No one knows <Side perspective>_It's the key

Most people are mistaken about perspective. They know it only in straight lines.
But it's wrong. Side perspective is curved. It's the key to a dip of horizon,
ships disappear, etc.,  I don't know how to post pictures on this board. So see the video.
It will be helpful.

ý

Would you cite a source for reference on this ?

I have taken several courses  in Mechanical Drawing and Architectual Drawing , both in High School and College, but I must confess that I had never heard of "Side Perspective". (?)

Just a question on the video.
The caption on the video states :
 "The sea is physically flat , visually round."
How is this explained ?
Isn't the sea is both physically and visually round ?
The sea is so large that it looks flat - especially from the deck of a ship at sea - due to the vast distance involved - but it definitely curves away from the ship in all directions.The key to the dip of a horizon is simply due to the curvature of the earth.
Putting a grain of sand on the top of a beach ball will give you an idea of the sizes and distances  involved.

I don't know how to post pictures on this board. So see the video.
It will be helpful.
[/size][/size]

One way to post pictures is to have them stored on some site that allows "hot-linking" then put the "url" of the picture in the [img][/img] BBCode. The one below the Bold.
As in: [img width=600["url of you picture (.jpg, .png or .gif)"[/img]
Here is a screenshot from your video with width=600:

I'm sure someone can explain it better than I.

Quote from: zorbakim on September 22, 2018, 03:19:18 PM

I don't know how to post pictures on this board. So see the video.
It will be helpful.
[/size][/size]

One way to post pictures is to have them stored on some site that allows "hot-linking" then put the "url" of the picture in the

Code: [Select]

[img][/img] BBCode. The one below the Bold.
As in:

Code: [Select]

[img width=600["url of you picture (.jpg, .png or .gif)"[/img]^
Here is a screenshot from your video with width=600:

I'm sure someone can explain it better than I.

Does he mean the building will get farther away from her and appear smaller to her if she gets farther away from the building ?
The building certainly isn't going to get farther away from her and appear smaller to her if she stands still in one place.
The building isn't going to move. How is the building getting smaller ?

I would like to see his - or someone's - explanation of this post, too, rabinoz .

Most people are mistaken about perspective. They know it only in straight lines.
But it's wrong.

No, most people are correct. You are wrong.
Perspective is simply objects appearing smaller because they are further away.

Side perspective is curved. It's the key to a dip of horizon

Why?
What causes the curve?
Why does it have a preferred orientation?

It will be helpful.

Yes, the start can be helpful, but it would be more so if it was just presented as a series of images with text as the voiceover is useless.
What is important is how you are determining the side view.
You are completely confusing the very real aspect of how it is curved with nonsense required to make a FE work.

In reality, the angular size is not a simple linear function of distance as some people might foolishly think, but I suspect that is rare. That is because they realise that the x axis shrinks as well.
The video is also wrong. The correct function is an inverse tan function, specifically a=atan(h/d), where h is the height of the point above eye level, d is the distance along eye level to it, and a is the angle it subtends.
Thus when the angle is small it can be approximated as a 1/x function, as for small(x), tan(x)~=x, so when h/d is small, a~=h/d.
But at small distances and thus large angles, it is no longer 1/d. The fact it goes above 90 degrees and instead goes off to infinity is a dead give away that it is wrong.

That is nothing like your complete nonsense that objects will magically appear to sink below eye level and the horizon even when they are at eye level or above it.

Did you notice how the video starts? Objects at eye level remain at eye level. Objects above eye level remain above eye level, but get closer to it. Objects below eye level remain below eye level but get closer to it.
There is no magically curving making objects appear to sink, they simply get smaller.

So while it starts off on solid ground, it then throws all sense out the window.

Notice the ship going off into the distance in the model? It gets smaller and smaller, not disappear from the bottom up.
If limited angular resolution was going to be a limiting factor, then small objects would disappear first, and it wouldn't appear to sink from the bottom up, it would also be possible to bring it back into view with a telescope and going higher would make it harder to see as you increase the distance.
If limited visibility through the atmosphere was going to be a limiting factor, then the object would blur to nothing, not disappear from the bottom up.
At best you would have it start to blur from the bottom and have that blur grow in size, but the top of the object would still be well above the horizon.
None of that matches reality.
Instead ships are clearly observed to disappear from the bottom up, as if sinking below the horizon. No telescope is capable of bringing it back, but getting higher easily can. This is with a clear horizon rather than a blur.
This shows it is Earth physically getting in the way.

