Unraveling Perspective

  • 6 Replies
  • 3417 Views
*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Unraveling Perspective
« on: April 02, 2016, 07:48:56 AM »


These rays suggest the sun is just above the clouds, yet if it were that close, a plane, which can travel far above the clouds, could fly into it, so it's obviously not that close.



These rays suggest the sun is just above the trees, yet we know that's impossible.



Is this illusion caused by perspective, or something else?

Sphere Earthers say it's perspective, parallel rays appear to diverge/converge as they move toward/away from you, like parallel train tracks.

But then I thought, there's too much convergence/divergence exhibited by these rays, because most of the convergence/divergence is happening within the earths atmosphere, where as if the sun is a million miles away, most of the convergence/divergence should be happening outside of the earths atmosphere, from the clouds to the ground that's merely a few miles or so.

But then I saw the train tracks converging/diverging only a kilometer or so away, even though they extend for many, many miles.

But still, I've heard Sphere Earthers say the horizon is produced by the curvature of the earth, now they're telling us the crepuscular rays are produced by perspective, so what gives, which is it?

They can't have it both ways.

Is the convergence of these train tracks produced by the curvature of the earth?

But that's too much curvature too soon + the train tracks could be curving downwards slightly, flat or curving upwards slightly and they'd still have that effect so long as they're moving away from you.

So it follows we can't use crepuscular rays nor the horizon to determine the distance of the sun, nor the curvature of the earth.



Are we supposed to believe the convergence of this hallway is caused by it ending or curving downward, obviously not, likewise the horizon is caused by your eyes, it's subjective.

Furthermore, I don't believe the horizon is absolute, smaller things will produce a nearer horizon, bigger things will produce a farther horizon.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2016, 11:13:03 AM by Antithecyst »
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3608
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Unraveling Perspective
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2016, 09:12:33 PM »
That's a loooong hallway.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

Re: Unraveling Perspective
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2016, 12:17:05 AM »
Sphere Earthers say it's perspective, parallel rays appear to diverge/converge as they move toward/away from you, like parallel train tracks.

But then I thought, there's too much convergence/divergence exhibited by these rays, because most of the convergence/divergence is happening within the earths atmosphere, where as if the sun is a million miles away, most of the convergence/divergence should be happening outside of the earths atmosphere, from the clouds to the ground that's merely a few miles or so.

But then I saw the train tracks converging/diverging only a kilometer or so away, even though they extend for many, many miles.

So your question is answered?

But still, I've heard Sphere Earthers say the horizon is produced by the curvature of the earth, now they're telling us the crepuscular rays are produced by perspective, so what gives, which is it?

They can't have it both ways.

Why would both the horizon and the crepuscular rays be caused by the same effect? It's FE-theorists who claim the horizon is merely caused by perspective, but observations show that this is not so. The RE can have it both ways because it's two different phenomena with two different causes. There's nothing especially complicated about that.

Is the convergence of these train tracks produced by the curvature of the earth?

But that's too much curvature too soon + the train tracks could be curving downwards slightly, flat or curving upwards slightly and they'd still have that effect so long as they're moving away from you.

No, the convergence isn't caused by curvature, and the RE model doesn't claim that it is.

So it follows we can't use crepuscular rays nor the horizon to determine the distance of the sun, nor the curvature of the earth.

That doesn't follow at all. I am not sure if it is or isn't possible to use crepuscular rays to determine the distance of the sun or the curvature, but there is no logical connection between your statements.



Are we supposed to believe the convergence of this hallway is caused by it ending or curving downward, obviously not, likewise the horizon is caused by your eyes, it's subjective.

Uh, so the hallway is not caused by curvature, therefore the horizon is not caused by curvature? That's a non sequitur, your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. You'd first have to establish that both the apparent convergence of the hallways and the horizon are caused by the same effect, and you haven't done so. In fact, you cannot do so, as there is a multitude of pictures available on this forum that shows how objects at the horizon behaves completely differently from a perspective effect.

Furthermore, I don't believe the horizon is absolute, smaller things will produce a nearer horizon, bigger things will produce a farther horizon.

What you believe isn't relevant to what the truth is. The questio is what do you know and how do you know it?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Unraveling Perspective
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2016, 05:52:11 AM »
These rays suggest the sun is just above the clouds, yet if it were that close, a plane, which can travel far above the clouds, could fly into it, so it's obviously not that close. Is this illusion caused by perspective, or something else?
As you say the "obvious solution" (that the sun is just above the clouds) is ridiculous to Flat or Globe supporters.

Yes, it is really an optical illusion caused by perspective and the presence of the clouds.

The example I will use is taken quite for north of the Equator (and the Tropic of Cancer) in Scotland and is a frame at 5:42 in the video

Crepuscular rays i.e. Optical Illusion of the Sun's Diverging / Spreading Rays
The full title of the video claims "Flat Earth Debunked: crepuscular rays i.e. optical illusion of the sun's diverging/spreading rays" but it doesn't really debunk the Flat Earth.

