the street lights still appear to 'squash' together even though they are receding at a constant velocity.

I'm saying that the stars moves downwards towards the horizon at a constant velocity, just as a jet moves more constantly across the sky the higher it is. Scroll upwards to the Cessna vs. Jet example.

The stars are at such a height that they have maximized the perspective lines and all move at a constant pace downwards towards the horizon, no longer building up in the distance.

arnt the stars just reaching the vanishing point though, or are you suggesting something different is happening?

Such a small diagram is entirely incompatible with demonstrating perspective. Perspective behaves differently depending on the size of the scene. See the Cessna vs Jet example I described above:

Actually, small scale diagrams are entirely compatible with demonstrating perspective as long as the all of the angular and distance ratios are consistent.  In fact, that's the point of scale diagrams.

Look back to my indefinitely long shoe box example.

If we have an indefinitely long shoe box with a peep hole at one end (5 inch high ceiling with walls spaced 8 inches apart, extending indefinitely lengthwise from the end of the box), when we look inside the peephole the walls of the box will appear to meet at a point in the distance. This point where they meet is called the Vanishing Point.

Now, say that we also have an indefinitely long ampatheter with a 500 foot tall ceiling and walls spread apart by 800 feet. The Vanishing Point for the ampatheater will be much further away than the Vanishing Point of the shoe box. The walls and ceiling of the ampatheater are spaced apart wider, and therefore they will need to recede a greater distance to meet. This happens regardless of whether the shoe box has the correct ratio of the ampatheater and the sides of the box are labeled with "500 feet" and "800 feet".

Hence, any scaled model of perspective is invalid for purposes of accurately representing reality.

Tom,

You claim perspective causes the Sun to appear to meet the horizon despite there being 3000 miles between the two.  Yet somehow perspective also keeps the stars from appearing to get closer together as they move away (though perspective does make them go down to the horizon).  This makes no sense at all.

Also, should we disregard the diagrams in ENaG since "any scaled model of perspective is invalid for purposes of accurately representing reality"?  While others may appropriately disregard them for other reasons, your rules seem to require you to disregard them as well.

As markjo said, a scale diagram which has accurate angles and ratios can properly illustrate the apparent change in appearance due to perspective.

Tom,

You claim perspective causes the Sun to appear to meet the horizon despite there being 3000 miles between the two. Yet somehow perspective also keeps the stars from appearing to get closer together as they move away (though perspective does make them go down to the horizon).  This makes no sense at all.

Why is it so hard to believe?

Perspective can do a lot. Pick up an optical illusion book sometime. Most of the effects are just tricks of perspective.

Also, should we disregard the diagrams in ENaG since "any scaled model of perspective is invalid for purposes of accurately representing reality"?  While others may appropriately disregard them for other reasons, your rules seem to require you to disregard them as well.

I freely admit that the perspective diagrams in ENaG are exaggerated. They are a loose visual aid.

As markjo said, a scale diagram which has accurate angles and ratios can properly illustrate the apparent change in appearance due to perspective.

Think about it. You guys are asking for a small diagram to demonstrate what perspective and scale does to objects on a large scale, as opposed to what it does on a small scale.

If the scaled diagram is small then we're only going to see what perspective does on a small scale. Not a difficult idea to grasp.

Look back to my indefinitely long shoe box example.

If we have an indefinitely long shoe box with a peep hole at one end (5 inch high ceiling with walls spaced 8 inches apart, extending indefinitely lengthwise from the end of the box), when we look inside the peephole the walls of the box will appear to meet at a point in the distance. This point where they meet is called the Vanishing Point.

Now, say that we also have an indefinitely long ampatheter with a 500 foot tall ceiling and walls spread apart by 800 feet. The Vanishing Point for the ampatheater will be much further away than the Vanishing Point of the shoe box. The walls and ceiling of the ampatheater are spaced apart wider, and therefore they will need to recede a greater distance to meet. This happens regardless of whether the shoe box has the correct ratio of the ampatheater and the sides of the box are labeled with "500 feet" and "800 feet".

Hence, any scaled model of perspective is invalid for purposes of accurately representing reality.

If your amphitheater is 1200 times larger than your shoe box, then the vanishing point would be 1200 times farther away.  What's so confusing about that?

Did NASA crate these images? Because they are clearly photoshopped, not a realistic view of perspective change.

They're not Photoshopped. In the first one a woman merely has her foot near the camera. The second one is from this place:

See and experience how your brain can be tricked into believing that people are growing and shrinking as they walk across a room!

