Wave Crests And Sunsets - UNANSWERED

I posted this somewhere else, but it was ignored and might not have been totally relevant to that discussion  so here it is in its own thread, my debunking of Rowbotham's wave crests/false horizon argument.

The horizon is not a physical object, it cannot obstruct light. Let me make an earthly example. I am a bacterium on a tabletop...

If I sit on top of an apple which is taller than anything else on the tabletop (which doesn't have a smooth surface, there are fruits all over it). There is a long thread (perfectly straight) which is attached to an orange at the other end, like this:



Now extend the table top, so that it is a bit longer:



And now very very long:



Is the thread ever broken?

However far away it is, as long as the apple and orange are taller than the obstructions (physically taller, not apparently taller by perspective or whatever) there will always be a direct line between them, and the orange will never be obscured from view by anything.

What is demonstrated here (the thread is a beam of light) is that perspective may change the size of things, but it can never change the relative position of things. Perspective will never put the sun BELOW the waves, only near them, and thus the sun can never be obscured by the effect Rowbotham describes.

This is particularly obvious on Everest. Being the apple, Everest is taller than all other objects on Earth. The sun is higher up than Everest is (700 miles, or 3000 whatever), so the 'thread' between them can never be broken...

Those look like magnificent strawberries.

I especially like the attention to detail taken with the yellow seeds

However having said that, the orange in the first diagram seems to be levitating.

Is this some phenomenon of upwards gravitation?

Back on topic....

Anyone else have anything non fruit-related to say?

limeS!

Oh, not fruit-related. 

Nope.

Argh! Distraction! Thread destruction! FEers come forth and explain your pitiful Ro-bo-tham theories!

Back on topic....

Anyone else have anything non fruit-related to say?

All I got to say is that your post was great, I saw it on the other thread as well. Make a good point.

The strawberries look a little bumpy to me and they don't really have that tapering shape I've come to love about strawberries.  I give the whole thing a 5 out of 10.

All I got to say is that your post was great, I saw it on the other thread as well. Make a good point.

Thank you   

Now if only Tom or someone would come along and tell me why I'm wrong (if they can).

*very happy*

The strawberries look a little bumpy to me and they don't really have that tapering shape I've come to love about strawberries.  I give the whole thing a 5 out of 10.

*shakes head sadly* Don't make me kick your arse into behaving

Omg, I was sooo close to dissproving your fact by using a sphere.




Then I remembered the flat earth.

Quote from: Roundy the Globularist on May 09, 2007, 03:26:35 PM

The strawberries look a little bumpy to me and they don't really have that tapering shape I've come to love about strawberries.  I give the whole thing a 5 out of 10.

*shakes head sadly* Don't make me kick your arse into behaving

Who will keep me in line after you go?  That's why you must stay!

I'll delegate that duty to someone else. Plus I'm gonna stalk you somehow so you can't escape me.

Gin,

Even on a table from the perspective of a bacterium, the vanishing point and edge of the horizon is at eye level with the observer.

Corrected image: http://i5.tinypic.com/6fs26tl.gif

Please see Chapter 5 from the Perspective Drawing Handbook or one of these numerous Google references.

Quote:

Horizon line and Eye level

Anyone who has ever been to the seaside will have seen a horizon (as long as it wasn't foggy). This is the line you see far away, out to sea. It's the line where the water stops and the sky starts. There are horizon lines everywhere, but usually you don't see them because something like a hill or a tree or a house is in the way.

You always see the horizon line at your eye level. In fact, if you change your eye level (by standing up, or sitting down) the horizon line changes too, and follows your eye level. Your eye level always follows you around everywhere because it's your eye level. If you sit on the floor the horizon is at your eye level. If you stand up, it's at your eye level. If you stand on top of a very tall building, or look out of the window of an aeroplane, the horizon is still at your eye level. It's only everything else that appears to change in relation to your eye level. The fact is, that everything looks the way it does from your point of view because you see it in relation to yourself. So if you are sitting looking out of the window of an airliner everything is going to look shorter than you because at this moment you are taller (or higher) than everything else.

Good for you, but I'm not talking about horizon. I'm showing you that the light ray can never be broken, as there is ALWAYS line of sight between you (on Everest) and the sun.