In the photo I have shown on the right I have extended the rays and they do indeed meet at a point that appears close to the earth.
But just consider how close! The base of Cumulo-Nimbus clouds is usually at about 1,000 m, so I have stretched things a bit and estimated that the apparent position of the sun might be about 2,000 m high and directly that Scottish loch.

But, even "Flat Earth Theory" tells us that the sun is at an altitude of roughly 5,000 km, 2,500 times higher than our estimate! Something is very wrong.
Not only that, but we have the sun appearing to be directly over a Scotland - probably 3,600 km north of northmost excursion of the Flat Earth sun - C'est impossible!

So, Flat Earth or Globe, to suggest that the convergence point of these rays shows us a sun at 2,000 m altitude is ridiculous.

Crepuscular Rays Explanation

So, what is going on? Now the reason I haven't answered this question before was that I found the explanation of "perspective" (yes, that hoary old subject) hard to swallow too. Then I watched the video I referred to above a bit more carefully, and this is how is seems to pan out.


This time I have taken the same picture, "removed" the clouds, but left the sun, the rays and the indicators of where the sun was shining through the clouds.
Suddenly, there seems to be no problem! The sun looks to be in quite a normal position in the sky and any light reaching those points on the loch would pass through the location we have marked. The clouds are further away than they seemed to be at first sight.

To me, and I hope to you, there seems to be no question about it. The presence of the clouds distorts our ideas of perspective.

Mind you now, in my opinion at least, these photos of "Crepuscular Rays" (on their own!) do not provide evidence either way on the Flat ~ Globe debate.

It is simply an optical illusion, but one that I had found hard to explain.
The video Crepuscular rays i.e. Optical Illusion of the Sun's Diverging / Spreading Rays I referred to is a bit slow, but probably worth watching




Crepuscular Rays Explanation - no Clouds
« Last Edit: October 23, 2018, 07:59:29 PM by rabinoz »

*

Antithecyst

  • 700
  • Epistemological Anarchist
Re: Unraveling Perspective
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2016, 05:53:23 PM »
Sphere Earthers say it's perspective, parallel rays appear to diverge/converge as they move toward/away from you, like parallel train tracks.

But then I thought, there's too much convergence/divergence exhibited by these rays, because most of the convergence/divergence is happening within the earths atmosphere, where as if the sun is a million miles away, most of the convergence/divergence should be happening outside of the earths atmosphere, from the clouds to the ground that's merely a few miles or so.

But then I saw the train tracks converging/diverging only a kilometer or so away, even though they extend for many, many miles.

So your question is answered?

But still, I've heard Sphere Earthers say the horizon is produced by the curvature of the earth, now they're telling us the crepuscular rays are produced by perspective, so what gives, which is it?

They can't have it both ways.

Why would both the horizon and the crepuscular rays be caused by the same effect? It's FE-theorists who claim the horizon is merely caused by perspective, but observations show that this is not so. The RE can have it both ways because it's two different phenomena with two different causes. There's nothing especially complicated about that.

Is the convergence of these train tracks produced by the curvature of the earth?

But that's too much curvature too soon + the train tracks could be curving downwards slightly, flat or curving upwards slightly and they'd still have that effect so long as they're moving away from you.

No, the convergence isn't caused by curvature, and the RE model doesn't claim that it is.

So it follows we can't use crepuscular rays nor the horizon to determine the distance of the sun, nor the curvature of the earth.

That doesn't follow at all. I am not sure if it is or isn't possible to use crepuscular rays to determine the distance of the sun or the curvature, but there is no logical connection between your statements.



Are we supposed to believe the convergence of this hallway is caused by it ending or curving downward, obviously not, likewise the horizon is caused by your eyes, it's subjective.

Uh, so the hallway is not caused by curvature, therefore the horizon is not caused by curvature? That's a non sequitur, your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. You'd first have to establish that both the apparent convergence of the hallways and the horizon are caused by the same effect, and you haven't done so. In fact, you cannot do so, as there is a multitude of pictures available on this forum that shows how objects at the horizon behaves completely differently from a perspective effect.

Furthermore, I don't believe the horizon is absolute, smaller things will produce a nearer horizon, bigger things will produce a farther horizon.

What you believe isn't relevant to what the truth is. The questio is what do you know and how do you know it?
The horizon obviously has a much, if not everything to do with perspective.
It's where earth and sky meet.
Are you saying earth and sky meeting has nothing to do with perspective and everything to do with the earth's supposed curvature?

It's funny how the sun and boats setting, these two effects are produced only after the horizon (which again, has much, if not everything to do with perspective), and not before.
Maybe, maybe the setting of objects has something to do with perspective too.

You know what we don't see at the horizon?
Curvature, where's the curvature?
If the horizon is where the earth begins to noticeably convexly curve, blocking and causing objects to rise/set as they move toward/away from the observer, if we can see curvature in between us and the horizon, why can't we see curvature from one end of the horizon to the other?
Even if we go up in altitude, we can't see it.
If 10 miles from the observer to or passed the horizon gives you 66 feet of curvature, why can't we see 66 feet of curvature from one side of the horizon to the other?
Even if we increase our altitude, so we can see more of the horizon we still can't see it.
If you can see a 10 miles of horizon, the horizon should bulge 66 feet at the center.
This could be an indication the rising/setting of objects is also due to perspective, that it has nothing to do with earth's assumed curvature.