There are only 2 options:
1 - Earth is round and physically obstructing the view to the object akin to a hill.
2 - Light magically bends such that light coming from the object gets blocked by Earth as it starts off going down and needs to bend back up to reach your eye.

Does he mean the building will get farther away from her and appear smaller to her if she gets farther away from the building ?
The building certainly isn't going to get farther away from her and appear smaller to her if she stands still in one place.
The building isn't going to move. How is the building getting smaller ?

All that part of the video is trying to show is how things get smaller as they move away but we all knew that anyway.
It might have been better if a ship were used because that could naturally move away.

I would like to see his - or someone's - explanation of this post, too, rabinoz .

The whole point of the video is to try to convince us that ships disappear into a layer of haze (or something) and not over the curve.
But zorbakim's video doesn't explain how the tops of these towers also curve down.
Here's a bit more about it: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

Perspective is simply objects appearing smaller because they are further away.

Let's all chip in and buy JackBlack a subscription to Google. 

Quote from: zorbakim on September 22, 2018, 03:19:18 PM

Most people are mistaken about perspective. They know it only in straight lines.
But it's wrong. Side perspective is curved. It's the key to a dip of horizon,
ships disappear, etc.,  I don't know how to post pictures on this board. So see the video.
It will be helpful.

ý

Would you cite a source for reference on this ?

I have taken several courses  in Mechanical Drawing and Architectual Drawing , both in High School and College, but I must confess that I had never heard of "Side Perspective". (?)

Just a question on the video.
The caption on the video states :
 "The sea is physically flat , visually round."
How is this explained ?
Isn't the sea is both physically and visually round ?
The sea is so large that it looks flat - especially from the deck of a ship at sea - due to the vast distance involved - but it definitely curves away from the ship in all directions.The key to the dip of a horizon is simply due to the curvature of the earth.
Putting a grain of sand on the top of a beach ball will give you an idea of the sizes and distances  involved.

Right. You must have never heard of "Side Perspective".
Because it is a completely new word in the world.
If the sea is round, Such a visual phenomenon cannot appear.

Quote from: zorbakim on September 22, 2018, 03:19:18 PM

Most people are mistaken about perspective. They know it only in straight lines.
But it's wrong.

No, most people are correct. You are wrong.
Perspective is simply objects appearing smaller because they are further away.

Quote from: zorbakim on September 22, 2018, 03:19:18 PM

Side perspective is curved. It's the key to a dip of horizon

Why?
What causes the curve?
Why does it have a preferred orientation?

Quote from: zorbakim on September 22, 2018, 03:19:18 PM

It will be helpful.

Yes, the start can be helpful, but it would be more so if it was just presented as a series of images with text as the voiceover is useless.
What is important is how you are determining the side view.
You are completely confusing the very real aspect of how it is curved with nonsense required to make a FE work.

In reality, the angular size is not a simple linear function of distance as some people might foolishly think, but I suspect that is rare. That is because they realise that the x axis shrinks as well.
The video is also wrong. The correct function is an inverse tan function, specifically a=atan(h/d), where h is the height of the point above eye level, d is the distance along eye level to it, and a is the angle it subtends.
Thus when the angle is small it can be approximated as a 1/x function, as for small(x), tan(x)~=x, so when h/d is small, a~=h/d.
But at small distances and thus large angles, it is no longer 1/d. The fact it goes above 90 degrees and instead goes off to infinity is a dead give away that it is wrong.

That is nothing like your complete nonsense that objects will magically appear to sink below eye level and the horizon even when they are at eye level or above it.

Did you notice how the video starts? Objects at eye level remain at eye level. Objects above eye level remain above eye level, but get closer to it. Objects below eye level remain below eye level but get closer to it.
There is no magically curving making objects appear to sink, they simply get smaller.

So while it starts off on solid ground, it then throws all sense out the window.

Notice the ship going off into the distance in the model? It gets smaller and smaller, not disappear from the bottom up.
If limited angular resolution was going to be a limiting factor, then small objects would disappear first, and it wouldn't appear to sink from the bottom up, it would also be possible to bring it back into view with a telescope and going higher would make it harder to see as you increase the distance.
If limited visibility through the atmosphere was going to be a limiting factor, then the object would blur to nothing, not disappear from the bottom up.
At best you would have it start to blur from the bottom and have that blur grow in size, but the top of the object would still be well above the horizon.
None of that matches reality.
Instead ships are clearly observed to disappear from the bottom up, as if sinking below the horizon. No telescope is capable of bringing it back, but getting higher easily can. This is with a clear horizon rather than a blur.
This shows it is Earth physically getting in the way.