Gin, when the sun is near the horizon and approaches the vanishing point the sinking ship effect happens:

-

The sinking ship effect people see is a natural law of perspective. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham found that the vanishing point of the horizon is slightly below the edge of the horizon due the mean combined height of the waves. Although the waves might reach a maximum of 44 inches in height above the true edge of the horizon, it has a profound effect.

This means that as the ship shrinks into the horizon it must also sink into mean height of the combined waves. The smaller the ship gets into the distance, the more the waves at the false edge of the horizon will obscure its hull.

Consult Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe.

Consider a 3D model with an infinite perfectly flat plane. Any receding object on the surface gets smaller and smaller the more distant it gets, right? At the edge of the horizon, any imperfect increase in height, no matter how minuscule, will obscure the object from the bottom up as it shrinks into the distance.

-

As an analogy, lets pretend that the strawberries in this corrected image are waves, and that the orange is either the ship or sun. As the orange recedes and shrinks into the vanishing point it will become obscured by the strawberries in front of it from the bottom up. The bacterium will see the orange 'sink' into the horizon.

Fuck off Tom, that image is hardly corrected!

How does the thread now attach to the BOTTOM of the orange? That's not what's going on!

That's what I was thinking.

How does the thread now attach to the BOTTOM of the orange? That's not what's going on!

The first rule of perspective is that the vanishing point or edge of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer.

On the beach if you look directly at the ocean with a perfect 90 degree angle the horizon will be level with your eye. If you wish to look at the mast of a ship at the edge of that horizon you must incline your view upwards by a degree or two. The mast is never perfectly parallel with your eye even if your eye is at the altitude of the mast.

If your eye is at the mast's altitude, then the vanishing point is that altitude also, so the mast will not be below it.

Besides, the thread was attached to the TOP of the orange, now its somehow at the bottom. I'm not talking perception, I'm talking physical attachment. The physical configuration of objects is NOT changed by perspective.

I give Tom's picture a 3.  At least with Gin's you could clearly SEE that it was an apple, an orange, and some strawberries.  Tom just didn't put in any effort to make it look real.

The first rule of perspective is that the vanishing point or edge of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer.

The rules Tom Bishop is so fond of are rules for architectural drawings and similar work. If he knew or cared about science he would have seen that his rule is really a definition.

For all practical drawing purposes the line between the sea surface and the sky is the horizon. The true horizon is a mere 0.01 degrees or so above the apparent division between sea and sky.

If Tom cared even slightly about science he would understand the difference between a definition and an observation or measurement or theory or hypothesis. Since this is a definition, the horizon is whatever is at the height of your eyes, even if the Earth was the shape of a soup bowl.

Changing subject, if the sun really did hover over a flat earth and come close to the "vanishing point" Tom describes, it would be very easy to see that the apparent angular speed of the sun as seen by an observer on Earth would change at different hours of the day, something every one of us can measure, and has been measured since the Mayas at least 1000 years ago.

If your eye is at the mast's altitude, then the vanishing point is that altitude also, so the mast will not be below it.

If the horizon is at eye level, and the boat is along the horizon, its mast must appear above the horizon. If is for this reason that it is possible to see boats at the horizon, breaching the edge.

Example: http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/files/econoclectic-RainAndShip.jpg

The same goes for the waves and crests, et cetera.

Besides, the thread was attached to the TOP of the orange, now its somehow at the bottom. I'm not talking perception, I'm talking physical attachment. The physical configuration of objects is NOT changed by perspective.

My image assumes that the blue line is an imaginary eye level.

But if it were a physical thread as you insist, it would have to be angled upwards in order to stay attached to the top of the orange - it would have to be inclined more than 90 degrees. Due to perspective it would be impossible for the thread to appear to stay on a straight path - it must incline upwards along with the ground.

It's exactly like that classic railroad track example. Lets imagine that below the picture there is a thick hose which is suspended and floating two feet above the train tracks along the entire length of the track. As the hose recedes into the distance it must appear to incline upwards with the tracks.

Changing subject, if the sun really did hover over a flat earth and come close to the "vanishing point" Tom describes, it would be very easy to see that the apparent angular speed of the sun as seen by an observer on Earth would change at different hours of the day, something every one of us can measure, and has been measured since the Mayas at least 1000 years ago.

The apparent angular speed DOES change at different hours of the day.

