Perspective

Have you ever drawn a hall way on a sheet of paper? THat is a representation of the law of perspective right. the image will eventually converge to a point.( VANISHING POINT.) This still works on a flat earth.

 

Have you ever drawn a hall way on a sheet of paper? THat is a representation of the law of perspective right. the image will eventually converge to a point.( VANISHING POINT.) This still works on a flat earth.

So the flat earth has walls?

Have you ever drawn a hall way on a sheet of paper? THat is a representation of the law of perspective right. the image will eventually converge to a point.( VANISHING POINT.) This still works on a flat earth.

You’d like to think so, wouldn’t you.

However Rowbotham had some odd ideas about perspective to explain observations like ships hulls disappearing over the horizon before the masts.

I linked to it earlier. 

Things like the vanishing point being a specific distance away (determined by resolution of the eye and getting further away if you are higher.

Bizarre.

Note how the parallel lines converge at different points based on their distance from the eyeline.

All looks heading to the same spot to me (some slight variation from imperfect construction perhaps).

The rails are meeting at the horizon. All other higher lines are converging well above it.

The rails are meeting at the horizon. All other higher lines are converging well above it.

No I'm pretty sure if you took it out to its vanishing point they would all converge at one spot.

Note how the parallel lines converge at different points based on their distance from the eyeline.

Nope.
I notice them all converge at the same point, but with the low resolution it can be hard to tell (especially as many of the lines aren't straight the entire length, and there is no certainty that they are actually parallel).

I'm going to ask my question again because Ski ignored it. Ok, first, logic. The flat earth theory is all over the internet, and not many people have been convinced that the earth is flat, which means that so far, there has been no undeniable piece of evidence that 100% proves the earth is flat, because if there was, then we would all know the earth is flat. Keep that in mind.

So, according to flat earthers, the whole government knows the earth is flat, and that they are lying to the public, lets talk about that. Anybody can become a government official, and since almost all of the world's population thinks the earth is round, then that means almost all of the people who gain positions in the government thinks the earth is round. So, what are these people told that 100% convinces them that the world is flat, even after being told their WHOLE lives the earth is round? It would need to be undeniable proof, that nobody can argue with, that nobody can ignore, and that nobody can disprove. If this proof exists, then that means NOBODY but members of the government know about it, because it's obviously not on the internet, or in a book, for everybody would know about it by now, and everybody would know the earth is flat as a result of it. This leads to other questions, how has that secret not gotten out to the public yet? Who found this undeniable piece of evidence?  Was he/she a part of the government when he/she discovered it, or did he/she simply notify the government of his/her findings? If he/she did notify the government, and wasn't a part of the government, then why? Please explain.

Hi Billy,

I understand completely.  Trying to understand why people think it’s a valid hypothesis (let alone da troof) is why many of us are here.

However, try not to bombard Ski with off topic questions. He/she appears to be one of the few people willing to answer our questions, and we should appreciate that.

There are other threads for the conspiracy side of things.

Hi Billy,

I understand completely.  Trying to understand why people think it’s a valid hypothesis (let alone da troof) is why many of us are here.

However, try not to bombard Ski with off topic questions. He/she appears to be one of the few people willing to answer our questions, and we should appreciate that.

There are other threads for the conspiracy side of things.

Well I asked him if I can ask him some questions, and he said yes.

Why is everyone in the government in on this secret again?

Why is everyone in the government in on this secret again?

Because I have been told that multiple times. Well, do you belive at least some of the government is in on it?

Probably the people at the head of space agencies. Almost certainly.

Probably the people at the head of space agencies. Almost certainly.

Ok, so can you answer my questions with that belief instead?

Any globular conspiracy is long-lived.  Proof of the flat earth is everywhere around you. Why has noone seen it? Everyone has seen it. No one considers it. And why would we? We've been indoctrinated since birth. It makes no nevermind to most people's lives. People nearly universally like the comfort of the status quo, of quaint beliefs, efen if they know them to be untrue. So hardly surprising that people that do not know, stay in their comfort zones.

Any globular conspiracy is long-lived.  Proof of the flat earth is everywhere around you. Why has noone seen it? Everyone has seen it. No one considers it. And why would we? We've been indoctrinated since birth. It makes no nevermind to most people's lives. People nearly universally like the comfort of the status quo, of quaint beliefs, efen if they know them to be untrue. So hardly surprising that people that do not know, stay in their comfort zones.

But that isn't my question.

How does "Rowbotham's special perspective" explain cities disappearing from the bottom up?

Any globular conspiracy is long-lived.  Proof of the flat earth is everywhere around you. Why has noone seen it? Everyone has seen it. No one considers it. And why would we? We've been indoctrinated since birth. It makes no nevermind to most people's lives. People nearly universally like the comfort of the status quo, of quaint beliefs, efen if they know them to be untrue. So hardly surprising that people that do not know, stay in their comfort zones.