There are only 2 options:
1 - Earth is round and physically obstructing the view to the object akin to a hill.
2 - Light magically bends such that light coming from the object gets blocked by Earth as it starts off going down and needs to bend back up to reach your eye.

The trigonometry is only geometrical optics.
Geometrical optics is only a mathematical tool but not real.
On the other hand I found that in my own experiment.

Quote from: zorbakim on September 22, 2018, 03:19:18 PM

I don't know how to post pictures on this board. So see the video.
It will be helpful.
[/size][/size]

One way to post pictures is to have them stored on some site that allows "hot-linking" then put the "url" of the picture in the

Code: [Select]

[img][/img] BBCode. The one below the Bold.
As in:

Code: [Select]

[img width=600["url of you picture (.jpg, .png or .gif)"[/img]
Here is a screenshot from your video with width=600:

I'm sure someone can explain it better than I.

Thanks a lot. 

Right. You must have never heard of "Side Perspective".
Because it is a completely new word in the world.

Yes, because it is made up nonsense.

If the sea is round, Such a visual phenomenon cannot appear.

Why not?
You sure love asserting that but you are yet to explain it.
The simple fact is at the small scale there is no significant curvature, but at the larger scale there is.
This includes when ships go over the horizon, the curvature is significant enough that objects appear to sink, disappearing from the bottom up.
There is no justification for that on a FE.

The trigonometry is only geometrical optics.
Geometrical optics is only a mathematical tool but not real.

No, it isn't optics as it has nothing to do with lenses.
It is simply using math to determine angular size.

The limitations in regards to reality is refraction, which makes objects appear slightly higher (unless they are straight up or for a FE level with you)

On the other hand I found that in my own experiment.

What experiment?
Do you mean the one which showed how it curves when viewed from the side? If so, that matches

Now, can you provide a justification for why light should magically bend upwards?

If the sea is round, Such a visual phenomenon cannot appear.

And since the sea, at least Lake Pontchartrain, really is "round" you would claim that your side perspective cannot appear.
Here's a bit more about it: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

I guess that settles the matter.
The earth really is a Globe. And just to clinch it land and part of a lighthouse are hidden in this video and not a trace of mist or haze.And this partly hidden ship doesn't seem to be hidden in any layer of mist or "humid air" either - look at the sharp horizon.

And "if" the ocean was round ?
Of course the ocean is round !

And I had never heard of the word "atmoplane".
Yes, because it is a made up word !

And "if" the ocean was round ?
Of course the ocean is round !

And I had never heard of the word "atmoplane".
Yes, because it is a made up word !

You've never heard of the word "atmoplane" before?

*searches "atmoplane" by username "Googleotomy"*

Hmm.

UA principle:
The light from an altitude (building etc.) with 'landing trajectory', if surviving from the earth surface or things on it, it will be - by eyesight - the lowest part of an object next to the horizon. While the lower positions from the visible object will not be visible because its light has hit the earth.

The light undergoes upwards hit by the ascending air. It's like airplane when taking off. There is a drive from below.

The light undergoes upwards hit by the ascending air. It's like airplane when taking off. There is a drive from below.

Nope!

UA principle:
The light from an altitude (building etc.) with 'landing trajectory', if surviving from the earth surface or things on it, it will be - by eyesight - the lowest part of an object next to the horizon. While the lower positions from the visible object will not be visible because its light has hit the earth.

Nope! Neither UA nor gravity bend light near the earth enough to notice.

Quote from: Googleotomy on September 23, 2018, 07:42:46 AM

And "if" the ocean was round ?
Of course the ocean is round !

And I had never heard of the word "atmoplane".
Yes, because it is a made up word !

You've never heard of the word "atmoplane" before?

*searches "atmoplane" by username "Googleotomy"*

Hmm.

And almost all references to the "atmoplane" seem to be on Flat Earth Fiction sites - I wonder why?
There were a few references to "Atmo-plane", a Microsoft game.

Read my post again. My search was done using this site's search function. Googleotomy, not Google mind you, has used the word "atmoplane" in several posts. Yet he says he's never heard it before.

Read my post again. My search was done using this site's search function. Googleotomy, not Google mind you, has used the word "atmoplane" in several posts. Yet he says he's never heard it before.

I suggest that you read Googleotomy's post more carefully. He does not say "he's never heard it before".
He says: "And "if" the ocean was round ?" Then "And I had never heard of the word 'atmoplane'."

Now I take it as implied that he meant "And if I had never heard of the word 'atmoplane'.".
See:

And "if" the ocean was round ?
Of course the ocean is round !