Go to http://www.waningmoonii.com and look at the clear sky clock at the bottom. Notice how the sunsets are so much quicker than sunrise.

How do you RE'ers explain this phenomena?

The apparent angular speed DOES change at different hours of the day.

Go to http://www.waningmoonii.com and look at the clear sky clock at the bottom. Notice how the sunsets are so much quicker than sunrise.

How do you RE'ers explain this phenomena?

Because the earth is turning while orbiting the sun. 

Quote

Changing subject, if the sun really did hover over a flat earth and come close to the "vanishing point" Tom describes, it would be very easy to see that the apparent angular speed of the sun as seen by an observer on Earth would change at different hours of the day, something every one of us can measure, and has been measured since the Mayas at least 1000 years ago.

The apparent angular speed DOES change at different hours of the day.

Go to http://www.waningmoonii.com and look at the clear sky clock at the bottom. Notice how the sunsets are so much quicker than sunrise.

How do you RE'ers explain this phenomena?

Please, Tom, just learn to read carefully. The Clear Sky Clock is no indication at all of the position of any object from the sky. It is a guide to astronomers indicating the best hours to take the telescopes out. There is no indication at all into the length of sunrises or sunsets in the diagram. The only information remotely similar to your claim is in the "seeing" row, which indicates that sunrise for Friday, May 11, 2007 is a bad time for astronomy due to a high expected cloud cover!

It takes a desperate, poorly educated "researcher" to make such huge mistakes.

Since you are not capable of making your own measurements, please find a table with a "Right Ascension" or an "Azimuth" or a "Declination" or an "Altitude" column. The nasty numbers you will see in the table are the real demonstration of a constant or varying apparent angular speed.

Vague explanation, allegory, rhetoric, quote without explanation or context information, are the tools of the lazy or uneducated. Clearly stated information with good mathematical support are the starting point of science!

My image assumes that the blue line is an imaginary eye level.

But if it were a physical thread as you insist, it would have to be angled upwards in order to stay attached to the top of the orange - it would have to be inclined more than 90 degrees. Due to perspective it would be impossible for the thread to appear to stay on a straight path - it must incline upwards along with the ground.

Do you find it hard to distinguish between diagram and perspective drawing? My picture is a diagram.

Incidentally, the ground does NOT incline upwards, though it appears to to the observer on Earth.

Bumping this thread for great justice and adding my own thoughts because this demonstrates mine clearly without making a new thread!

This means that as the ship shrinks into the horizon it must also sink into mean height of the combined waves. The smaller the ship gets into the distance, the more the waves at the false edge of the horizon will obscure its hull.

Consult Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe.

Consider a 3D model with an infinite perfectly flat plane. Any receding object on the surface gets smaller and smaller the more distant it gets, right? At the edge of the horizon, any imperfect increase in height, no matter how minuscule, will obscure the object from the bottom up as it shrinks into the distance.

-

As an analogy, lets pretend that the strawberries in this corrected image are waves, and that the orange is either the ship or sun. As the orange recedes and shrinks into the vanishing point it will become obscured by the strawberries in front of it from the bottom up. The bacterium will see the orange 'sink' into the horizon.

How can you say that "any imperfect increase in height, no matter how minuscule, will obscure the object from the bottom up as it shrinks into the distance."   These miniscule imperfections are affected by the same perspective! The perspective does not select certain objects to which it applys.  The imperfections still shrink proportional to the ship! If at 500 feet the ship has been reduced to 1/2 its height, then so has the wave! It does not magically get to stay the same height in your perspective drawing or actual view.

In your "corrected"(LMFAO, pardon me) image, you randomly decide that we are looking at the bottom of the orange. You take the THREAD that is strung between the orange and apple and decide to make it your LoS. That is not what Gin made it out to be at all.
Let us look at this image
This is what you did with the other image.  As you can see, the light blue line connecting the TOP of the APPLE to the BOTTOM of the ORANGE is your LoS. It is always obscured by the strawberries and proves nothing at all.
Your image "corrected" for perspective should have looked like this:
As you can see, the dark blue line is NEVER obscured by the strawberries. No matter how small I make that orange, the strawberries are smaller still! We do not care about the bottom of the orange, just the top... where the dark blue thread is attached, or our true LoS, which i might add, is at 90°. Your new LoS, the light blue line is most definately NOT 90°.

I officially love you.


Edit: Not in that way.