Perspective

Simply question I would like answered to further discussion.

How does perspective work on the flat earth model?

On the globe model, perspective is defined by angles and straight lines, yet I see a lot of flat earthers claiming that either people have a personal perspective, or that sight has a limited range, or that due to the sights limited range, the earth and the sky meet at eye level at the horizon, and many other claims.
All these flat earth claims seem to oppose the general rules of perspective, which are rather simple rules based on light travelling in straight lines.
I'd like to know what the consensus is on perspective, as that is the fundamental way we observe reality, and if it is different I will need to account for that.

I don't see why this doesn't constitute as a question for the Q&A section, as I was not interested in a debate but simply an answer from the currently used FE theory?

I don't see why this doesn't constitute as a question for the Q&A section,

FE Q&A is for questions about FE and answers for same.
I mean, it's right there in the title.

Let's dissect your failure . . .

Simply question I would like answered to further discussion.

How does perspective work on the flat earth model?

You started off with a demand for debate followed by a vague question about perspective that you could only know to ask if you already knew the answer had been asked by every n00m ever.

You then go on to harangue about assorted stuff that is not a question.

On the globe model, perspective is defined by angles and straight lines, yet I see a lot of flat earthers claiming that either people have a personal perspective, or that sight has a limited range, or that due to the sights limited range, the earth and the sky meet at eye level at the horizon, and many other claims.
All these flat earth claims seem to oppose the general rules of perspective, which are rather simple rules based on light travelling in straight lines.
I'd like to know what the consensus is on perspective, as that is the fundamental way we observe reality, and if it is different I will need to account for that.

That is why this doesn't constitute as a question for the Q&A section.

If you have any further confusion, read the rules.

Quote from: SphericalEarther on June 04, 2018, 02:00:10 AM

Simply question I would like answered to further discussion.

How does perspective work on the flat earth model?

You started off with a demand for debate followed by a vague question about perspective that you could only know to ask if you already knew the answer had been asked by every n00m ever.

I would argue that I did not demand a debate, but rather would use the answers given for debate (which would be to use the answer in this debate forum of course)
I can accept however that my wording might have been misleading.

Also I would argue that this question has not been answered. I even made a previous debate about it, but flat earthers seem to not answer it, but rather sidestep it without answering if it is different or the same.

You then go on to harangue about assorted stuff that is not a question.

Quote from: SphericalEarther on June 04, 2018, 02:00:10 AM

On the globe model, perspective is defined by angles and straight lines, yet I see a lot of flat earthers claiming that either people have a personal perspective, or that sight has a limited range, or that due to the sights limited range, the earth and the sky meet at eye level at the horizon, and many other claims.
All these flat earth claims seem to oppose the general rules of perspective, which are rather simple rules based on light travelling in straight lines.
I'd like to know what the consensus is on perspective, as that is the fundamental way we observe reality, and if it is different I will need to account for that.

A simple question 'how does perspective work on a flat earth' will most likely have a simple answer 'perspective is how we observe reality' or similar.

By giving information in regards to the question, and why I am asking it, I was hoping for a better answer. It was to narrow down the question, so it could be answered more precisely compared to my given knowledge of the math/angle based perspective that is used on the globe earth.

If the consensus from flat earthers is that perspective is math based as we use it on the globe earth, it would be a simple and fast answer, and I can then argue from that baseline in discussions on the debate forum.
If the consensus is that perspective behaves differently, then I would very much like a defined set of rules for it which can be used for debate and hopefully simulated to some degree.

I would argue that I did not demand a debate,

Now you know better.

It can be difficult to comprehend.

Try memorizing this . . .

FE Debate is for FE Debate.
FE Q&A is for FE Q's&A's

Quote from: SphericalEarther on June 04, 2018, 02:00:10 AM

I would argue that I did not demand a debate,

Now you know better.

It can be difficult to comprehend.

Try memorizing this . . .

FE Debate is for FE Debate.
FE Q&A is for FE Q's&A's

It feels like you are trying to start a fight. Please stop trolling. I've been very reasonable and logical, and so far you have been extremely demeaning, which is not fit of a moderator to be.

So if I repost the question without the line:
Simply question I would like answered to further discussion.
Then you are okay with it?

or simply change it to:
Simple question I would like answered.

I already know debate is for debate, hence why I'm posting most of my topics here.
I also know that if I simply need an answer by a flat earther without debate, it should go into Q&A. Which was what I was doing.
Can't help that you misunderstood my intent.

the earth is not small enough to be able to see the curves, you dunderheads. you can only see it if ur high enough in the atmosphere. when you are on earth, the curves are the reason you cant see farther than you can. if the earth was flat, you would be able to see everything

the earth is not small enough to be able to see the curves, you dunderheads. you can only see it if ur high enough in the atmosphere. when you are on earth, the curves are the reason you cant see farther than you can. if the earth was flat, you would be able to see everything

I believe your in the wrong thread... =)

Quote from: Bullwinkle on June 04, 2018, 04:05:24 AM

Quote from: SphericalEarther on June 04, 2018, 02:00:10 AM

Simply question I would like answered to further discussion.

How does perspective work on the flat earth model?

You started off with a demand for debate followed by a vague question about perspective that you could only know to ask if you already knew the answer had been asked by every n00m ever.

I would argue that I did not demand a debate, but rather would use the answers given for debate (which would be to use the answer in this debate forum of course)
I can accept however that my wording might have been misleading.

