Horizon did not block duck from view

Sorry.  The title was shorten.  And should read, “Perspective and vanishing point did not physically block duck from view.”

So.  I placed this blue duck 58 paces from my SLR camera.  The camera was placed with its base / bottom flat on the shop concrete. (I can get the exact distance, but why waste extra effort on flat earther’s!)

Duck close



This picture has the lens Set to 135mm



Duck 135 mm crop zoom



This picture has the lens Set to 50mm



Duck 50 crop zoom



The duck is never physically blocked from view like this ship beyond the horizon.



If the earth was flat, the earth would never physically block the sun from view.

Perspective and vanishing point does not physically block objects from view. 

The sun setting beyond the horizon to be physically blocked from view is a property and proof of a spherical earth.  Especially in the case the sun is a single light source.

Are you dumb?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on September 03, 2022, 05:42:13 AM

Are you dumb?

Are you referring to flat earther’s excuses for example, the North Star is blocked from view in Australia because of “perspective and vanishing point.”  And one should not have to argue the most basic proofs the earth is spherical?

For example, they will state you aren't at the vanishing point yet as you can still see the bottom of the fire extinguisher which is clearly behind the duck.  Thus you haven't disproved their position.

Sorry.  The title was shorten.  And should read, “Perspective and vanishing point did not physically block duck from view.”

So.  I placed this blue duck 58 paces from my SLR camera.  The camera was placed with its base / bottom flat on the shop concrete. (I can get the exact distance, but why waste extra effort on flat earther’s!)

Duck close



This picture has the lens Set to 135mm



Duck 135 mm crop zoom



This picture has the lens Set to 50mm



Duck 50 crop zoom



The duck is never physically blocked from view like this ship beyond the horizon.



If the earth was flat, the earth would never physically block the sun from view.

Perspective and vanishing point does not physically block objects from view. 

The sun setting beyond the horizon to be physically blocked from view is a property and proof of a spherical earth.  Especially in the case the sun is a single light source.

Look at you floor. Whatever length it is, keep it in mind.

Now, look at your second image, taken from near the floor.

How much of your image shows the floor? Over half of it, right?

The floor is flat, correct?

So this represents a flat surface, not a 'curved' surface.

How long is your floor? Let's say it is 20 feet long, for argument's sake.

Why does a 20 foot long FLAT floor, take up more than half your image? Hmm...let's continue..

What would we see if your FLAT floor was 40, or 80 feet long?

Would it keep rising,

until that was all we could see? Or would it stop rising, and form into a horizon? It's easy to find out, with a longer FLAT floor, right?

If you have access to a FLAT floor at least 40 feet long,

and placed your camera on the ground,

same as you do here, what would we see?

Would the horizon keep appearing to rise,

and take up the whole picture, or only part of it? Let's assume we need a longer FLAT floor, to find out (which we WOULD need, btw).

Tell me why, when we are debating whether horizons form on flat surfaces, or not, you show us a floor which KEEPS rising,

but it is not LONG enough to see if it KEEPS rising, and STOPS rising, and forms a horizon? The surface of Earth doesn't stop 20 feet out, so why would you show a floor only 30 feet long to represent it? 

You know why, that's the reason your bunch only shows a SMALL length of flat floor, because you KNOW what happens over a LONG flat floor!

I've seen this little BS argument before. Someone showed me their small floor, admitted it WAS flat, and put an object at the far end, which was fully visible, and claimed 'objects above flat surfaces would AWAYS be visible'!

Anyone who uses their brain here, can see the flat floor STILL appears to be rising, hen it reached the end of your floor, right? You know that, don't you?

Are you trying to prove that horizons do NOT form on flat surfaces? Or that objects ABOVE flat surfaces would be seen, in their entirety? Maybe BOTH of them?

I assume you can see the flat floor STILL appears to be rising at the end of your floor, right?

Do you think the floor STOPS appearing to rise, at the end of it? No, I'm sure you know better than that.

Knowing the flat floor is NOT long enough, why do you SHOW that flat floor, as your example? I mean, you already KNOW it is not long enough, that if your flat floor was longer, the surface would CONTINUE to appear to rise, right?   

Isn't that completely dishonest of you? If you know the floor is flat, and appears to be rising, you also know it STILL appears to be rising, when the floor ends, right?

So what are you REALLY trying to do here? Do you think this wouldn't be caught?   

It's time to face reality, or go back and hide under your bed, buddy. I don't care what you choose, it's your problem

Look at you floor. Whatever length it is, keep it in mind.

Why does a 20 foot long FLAT floor, take up more than half your image? Hmm...let's continue..