Besides perspective, another explanation besides curvature is how the atmosphere is thicker near the water, causing the sun to sometimes rise/set behind the thicker atmosphere and not the water.
Another is ocean waves and hills going over the observers head.
Lastly, light, especially light coming from the bottoms of distant objects, could be dragged down by the Earth's gravity on its way to the observer.

There's nothing consistent in Round Earther's explanations, whenever the data supports them, when we seem to see as much curvature as we should see, they take it as absolute confirmation of their model, whenever we see less or none, they say it's a matter of perspective, or a mirage, even when there's little to no evidence suggesting a mirage, and can be more simply explained by a flat plane.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Aristotle

If you're not sinning against the scientific, religious and political status quo, than you're not really thinking.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Unraveling Perspective
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2016, 06:02:30 PM »
That's a loooong hallway.

Or a wiiiiiide angle lens !
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

Re: Unraveling Perspective
« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2016, 08:44:06 AM »
The horizon obviously has a much, if not everything to do with perspective.
It's where earth and sky meet.
Are you saying earth and sky meeting has nothing to do with perspective and everything to do with the earth's supposed curvature?

So, let me first note that you have declined to actually adress most of my points, and have not answered a single one directly. Why is that?

Concerning your actual question, no, I am not saying that. I don't know why you'd assume I want to say that. My exact wording was that, according to RE, the horizon is not "merely caused by perspective", which doesn't mean perspective isn't involved at all. Again, there is nothing especially complicated about that, and no need to twist words around.

It's funny how the sun and boats setting, these two effects are produced only after the horizon (which again, has much, if not everything to do with perspective), and not before.
Maybe, maybe the setting of objects has something to do with perspective too.

You merely claim that the horizon has "much if nor everything" to do with perspective. Claiming something isn't an argument, so your claim can be dismissed without argument.

If the sinking of objects behind the horizon were a perspective effect, you would be able to either a.) find another example of this same effect occuring in some other conditions (i.e. not at the horizon) or b.) explain the exact way perspective causes this effect. Please provide either an example for a.) or an explanation for b.).

You know what we don't see at the horizon?
Curvature, where's the curvature?
If the horizon is where the earth begins to noticeably convexly curve, blocking and causing objects to rise/set as they move toward/away from the observer, if we can see curvature in between us and the horizon, why can't we see curvature from one end of the horizon to the other?
Even if we go up in altitude, we can't see it.
If 10 miles from the observer to or passed the horizon gives you 66 feet of curvature, why can't we see 66 feet of curvature from one side of the horizon to the other?
Even if we increase our altitude, so we can see more of the horizon we still can't see it.
If you can see a 10 miles of horizon, the horizon should bulge 66 feet at the center.
This could be an indication the rising/setting of objects is also due to perspective, that it has nothing to do with earth's assumed curvature.

It could or it could not be. Ending an analysis with "it could be" is an intellectually dishonest attempt at trying to get the reader to make connections based on insufficient evidence. If you were honestly debating, you'd tell us exactly how it is an indication of your conclusion, i.e. you tell us your chain of logic.

As to your question itself: Your field of view more limited than the range at which you can discern objects. In simple terms: You can see a fair few kilometers forward, but the picture you get isn't as wide. And then, you would only see the curvature when looking at very far-out objects, and noticing 66ft difference between objects kilometers away will be hard. If you go up high enough, you can see the curvature, but then all pictures of that are dismissed as fake without argument.


Besides perspective, another explanation besides curvature is how the atmosphere is thicker near the water, causing the sun to sometimes rise/set behind the thicker atmosphere and not the water.

Please explain how this effect would work.

Another is ocean waves and hills going over the observers head.

Ships sink beyond the horizon in calm seas as well. How would a hill of water form on a flat earth?

Lastly, light, especially light coming from the bottoms of distant objects, could be dragged down by the Earth's gravity on its way to the observer.

Massive objects bend spacetime, not light itself. If an object was massive enough to bend light that the effect would be noticeable in all kinds of other situations, and you would not see a horizon, but a black line.


There's nothing consistent in Round Earther's explanations, whenever the data supports them, when we seem to see as much curvature as we should see, they take it as absolute confirmation of their model, whenever we see less or none, they say it's a matter of perspective, or a mirage, even when there's little to no evidence suggesting a mirage, and can be more simply explained by a flat plane.

You seem to be unaware of how empirical knowledge works. A theory has to be the best available explanation of all observations to be accurate. It doesn't help if you claim one or two observations can be better explained by another theory - that would simply be cherry-picking. And technically, there are no individual theories of a flat or a round earth - these are just subsets of a larger "current theory of everything". We use these subsets because they are convenient, even necessary, for thinking. But you cannot simply take a set of observations and fit a theory to them - it needs to be integrated with the other theories so it actually explains all observations. Our theories of a round earth, of refraction and gravitation, form such an interlocking system. Flat Earth theory does not - it can only explain cherry-picked observations, it does not inerlock with the rest of out knowledge to explain all observations.