Also I would argue that this question has not been answered. I even made a previous debate about it, but flat earthers seem to not answer it, but rather sidestep it without answering if it is different or the same.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on June 04, 2018, 04:05:24 AM

You then go on to harangue about assorted stuff that is not a question.

Quote from: SphericalEarther on June 04, 2018, 02:00:10 AM

On the globe model, perspective is defined by angles and straight lines, yet I see a lot of flat earthers claiming that either people have a personal perspective, or that sight has a limited range, or that due to the sights limited range, the earth and the sky meet at eye level at the horizon, and many other claims.
All these flat earth claims seem to oppose the general rules of perspective, which are rather simple rules based on light travelling in straight lines.
I'd like to know what the consensus is on perspective, as that is the fundamental way we observe reality, and if it is different I will need to account for that.

A simple question 'how does perspective work on a flat earth' will most likely have a simple answer 'perspective is how we observe reality' or similar.

By giving information in regards to the question, and why I am asking it, I was hoping for a better answer. It was to narrow down the question, so it could be answered more precisely compared to my given knowledge of the math/angle based perspective that is used on the globe earth.

If the consensus from flat earthers is that perspective is math based as we use it on the globe earth, it would be a simple and fast answer, and I can then argue from that baseline in discussions on the debate forum.
If the consensus is that perspective behaves differently, then I would very much like a defined set of rules for it which can be used for debate and hopefully simulated to some degree.

It doesn't matter how you ask the question, you won't get a proper answer.

It doesn't matter how you ask the question, you won't get a proper answer.

Yeah, I think I'll quit these forums, as flat earthers on this site can't think logically or answer questions with the ability to back up their claim logically.
Seems they like to find small details instead and make huge discussions of it, avoiding the questions.
Never defending the model, always claiming truth and science, when they can't even make simple predictions themselves.
Never learning and admitting their faults to the globe model, always claiming fake.
I see no reason to continue here as nothing will change, even when spending hours making images with explanations, they just turn a blind eye to what they requested.

So bye bye flat earthers and the opposing force, I'll see you in 20 years when space flights have become commercial.

Rowbotham covers perspective in his opus ENaG.

 

Rowbotham covers perspective in his opus ENaG.

I thought the point of this website was to enlighten people on the Earth's true shape, why do you refuse to do so? Just answer the question here.

Perspective

Why can't YOU answer it?

Why must I restate the same conversations I've been having a decade with you when the material is right there?

Why must I restate the same conversations I've been having a decade with you when the material is right there?

Because I want to hear the answer directly from a flat earther right now.

The heart of Rowbotham's (indeed Nature's) perspective is that parallel lines nearer the eyeline converge more rapidly than those farther away. This is what makes art school perspective appear unnatural.

The heart of Rowbotham's (indeed Nature's) perspective is that parallel lines nearer the eyeline converge more rapidly than those farther away. This is what makes art school perspective appear unnatural.

How does this explain the sun going under the horizon? And also, can you answer some other questions I have?

I don't think it is sufficient to account for the setting of the sun.

I don't think it is sufficient to account for the setting of the sun.

Alright, but can you answer some of my other questions please?

Please Ski?

The heart of Rowbotham's (indeed Nature's) perspective is that parallel lines nearer the eyeline converge more rapidly than those farther away. This is what makes art school perspective appear unnatural.

I disagree.  Art school perspective appears quite natural to me.

Please Ski?

What other questions am I to answer?

Quote from: Ski on June 04, 2018, 11:12:07 AM

The heart of Rowbotham's (indeed Nature's) perspective is that parallel lines nearer the eyeline converge more rapidly than those farther away. This is what makes art school perspective appear unnatural.

I disagree.  Art school perspective appears quite natural to me.

I agree. That's actually the point of it to make things look natural.

Here’s the original of the whole perspective thing.

Don’t expect it to make much sense though.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

Rowbotham covers perspective in his opus ENaG.

You mean he gets it completely wrong and tries to use the curvature of Earth to prove his false claims about perspective to pretend there is no curvature?

The heart of Rowbotham's (indeed Nature's) perspective is that parallel lines nearer the eyeline converge more rapidly than those farther away. This is what makes art school perspective appear unnatural.

Nope. That is just his. It has nothing to do with nature.

Nature's perspective is quite simple. The further away things are, the smaller they appear due to their reduced angular size.
It has no preferred direction like RowBoats.

The key part of art school perspective which is unnatural is that they have the convergence point being at the horizon while in reality it is past the horizon (technically at infinite distance), but usually it only appears to be slightly beyond the horizon so for most purposes it is fine.

Do you have anything to offer beside your blind assertions?

Do you have anything to offer beside your blind assertions?

Have you considered asking yourself the same thing?

It is quite well known that ignoring refraction and gravitational lensing (which are not part of perspective) light travels in straight lines.
These straight lines results in light from different parts of objects coming in at different angles, and the further away something is the smaller it appears as the angle between the light coming from the far parts of the object is smaller.

This can also be used on the distance between 2 objects.

It has no preferred direction.

Is their any part of this you object to?
If so, what part and why?

Parallel lines of perspective converge to the same point only when equidistant from the eyeline.

Parallel lines of perspective converge to the same point only when equidistant from the eyeline.

Got anything to back that up?
So far everything I have seen indicates the opposite; that all parallel lines, regardless of how far away they are, will converge at one point, infinitely far away. (i.e. if you take a line, all lines parallel to it converge at a point infinitely far away).

And what do you mean by eyeline?
Is this simply a line projected straight out in front of your eyes in the direction you are looking, or a line which magically follows the surface of Earth?