And I had never heard of the word "atmoplane".
Yes, because it is a made up word !

Of course an Illegal Alien, not having English as a first language, might interpret it differently.

Quote from: Googleotomy on September 22, 2018, 06:51:25 PM

Does he mean the building will get farther away from her and appear smaller to her if she gets farther away from the building ?
The building certainly isn't going to get farther away from her and appear smaller to her if she stands still in one place.
The building isn't going to move. How is the building getting smaller ?

All that part of the video is trying to show is how things get smaller as they move away but we all knew that anyway.
It might have been better if a ship were used because that could naturally move away.

Quote from: Googleotomy

I would like to see his - or someone's - explanation of this post, too, rabinoz .

The whole point of the video is to try to convince us that ships disappear into a layer of haze (or something) and not over the curve.
But zorbakim's video doesn't explain how the tops of these towers also curve down.

Here's a bit more about it: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

The illustration does explain "Side Perspective" as far as Curvature Of The Earth is concerned.

Read my post again. My search was done using this site's search function. Googleotomy, not Google mind you, has used the word "atmoplane" in several posts. Yet he says he's never heard it before.

What I meant was that I had never seen or heard the use of the word "atmoplane" anywhere other than its use by FE's on the FES website(s).

UA principle:
The light from an altitude (building etc.) with 'landing trajectory', if surviving from the earth surface or things on it, it will be - by eyesight - the lowest part of an object next to the horizon. While the lower positions from the visible object will not be visible because its light has hit the earth.

That is not a principle, it is a baseless assertion.
Why would it do that?

The light undergoes upwards hit by the ascending air. It's like airplane when taking off. There is a drive from below.

Except we have been over this repeatedly and what you say about airplanes is pure nonsense.
Light does not have wings. It is incapable of aerodynamic lift.
Why would the light bend up?

"Light does not have wings."

>> So doesn't a board. But both can fly by just speeding.

"It is incapable of aerodynamic lift.
Why would the light bend up?"

>> if you agreed with UA, everything would be clear. Even zero altitude surface (not to mention horizon) will be look like staying higher than it "should be".

"Nope! Neither UA nor gravity bend light near the earth enough to notice."

>> Your simple comment is indicating you haven't found firm idea to debunk UA for this case. ~

"Light does not have wings."

>> So doesn't a board. But both can fly by just speeding.

"It is incapable of aerodynamic lift.
Why would the light bend up?"

>> if you agreed with UA, everything would be clear. Even zero altitude surface (not to mention horizon) will be look like staying higher than it "should be".

Board = bird I presume?

If so, then you are wrong againm unfortunately. A bird doesn’t fly by speeding alone. It needs wings to create lift. By your statement, you suggest one could throw a rock and make it fly or that a kestrel is unable to hover looking for prey.

And no, I don’t agree with UA since I don’t believe in factless fairy tales.

>> So doesn't a board. But both can fly by just speeding.

If you mean a board, like a piece of paper, then that is effectively a wing, just a really crappy one. It is still subject to aerodynamic forces and that can cause it to go quite high.

Compare it with a ball or a bullet, they follow simple mostly parabolic trajectories (just losing some velocity due to air resistance and actually following an elliptical path). Throwing them forwards doesn't make them go flying up.

So again, WHY SHOULD A PHOTON?

You need to provide an explanation. Until you do, all you have is nonsense to try to get out of massive contradictions between your model and reality.

if you agreed with UA, everything would be clear.

No. If I agreed with your nonsense, nothing would be clear, as your nonsense contradicts itself and is based upon so many baseless assertions it isn't funny.

Even zero altitude surface (not to mention horizon) will be look like staying higher than it "should be".

Yes, that is due to refraction, and is the exact opposite of what you want.
If the light is magically bending upwards to block the view of a distant object, everything would appear lower.

And I had never heard of the word "atmoplane".
Yes, because it is a made up word !

ALL words are made up.

Read my post again. My search was done using this site's search function. Googleotomy, not Google mind you, has used the word "atmoplane" in several posts. Yet he says he's never heard it before.

Perhaps I should have said I had never heard the word "atmoplane"before  in the real world.
I first read it on these FES websites.
It is an obviously made up flat earth word.
Since a flat earth is not a sphere, you can't use the word "atmosphere".
Since a flat earth is a "plane", you have to come up with a "flat earth friendly word".
Hence the word "atmoplane" was invented to mean the same as "atmosphere" in the real world  if the earth was flat.
You will not find the word  "atmoplane" anywhere in the real world.