Would it keep rising, until that was all we could see? Or would it stop rising, and form into a horizon?

Tell me why, when we are debating whether horizons form on flat surfaces, or not, you show us a floor which KEEPS rising, but it is not LONG enough to see if it KEEPS rising

The surface of Earth doesn't stop 20 feet out

Do you think the floor STOPS appearing to rise, at the end of it?

It's time to face reality, or go back and hide under your bed, buddy. I don't care what you choose, it's your problem

What would we see if your FLAT floor was 40, or 80 feet long?

Would it keep rising, until that was all we could see?

At least you're getting closer to forming a horizon here.

You don't need to use a little duck, you can use a car, another person, or anything of equal size that vanishes from sight, on Earth's horizons.

Look at your image. Why can't we the rails beyond the duck? It's still going outward, isn't it.

This IS a flat surface, with flat railroad tracks on it, going outward over the flat surface, right?

So why can't we see the rails past the duck, or near the duck? We can see some shrubs in the distance, but not the rails. They  must still be there, going outward, right? 

Look at how the rails appear to be converging, in the distance, while they look smaller and smaller as they get near the duck. And then, we can't see them anymore, past the duck.

I'm glad you have shown us a flat surface, with tracks going outward, appearing to converge, appearing smaller and smaller, and out of sight, even though you were trying to show me a little duck is still seen in the distance, to support the ball Earth lie.

Your little duck is still seen, because it is higher than the tracks are, which is why they can't be seen at that distance. Place your duck further out, on the tracks which are out of sight.

Or, move your camera back, as much as possible, on the tracks, and put the duck on the tracks which are out of sight at that point.

Take images of that, and post them here. If your duck is still seen on the tracks which CANNOT be seen, when you zoom in on it, you have a big problem. Put the duck as far out on the tracks as you can, and you'll likely not see the duck anymore, or it's head, if you're lucky.


The surface is still not long enough to show a horizon, because it becomes blocked with shrubs, etc. But it would, if it was long enough, over the tracks. How far do the tracks go behind that point?  If they stretch back another mile, or half a mile, you should go there, put your camera on the track, and take images outward. You might see a horizon out in the distance, if it's long enough

You appear to want to appealed to the curved surface of Earth to have that produce a horizon, and then falsely claim that is flat, to then pretend your claim of flat surfaces producing a horizon is justified, to then pretend the fact that we observe a horizon isn't extremely strong evidence for a RE.

How about you stop with these pathetic deflections and tell us what magic causes a horizon for a flat surface?
Or provide evidence of a flat surface, which we all agree is flat, producing a horizon?

This was HIS image, of a flat surface, with flat tracks on it, chump.

I'm pointing how the flat tracks go beyond our sight over the flat surface.

The truth is a good thing, and frees you

At least you're getting closer to forming a horizon here.

You don't need to use a little duck, you can use a car, another person, or anything of equal size that vanishes from sight, on Earth's horizons.

Look at your image. Why can't we the rails beyond the duck? It's still going outward, isn't it.

This IS a flat surface, with flat railroad tracks on it, going outward over the flat surface, right?

So why can't we see the rails past the duck,

or near the duck? We can see some shrubs in the distance, but not the rails. They  must still be there, going outward, right? 

Look at how the rails appear to be converging, in the distance, while they look smaller and smaller as they get near the duck. And then, we can't see them anymore, past the duck.

I'm glad you have shown us a flat surface, with tracks going outward, appearing to converge, appearing smaller and smaller, and out of sight, even though you were trying to show me a little duck is still seen in the distance, to support the ball Earth lie.

Your little duck is still seen,

because it is higher than the tracks are,

which is why they can't be seen at that distance.

Place your duck further out, on the tracks which are out of sight.

It would continue rising, at an ever decreasing rate.

We have been over this before.
If you want to claim it stops rising, tell us what magic causes it to stop.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 04, 2022, 05:19:49 AM

It would continue rising, at an ever decreasing rate.

We have been over this before.
If you want to claim it stops rising, tell us what magic causes it to stop.

If you believe it would keep rising, at an ever decreasing rate, then look at the image of a flat floor, which appears to rise up until it takes up half the image.

If the floor is 20 feet long, and takes up half the image, which would be half our VIEW outward from there, what would it look like 3 miles out? If you believe it rises less and less with more distance, while already taking up half our view at 2 feet out, how would it look at 3 miles out? It would take up our WHOLE view? Or about 3/4 of our view? Or maybe only a little more?