Watch yourself visibly grow and shrink or make a friend look tiny alongside you. The only one in the country, the Ames Room is a deformed room that creates an astonishing illusion. When you look inside, although the room is heavily distorted it appears completely normal with parallel walls and horizontal floor and ceiling.

This is because the brain has been conditioned to assume that walls of rooms are parallel. The assumption is so strong it completely overrides the fact that people are changing size, even though in the real world this obviously doesn’t happen. Here your brain is willing to accept it as the assumption of parallel walls is much stronger!

Replace each occurence of the word 'Perspective' in this thread with the words 'Unicorn Dust'.

Either will do as well for Zetetic demonstration of phenomena.

its funny because the shoe box and theatre are to scale and demonstrate the diagram is correct.

also i asked if the stars reached the vanishing point like the sun does.

i believe you are inventing your own theories to create your own reality. or to coin the phrase it has been 'bishoped'. 

Did NASA crate these images? Because they are clearly photoshopped, not a realistic view of perspective change.

It's not photoshop, it's called "forced perspective".  It has nothing to do with perspective in accurate scale models and I suspect that Tom knows that.

I admit I was too quick to repond, at first glance the first picture the foot does not look naturally lit, however upon further examination I saw the small amount of sunlight and consequent shadow near the top. 

Quote from: Lord Pythagoras on September 18, 2012, 01:18:28 PM

Did NASA crate these images? Because they are clearly photoshopped, not a realistic view of perspective change.

It's not photoshop, it's called "forced perspective".  It has nothing to do with perspective in accurate scale models and I suspect that Tom knows that.

Tom, your airplanes flying at different altitudes aren't even a remotely accurate analogy for the stars. The stars, according to FET, are all at the same altitude. The example I provided of the two airplanes at the same altitude, same speed, same direction is a much better example.

Tom, your airplanes flying at different altitudes aren't even a remotely accurate analogy for the stars. The stars, according to FET, are all at the same altitude. The example I provided of the two airplanes at the same altitude, same speed, same direction is a much better example.

The Cessna Vs. Jet example shows that bodies travel across the sky more consistently the higher they are.

My point, Tom, is that you are claiming perspective is working in two opposite ways at the same time, on the same objects.

As two objects, which are an unchanging distance apart, get further from the observer, they will appear to get closer together.  This is due to perspective, and is why you say the stars appear to get closer to the horizon as they get further away.  Yet, somehow, the stars do not appear to get any closer to each other (only closer to the horizon), also because of perspective.  This is contradictory, and makes no sense.  At the same time, perspective is also keeping the stars the same distance from each other, as well as in the same constellation shapes, despite the viewing angle increasing as they get further from the viewer.  "Perspective" is incredible!

My point, Tom, is that you are claiming perspective is working in two opposite ways at the same time, on the same objects.

As two objects, which are an unchanging distance apart, get further from the observer, they will appear to get closer together.  This is due to perspective, and is why you say the stars appear to get closer to the horizon as they get further away.  Yet, somehow, the stars do not appear to get any closer to each other (only closer to the horizon), also because of perspective.  This is contradictory, and makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. Perspective causes overhead bodies to appear to intersect the ground at a steep angle, which gets steeper with height. This is why the Cessna passes overhead fast and the Jet passes overhead slow.

"Perspective" is incredible!

Correct.

optical illusions do not support your theory. try demonstrating it with something relevant to the topic and the theory may be taken more seriously. so far all i see is you making a conclusion without evidence to back the claim. not the most zetetic of you tom now is it? are you able to demonstrate this anywhere else but your imagination?

Perspective causes overhead bodies to appear to intersect the ground at a steep angle, which gets steeper with height. This is why the Cessna overhead fast and the Jet passes overhead slow.

That is your explanation for why perspective does not cause stars to appear to get closer together as they get further away?  And also why their perceived arrangement doesn't seem to shift at all as our viewing angle changes?  Could you elaborate as to how "intersecting the ground at a steep angle" explains this?

Also, your picture actually illustrates one point quite well.  That picture only looks like it does because of the artwork being designed to be viewed from a very specific angle.  If viewed at another angle our perception of the image would be drastically different.  Yet somehow, our viewing angle of the stars can change drastically over the course of the day, yet the perceived shape and arrangement of the stars, as well as their apparent distance from each other doesn't change.

There's an easy solution to this, and I may give Tom $1million in monopoly money if he figures it out.