But that's the thing if the proof was everywhere around us we would see it. The only evidence I ever see for a flat earth is that it looks flat. That can also be explained by being close to the surface of a very large sphere.
Pretty much everything else indicates a globe.

How does "Rowbotham's special perspective" explain cities disappearing from the bottom up?

I linked to the chapter in his, erm, seminal opus a few posts up.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on June 06, 2018, 08:27:19 AM

How does "Rowbotham's special perspective" explain cities disappearing from the bottom up?

I linked to the chapter in his, erm, seminal opus a few posts up.

Yes, I'm aware of his series of illustrations of "things that never actually happen in real life" in an attempt to lead us down the garden path.  He says the hull of a ship disappears before the sails because of this proposition:

"any distinctive part of a body will become invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body,"


Let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that this isn't an absolute load of bollocks and that it does apply to sailing ships.

What I want to know is how this could possibly apply to a skyscraper?

There’s also some stuff about height.

Doesn’t seem to bode well if multiple (strange) explanations are given for the same thing.

Anyway, as far as I know, that’s all we have to go on about his ideas.  Maybe there’s more I’m not aware of?

The base is closer to the eyeline and so recedes at a larger rate than those objects farther from it. It's all covered in ENaG.

The base is closer to the eyeline and so recedes at a larger rate than those objects farther from it. It's all covered in ENaG.

But that's simply not how perspective works.

Quote from: THEREALDILL23 on June 05, 2018, 10:00:44 AM

Have you ever drawn a hall way on a sheet of paper? THat is a representation of the law of perspective right. the image will eventually converge to a point.( VANISHING POINT.) This still works on a flat earth.

So the flat earth has walls?

Does the ice wall count?

Proof of the flat earth is everywhere around you. Why has noone seen it? Everyone has seen it.

No. No one sees it. No one is able to produce it.
All we have are claims of this magical proof, but no proof has ever been provided.
All the evidence in the world that is capable of determining Earth's shape indicates it is round.
No one is being indoctrinated with RE belief, they are just being taught the truth.

The base is closer to the eyeline and so recedes at a larger rate than those objects farther from it. It's all covered in ENaG.

No it does not.
The eyeline is wherever you are looking.
If that was the case if you looked at the top it would disappear.

How about explaining why anything like that should happen rather than continuing to assert it.
What causes this magic preferential direction for perspective?

The base is closer to the eyeline and so recedes at a larger rate

This is just arrant nonsense.    Nothing is receding, let alone at a "larger rate"

Anyway, we are not talking about "the base" of the buildings, in the Chicago photo I linked, but entire buildings out of view over the horizon with only the very tops of the highest skyscrapers in view. 

than those objects farther from it. It's all covered in ENaG.

No, it isn't.  I do like that you stick to old skool flatism in ENaG, however you are really only left with hand waving  "bendy light" to explain most of Chicago disappearing.  Although jroa does try to explain it via "swells", which must in fact be terrifying tsunamis to obscure hundreds of metres of skyscraper.

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.

The further you are from something, the smaller it looks. this is why you can't see the Eiffel Tower from England, for example.

Quote from: Ski on June 06, 2018, 12:17:41 PM

The base is closer to the eyeline and so recedes at a larger rate

Anyway, we are not talking about "the base" of the buildings, in the Chicago photo I linked, but entire buildings out of view over the horizon with only the very tops of the highest skyscrapers in view. 

Of course they have. The perspective lines formed by the bases become indistinguishable at a faster rate than the tops because they are nearer the eyeline. The exceptional difference in distance between the eyeline makes it a powerful example of Dr. Rowbotham's (indeed Nature's) perspective.

I do like that you stick to old skool flatism in ENaG, ... Although jroa does try to explain it via "swells", which must in fact be terrifying tsunamis to obscure hundreds of metres of skyscraper.

I was late to advance perspective because it was not immediately clear to me what exactly he was espousing, and further, I had some formal training in art in my youth which needed deconstructing (or at least, at first "suspending" ) before the idea could make headway with me.  I dismissed it as a deadend until I reread it on chance one night and the concept became crystal clear. It is really rather simple and elegant and perfectly describes what is evident to our eyes immediately, but the explanation is torturous. Still now, however, I can think of no better way to actually describe it than Rowbotham did in his chapter.I

The eyeline is wherever you are looking.

Instead of continuing to baselessly arrogate yourself to the position of somesort of understanding (and worse yet, an "educator"), perhaps you could avail yourself of the opportunity to remain silent and learn something by looking into the descriptors "eyeline" (classically), eye-level (modernly), and horizon line (less frequent as the horizon itself is often obscured in a painting/drawing/render) which in the world of art all have the same meaning.