Take your pick, it doesn't matter anyway. Having taken up half our view at 20 feet, how much higher would it look at 3 miles out? If it's only a little more at that point, after it already blocks out half your view at 20 feet away, how would you see it a little higher over the next 3 miles out? How would you see a boat that's 3 miles out, when half your view is taken up at 20 feet out? It woud be a sliver on top of the horizon, going 3 miles out, so how could you see a ship that's 3 miles out, along a sliver on top of the horizon? 

How about when it's 300 miles out? How much higher would that be? How thin of a sliver would it be, and how could you ever see a ship that's 300 miles out, on a tiny sliver atop the horizon?

Your endlessly rising horizon argument doesn't work with your 'seeing all objects on a flat surface' argument, because both of them are BS to begin with.

You keep claiming the tracks should rise. But a little, as in height, mound of gravel level with the tracks obscures the tracks beyond the mound?

If you believe it would keep rising, at an ever decreasing rate, then look at the image of a flat floor, which appears to rise up until it takes up half the image.

If the floor is 20 feet long, and takes up half the image, which would be half our VIEW outward from there, what would it look like 3 miles out?

It would take up our WHOLE view? Or about 3/4 of our view? Or maybe only a little more?

Take your pick, it doesn't matter anyway.

How would you see a boat that's 3 miles out, when half your view is taken up at 20 feet out? It woud be a sliver on top of the horizon

Your endlessly rising horizon argument doesn't work with your 'seeing all objects on a flat surface' argument, because both of them are BS to begin with.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 05, 2022, 04:41:14 AM

You keep claiming the tracks should rise. But a little, as in height, mound of gravel level with the tracks obscures the tracks beyond the mound?

You didn't answer my question about how far BACK you could go, and take an image of this, so how far back can you go? I'm sure you can go back a lot further, right?

Try that, and let's see what happens.

about how far BACK you could go, and take an image of this, so how far back can you go? I'm sure you can go back a lot further, right?

Try that, and let's see what happens.

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 05, 2022, 05:24:51 AM

about how far BACK you could go, and take an image of this, so how far back can you go? I'm sure you can go back a lot further, right?

Try that, and let's see what happens.

Drawing of the arrangement of the model. 



Now.  For your delusion.  What is the mathematical formula for how much the boat will be blocked from view vs distance by the flat plane it’s sitting on when viewed from above the plane the boat is sitting on?

If you can show me the mathematical formula on rising surfaces, which don't actually rise, yet they will APPEAR to be rising.....

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 09, 2022, 10:18:51 PM

If you can show me the mathematical formula on rising surfaces, which don't actually rise, yet they will APPEAR to be rising.....

I already did.
Why do you want to pretend perspective doesn't exist?

The angular position of a point a vertical distance h below you and a horizontal distance d away from you will be atan(-h/d), with the negative angle indicating it is below you.
For the RE, as a simple approximation, the drop is given by d^2/(2R). This means h will be h0+d^2/(2R), where h0 is the initial drop below you.
This gives a=atan((-h0-d^2/2R)/d)=atan(-h0/d-d/2R)

Here is a link where you can play around with it:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/7qfstausfw

Quote from: JackBlack on September 09, 2022, 11:55:37 PM

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 09, 2022, 10:18:51 PM

If you can show me the mathematical formula on rising surfaces, which don't actually rise, yet they will APPEAR to be rising.....

I already did.
Why do you want to pretend perspective doesn't exist?

The angular position of a point a vertical distance h below you and a horizontal distance d away from you will be atan(-h/d), with the negative angle indicating it is below you.
For the RE, as a simple approximation, the drop is given by d^2/(2R). This means h will be h0+d^2/(2R), where h0 is the initial drop below you.
This gives a=atan((-h0-d^2/2R)/d)=atan(-h0/d-d/2R)

Here is a link where you can play around with it:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/7qfstausfw

But there IS no 'drop', ever seen at all, that's the problem.

I've seen a horizon directly out a plane window at over 20000 feet, no drop, and no curve anywhere.

You resort to lame tricks, as usual.

I've seen a horizon directly out a plane window at over 20000 feet, no drop, and no curve anywhere.

You resort to lame tricks, as usual.

But there IS no 'drop', ever seen at all

The horizon appears atop a surface that appears to have risen upward, and it appears as a flat, straight line across the surface, and that's all we see of it. Nothing of a drop, or curve, is ever found.

We see the TOP of tall objects beyond the horizon

There's no 'curvature' in air, so how can we see a plane past the horizon?

I've seen a horizon directly out a plane window at over 20000 feet, no drop, and no curve anywhere.

You resort to lame tricks, as usual.