I can’t even disentangle what you’re point even is in this nonsensical mess.Evidence said:@Gooberry said: When you have an object above your eye like, it’s angular position is = inverse tan(height above eye line/distance). An obvious consequence is as the object gets far away the angle gets smaller and smaller.Gooberry said:@SilverishGoldNovaAnd this one too:
So, let’s talk about his perspective works; given that you made accusations.
When talking about objects and perspective, the important quantities you need to talk about are angular size and angular position. This is the size of object and position of the object as it appears without referencing distances.
When you have an object above your eye like, it’s angular position is = inverse tan(height above eye line/distance). An obvious consequence is as the object gets far away the angle gets smaller and smaller.
When an object is infinitely far away the object will have an angular position of 0 degrees, the tan of 0.
This is known as for the vanishing point: the location all objects would appear when infinitely far away. The further and further away an object is, the smaller it will appear and the closer it will be to this vanishing point.
Inv tan ( height / distance) is the trigonomic explanation of pretty much all perspective.
If you’re in the shore, looking at a boat, and it falls over the horizon: this can’t be perspective if the earth is flat.
The sea is always below you (unless your eyes are below sea level), which means h is negative; and the angle is negative.
The boat will either be taller than you (positive height), or be below you (negative height) but higher than the water: in both cases the angular position of the bottom of the boat would be higher than the angular position of the sea at the position of the boat: and given that INV tan (h/d) always moves closer to the horizontal with greater distance, the closest the sea can appear to be to the boat will be where the boat actually is.
You’re claims about perspective are neither explained, nor make any mathematical sense. The mathematics of perspective is pretty well known, and the easiest thing to repeat.
The only examples you will see in YouTube of this perspective are generally where the camera is below the level of the flat surface: and so can get in the way.
So now that I’ve explained to you that I actually know how perspective works to a fairly technical degree: please feel free to explain how you’re impossible perspective mechanism actually works.
When an object is infinitely far away the object will have an angular position of 0 degrees, the tan of 0.
This is known as for the vanishing point: the location all objects would appear when infinitely far away. The further and further away an object is, the smaller it will appear and the closer it will be to this vanishing point.
Vanishing point, interesting. So why don't you go and explain this to NASA, because they are calculating a lot of stuff using trig, on stars as far as 13 billion light years away, to another star 12.8 billion light years away.. to convince us of the expanding universe, the Big Bang and many other bs
If a ship on earth can reach it's vanishing point, or angular position of 0 degrees here on earth, then what is the angle from a NASA observer here on earth, and between two stars 12, and 13 billion light years away? (A new celestial wonder has stolen the title of most distant object ever seen in the universe, astronomers report. The new record holder is the galaxy MACS0647-JD, which is about 13.3 billion light-years away.)
They aren't just calculating the expanding stars, but the very source of that light that has been traveling 13 billion years to reach us.
With ships over the ocean, the light reaches us in microseconds, but stars and galaxies, .. yet they can trig it all out with "great accuracy" to where they can tell us what happened down to the millionths and billionths of a second after the Big Bang?
You see what they can do with angles and trig? Even make us believe the Earth is a ball.
SilverishGoldNova said:@Evidence Just as a warning these guys don't wanna listen, they instead will mark your comment as a fallacy or rehash past mistakes.
And this one too:
So, let’s talk about his perspective works; given that you made accusations.
When talking about objects and perspective, the important quantities you need to talk about are angular size and angular position. This is the size of object and position of the object as it appears without referencing distances.
When you have an object above your eye like, it’s angular position is = inverse tan(height above eye line/distance). An obvious consequence is as the object gets far away the angle gets smaller and smaller.
When an object is infinitely far away the object will have an angular position of 0 degrees, the tan of 0.
This is known as for the vanishing point: the location all objects would appear when infinitely far away. The further and further away an object is, the smaller it will appear and the closer it will be to this vanishing point.
Inv tan ( height / distance) is the trigonomic explanation of pretty much all perspective.
If you’re in the shore, looking at a boat, and it falls over the horizon: this can’t be perspective if the earth is flat.
The sea is always below you (unless your eyes are below sea level), which means h is negative; and the angle is negative.
The boat will either be taller than you (positive height), or be below you (negative height) but higher than the water: in both cases the angular position of the bottom of the boat would be higher than the angular position of the sea at the position of the boat: and given that INV tan (h/d) always moves closer to the horizontal with greater distance, the closest the sea can appear to be to the boat will be where the boat actually is.
You’re claims about perspective are neither explained, nor make any mathematical sense. The mathematics of perspective is pretty well known, and the easiest thing to repeat.
The only examples you will see in YouTube of this perspective are generally where the camera is below the level of the flat surface: and so can get in the way.
So now that I’ve explained to you that I actually know how perspective works to a fairly technical degree: please feel free to explain how you’re impossible perspective mechanism actually works.
And this one too:
So, let’s talk about his perspective works; given that you made accusations.
When talking about objects and perspective, the important quantities you need to talk about are angular size and angular position. This is the size of object and position of the object as it appears without referencing distances.
When you have an object above your eye like, it’s angular position is = inverse tan(height above eye line/distance). An obvious consequence is as the object gets far away the angle gets smaller and smaller.
When an object is infinitely far away the object will have an angular position of 0 degrees, the tan of 0.
This is known as for the vanishing point: the location all objects would appear when infinitely far away. The further and further away an object is, the smaller it will appear and the closer it will be to this vanishing point.
Inv tan ( height / distance) is the trigonomic explanation of pretty much all perspective.
If you’re in the shore, looking at a boat, and it falls over the horizon: this can’t be perspective if the earth is flat.
The sea is always below you (unless your eyes are below sea level), which means h is negative; and the angle is negative.
The boat will either be taller than you (positive height), or be below you (negative height) but higher than the water: in both cases the angular position of the bottom of the boat would be higher than the angular position of the sea at the position of the boat: and given that INV tan (h/d) always moves closer to the horizontal with greater distance, the closest the sea can appear to be to the boat will be where the boat actually is.
You’re claims about perspective are neither explained, nor make any mathematical sense. The mathematics of perspective is pretty well known, and the easiest thing to repeat.
The only examples you will see in YouTube of this perspective are generally where the camera is below the level of the flat surface: and so can get in the way.
So now that I’ve explained to you that I actually know how perspective works to a fairly technical degree: please feel free to explain how you’re impossible perspective mechanism actually works.
As you made repeated accusations that we were not arguing; I thought I’d point out that you ignore my response to this post:SilverishGoldNova said:And now, for the extremely simple rebuttal to Gooberry's constantly posted hot air
P L H P W B
l e o e o u
e a w r r d
a r s k
s n p s
e e
c
t
i
v
e
Lets see how long it takes for this post to get marked as a fallacy for no good reason.
Unrelatedly, the stars are winning 2-0, 9:30 left in the 3rd Period. Go Stars!
A.) There are multiple independent high altitude images of a curved horizon that aren’t NASA.tttflat said:@Pogue and @Gooberry
1. You guys act like 8-year-olds because you guys are 8-year olds.
2. Here is some evidence for the flat Earth:
a. The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude. All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only fake space agencies like NASA and SpaceX show it with their CGI.
b. The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space than truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is, in fact, is an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and the remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue.SilverishGoldNova said:Gooberry Do you even know what the hell a red herring means?
It is very rare on Earth. None of the moon pictures you or @SilverishGoldNova provided show something that should not have happened. All pictures have parrellel shadows and show 1 light source even though there could have been more.Erfisflat said: