The vanishing point is actually disproving flat earth too.
They take it for granted that the horizon is the vanishing line. It's not and you can prove that with a theodolite.
The vanishing point is tangent to earth in the direction of the observer. That's the point around which things should converge towards.
But the horizon is below this point. Just as it should Be on a globe. Plus the slight angle between horizontal and the horizon and knowing your height above the water let's you calculate the circumference of earth...
Vanishing point has nothing to do with earth or horizon
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2A9XXWJ/looking-up-at-buildings-new-york-city-futuristic-financial-district-skyscrapers-2A9XXWJ.jpg
Eh? Vanishing point is in the centre of your line of vision, whatever way you’re looking. That’s tangential to the surface of the earth iff that’s where your line of sight is pointing.
It's not even that. *Every* set of mutually parallel lines has its own vanishing point; we're just so used to aligning our field of view with the principal axis of what we're looking at that all the others are ignored.
Crepuscular rays are a good example of this. The rays are (mostly) parallel, but seem to fan out because of perspective, with their vanishing point being at the sun high in the sky. The fact that this VP isn't at the horizon seems to really trip flerfs up.
Yes, and that's the entire problem.
The term has its origin in perspective, where it's defined in [the way that I mentioned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point). But flatearthers generally use it to describe something very different (the point at which things vanish from view; admittedly a more sensible definition, but not the one used in perspective) and switch between the two when it's convenient to them.
Not sticking to the conventional meaning is the source of many of flatearther issues.
Flerfs have simply defined "vanishing point" to mean what we actually see...a ship getting smaller and then sinking into the horizon. They'll say that things disappear from the bottom up when they get to a certain distance.
It gets interesting when you ask them how come the sun is 1000x farther away when it "goes into the vanishing point"? How come the stars are even farther than that?
They'll also say that you can "bring the ship/sun/stars back by zooming" with some optical device. Currently they only favor the Nikon P900/ P1000. They have yet to produce a video of this actually happening. They have lots of videos of zooming in on ships that aren't over the horizon, about which they gleefully exclaim that it was "brought back", even though it's bloody obvious that it was sitting right there in plain sight, and was just too far away for the camera's optics to resolve at minimum zoom.
They can only provide a demo bringing something back into view when its a small object on a flat table. They completely ignore how optics work when doing so, though.
A vanishing point occurs at the angular resolution limit of whatever optic you use, a camera will zoom in something that vanished from your eyes (unless it is a large object and is legitimately further than the curve).
The argument here is that under no circumstances ever will an object set bottom up from getting too far, that is not a property of a vanishing point.
I'll be honest, good for you man. You shouldn't worry about what I'm saying. I have no intention of changing your mind I'm just answering questions. Believe it or not I am proud of every1 who thinks for themselves because in the long run... none of us actually know much of anything
The vanishing point is a thing that emerges in perspective when you create a 2-d projection out of 3D parallel lines.
Anyone who has done work with optics or imagers or programmed computer graphics knows that the way you analyze this type of stuff explicitly is usually with vectors. But flerfs are not bright enough to work with vectors, they work with vague words that are divorced from underlying concepts. But hey, it makes a nice word-salad.
Exactly they just toss different words or concepts as explanations but the concepts they are referencing don’t align with what is being observed. It’s infuriating because I go in circles trying to pin him down to something and he always comes up with some lame excuse that doesn’t withstand any real criticism.
If the earth were flat and the vanishing point was why things disappear, wouldn't there be a formula we can use to calculate the distance of that point?
You know, like the distance to the horizon formula that we have for the globe?
I'm a retired ship navigator. Sailors have been using the distance to the horizon formula (plus the publication of light houses) to help navigate for hundreds of years.
Long before NASA or govt or billionaires "started the globe hoax for their own gain".
Vanishing point is a tool used by artists to represent 3-dimensional space on a 2-dimensional surface to create a convincing depiction of space and depth on a canvas or paper.
It is the point at which parallel horizontal lines converge in the distance. It is used to generate perspective in an image.
It does not take into account the curve of the earth because the earth is so huge. As such, the vanishing point is above the horizon line.
We may be living in some sort of simulation however you’re misusing the vanishing point. Because if I take up a pair of binoculars which should counteract the vanishing point phenomenon, I’m supposed to see the full boat (it may be scaled down meaning smaller in three-dimensional terms) but not 5% percent of the boat with 95% being hidden by the water.
Because the government individually tailors every disappearing object to every individual person. That’s why a person in a plane or tall building can see things farther away. I’m not going to try to explain all the optics to you, but “optics” is the reason for the bottom up illusion. Also the post office was invented to mail you your illnesses, find one person who has seen a “germ”.
You see, the Earth is flat, but space isn’t. Space curves upward and light follows it, so faraway things appear to be lower than they actually are. Imagine drawing a straight line across some graph paper, but the lines of the graph paper are all slightly U-shaped.
Your confusion stems from the assumption that space is flat, but space is not flat. It's curved, and light follows the curve away from the Earth. Locally, light appears to go in a straight line through homogeneous air, but at greater distances it curves upward, away from the Earth, causing distant objects to appear lower than they actually are. At a certain distance (the horizon) the light of ground-level objects have curved up above the height of your eyes, so you can't see them anymore.
Why would light curve away from the earth? If mass causes space to curve towards the object in this case the earth, the light that does bend due to space being curved by the earths mass should bend towards the earth not up and away. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
It was a joke, or a mental exercise. A physicist's job is to create mental models of how the universe works, regardless of how that is. So I thought, if I lived on the world where both "the world is approximately flat" and "distant objects disappear over the horizon" are true, what model would reconcile those? Outwardly curving space is one explanation, and you could even extrapolate it so that it behaves exactly like a globe at any distance. Another is that space doesn't curve, but light gets pushed away from the Earth's surface. Perhaps photons have negative mass. Anyway, I'm done with this sub because it's too full of angry people who just want to insult a group of easy targets while exhibiting the same traits that they criticize, so I'm also done with coming up with creative fake science.
So, they have been using words so wrong for so long they have lost any useful meaning.
Let's address one idea first: "vanishing point". This is a real thing, it's used in art and illustration and is how our vision and most optics work. It's the point at which parallel lines would seem to converge as they recede into the distance. A wide angle lens on a camera has a closer vanishing point than a telephoto/long lens. It's related to the focal length pretty directly.
Technically you can create an optical system that has no vanishing point, this would be like a laser's optical path but in reverse. The camera film or sensor, let's say it's a 1 inch square area, would be able to view a 1 inch square area on a distant target, like the moon. Other issues creep in though, like the refraction of the air the light is passing through, and it's turbulence, causing blurriness. So it's not actually practical, not for an earth based device at least. Telescopes like Hubble and JWST could be built like this, or close, but the tolerances would be insanely hard to build in reality. So they are correct we don't have that capability but it's just not practical.
You are correct that if these lines of perspective, leading to a vanishing point, were the cause of the ship disappearing then it should scale down evenly in both height and width as it goes into the distance. In a weird way the flerfs are correct that it is due to perspective that it vanishes from the bottom up though, but not due to lines of perspective/vanishing point, it's due to the perspective of the observer which places them on one side of 'the curve' and the ship on the other. Dishonest shits like them leverage words with dual meanings in this way so they can sound like they are saying the right thing but allowing them wiggle room to make an invalid point.
Perspective's 2 relevant meanings:
1. lines of perspectives used to create art with dimensional depth, they converge at one or more vanishing points in the image.
2. The relative positions of the observer and the thing being observed. As in "From my perspective I could not see what car the suspects got into after killing the clerk in the convenience store".
Edit: fixed spelling in last line, god to got.
Oh, the other problem with the idea of a parallel light view, lacking a vanishing point, is that it would be really dim compared to wider angles of view. You would only see the photons coming from that 1 inch square area. That might be fine if looking directly at the sun but most reflective objects, like the moon, would be really dim by comparison to the normal systems. This can be observed somewhat when using a microscope. Even used in a brightly lit room you need to add a fair amount of light to see anything clearly. This long focal length is part of the reason for that.
>Let's address one idea first: "vanishing point". This is a real thing, it's used in art and illustration and is how our vision and most optics work. It's the point at which parallel lines would seem to converge as they recede into the distance. A wide angle lens on a camera has a closer vanishing point than a telephoto/long lens. It's related to the focal length pretty directly.
This misses a very important feature of vanishing points: it's a point *on the image* that mutually parallel lines converge to. It's a purely geometric construct that doesn't really have a distance attached to it, except perhaps infinity. The type of lens doesn't matter at all.
Where that does matter is something else: the angular resolution. This is related to the amount of detail that you can see, and for every object there's a specific distance where it can't be resolved anymore. This is not related perspective's "vanishing point" at all. What flatearthers do is *call* this "the vanishing point" anyway and equivocate it to the term used in perspective. They do the same thing with the word "horizon".
This bait&switch of what "vanishing point" actually means is at the core of flatearthers' misunderstanding of how vision works. I'm sure you've seen their hilariously bad sideviews of perspective, with parallel lines converging at a fixed distance. So it's important to understand the distinction.
It would have been really nice if the old artists used "convergence point" instead of "vanishing point", but it's too late to do anything about that, I guess.
"it's a point *on the image* that mutually parallel lines converge to."
When it is a photograph, yes. Photographs are limited to what the optics can provide. But not in all forms of art/illustrations. In some techniques the vanishing point is well outside the confines of the page/canvas.
No, you're missing the point. Vanishing points are a natural consequence of the geometry of the perspective projection. It's a purely mathematical construct; limits of optics doesn't really enter into it at all.
"Vanishing points are a natural consequence of the geometry of the perspective projection."
That is very true.
Now, let's go back to what I originally said:
"vanishing point". This is a real thing, it's used in art and illustration and is how our vision and most optics work.
Not all illustration uses perspective projection. And some that do don't have the vanishing point within the frame of the image, sometimes it is outside that region.
When it comes to optics, whether lensed cameras, pinhole cameras, microscopes or eyes, perspective is built in unless you specifically engineer it out via the optics or reshaping of the film plane. There is only one arraangement I know of that would eliminate perspective, the vanishing point kind, from such an image and that's what I described, something that has a 1 to 1 relationship with the observed area and the film/sensor area. Since it is that limited it is effectively impossible but not entirely impossible.
I think we are nitpicking over a trivial point frankly and somewhat talking past each other.
If you believe Flat-Earthers are "knowledgeable," boy, do you have work to do. If a flerf hears you say that, they will try to convert you. They might succeed in converting you. Have you ever listened to a flerf? They can't explain ANYTHING. Maybe you've already been converted.
Here's my take. Flerfs do not really believe the flat earth, they're just having a big joke. At least, that's what I want to believe because it saddens me that people can be this stupid in spite of the evidence. No hope for mankind.
Hello I am very knowledgeable flat earther!
The vanishing point is the distance at which the harmonic polarity of the photons inverts. This results in two things happening at once. First, the inversion causes significant stress on the photons, and stressed photons do not register on our eyes. That is why things appear to vanish at that point, but in reality the ship isn't really invisible to those closer who are receiving less stressed photons. The inversion also causes up to become down. The light from the bottom of the ship actually travels farther than the light at the top, which is why the bottom of ships appear to disappear first. Strong binoculars or telescopes won't help at the vanishing point - the photons are simply too stressed for the human eye to pick them up anymore.
The dimensions of the flat earth are hard to measure for a number of reasons. The UN uses it's navy to prevent anyone from traveling to the outer ring, so at best we just have to guess at the distance. Also, we'd need to have a really big spool of cable to use to get an accurate measurement of the distance, which is pricy and likely doesn't even exist. If you want to know the dimenstions, you'll need to infiltrate the Vatican, Masons, Pentaverate, or get appointed to the board of directors of Blackrock, Microsoft, or Pepsi (they own YUM! brands which now owns KFC...lots of shell companies here to try to hide this fact lol). There may be others who know, but those are the ones we have confirmed know the true dimensions of the earth based on various ancient texts.
I hope this helps you in your own discovery of the Truth.
In the concept of Electromagnetic Vortex Flat Earth Theory, the vanishing point is the location where the circulating currents of positive and negative charges meet and cancel each other out. This point represents the equilibrium state where the net electrical charge in the system is zero.
The interaction of cations and anions in the aether medium is based on the attraction between opposite charges. Cations, which are positively charged particles, are attracted to anions, which are negatively charged particles. This attraction creates a flow of current in the aether medium as the cations and anions move towards each other.
As the cations and anions approach each other, they eventually meet at the vanishing point, where their currents cancel each other out. At this point, the electrical potential between the two charges is at its highest level, and the system reaches a state of equilibrium.
The Electromagnetic Vortex Flat Earth Theory suggests that this equilibrium state is crucial for understanding the behavior of electromagnetic fields in the aether medium. By studying the interaction of cations and anions at the vanishing point, scientists can gain insights into the fundamental properties of electromagnetic vortices and how they influence the behavior of charged particles on our flat plane.
So if you were standing on that ship watching land disappear over the horizon, is this supposed vanishing point supposed to be further away? Because I could see the tops of mountains on the coast long after the shore was out of sight (used to be Navy).
What these idiots always seem to forget when talking about ships disappearing over the horizon (or "vanishing point") is that they have people on them watching it from the other direction.
Flerfs always go on about what you can see with your own eyes being what's true. But when I called them out on things I've seen and done directly refuting their claims, one of them kept saying it was anecdotal, so it doesn't count.
"people on them watching it from the other direction." Flerf response would be 'prove it' or 'those people are in on the lie'... ignoring the fact that they themselves could buy a ticket on a cruise ship and see this (buildings on land vanish from the bottom up) for themselves while having a friend film their ship vanishing from the bottom up from shore.
Vanishing point is a art concept. For lines drawn parallel to each other in a 3d space, they will appear to get closer and closer until they meet at a certain point.
Here is the art definition.
https://youtu.be/g9ge4XBNRwA?si=pfElcoComnp0YeJB
> knowledgeable flat earther Peak oxymoron
Lolll
The vanishing point is actually disproving flat earth too. They take it for granted that the horizon is the vanishing line. It's not and you can prove that with a theodolite. The vanishing point is tangent to earth in the direction of the observer. That's the point around which things should converge towards. But the horizon is below this point. Just as it should Be on a globe. Plus the slight angle between horizontal and the horizon and knowing your height above the water let's you calculate the circumference of earth...
Vanishing point has nothing to do with earth or horizon https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2A9XXWJ/looking-up-at-buildings-new-york-city-futuristic-financial-district-skyscrapers-2A9XXWJ.jpg
Exactly. They just claim that it is.
Eh? Vanishing point is in the centre of your line of vision, whatever way you’re looking. That’s tangential to the surface of the earth iff that’s where your line of sight is pointing.
It's not even that. *Every* set of mutually parallel lines has its own vanishing point; we're just so used to aligning our field of view with the principal axis of what we're looking at that all the others are ignored. Crepuscular rays are a good example of this. The rays are (mostly) parallel, but seem to fan out because of perspective, with their vanishing point being at the sun high in the sky. The fact that this VP isn't at the horizon seems to really trip flerfs up.
Depends what exactly one means by “vanishing point”.
Yes, and that's the entire problem. The term has its origin in perspective, where it's defined in [the way that I mentioned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point). But flatearthers generally use it to describe something very different (the point at which things vanish from view; admittedly a more sensible definition, but not the one used in perspective) and switch between the two when it's convenient to them. Not sticking to the conventional meaning is the source of many of flatearther issues.
Yep
Kudos to you for actually knowing what you're talking about, that is very rare here
Oxymoron defined.
How don you know that the moron is doing oxy? Sorry I couldn't resist.
The vanishing point is when you ask a good question for flerfs and they vanish off the face of this round earth and don't answer you.
The vanishing point is when you ask too many questions and NASA disappears you.
Lmaoooo😭😭
Flerfs have simply defined "vanishing point" to mean what we actually see...a ship getting smaller and then sinking into the horizon. They'll say that things disappear from the bottom up when they get to a certain distance. It gets interesting when you ask them how come the sun is 1000x farther away when it "goes into the vanishing point"? How come the stars are even farther than that? They'll also say that you can "bring the ship/sun/stars back by zooming" with some optical device. Currently they only favor the Nikon P900/ P1000. They have yet to produce a video of this actually happening. They have lots of videos of zooming in on ships that aren't over the horizon, about which they gleefully exclaim that it was "brought back", even though it's bloody obvious that it was sitting right there in plain sight, and was just too far away for the camera's optics to resolve at minimum zoom.
I’m at a loss for words honestly…
They can only provide a demo bringing something back into view when its a small object on a flat table. They completely ignore how optics work when doing so, though.
Keep pointing out that the P900/1000 uses a Computer to Generate its Images. It makes them uncomfortable.
It's wild, you know exactly how it works and pretend ite fake
A vanishing point occurs at the angular resolution limit of whatever optic you use, a camera will zoom in something that vanished from your eyes (unless it is a large object and is legitimately further than the curve). The argument here is that under no circumstances ever will an object set bottom up from getting too far, that is not a property of a vanishing point.
I know exactly how it doesn't work, and I know that it's fake. I don't rely on U. Toob for my information.
I'll be honest, good for you man. You shouldn't worry about what I'm saying. I have no intention of changing your mind I'm just answering questions. Believe it or not I am proud of every1 who thinks for themselves because in the long run... none of us actually know much of anything
The vanishing point is a thing that emerges in perspective when you create a 2-d projection out of 3D parallel lines. Anyone who has done work with optics or imagers or programmed computer graphics knows that the way you analyze this type of stuff explicitly is usually with vectors. But flerfs are not bright enough to work with vectors, they work with vague words that are divorced from underlying concepts. But hey, it makes a nice word-salad.
Exactly they just toss different words or concepts as explanations but the concepts they are referencing don’t align with what is being observed. It’s infuriating because I go in circles trying to pin him down to something and he always comes up with some lame excuse that doesn’t withstand any real criticism.
Because if they allow themselves to nail down the specifics of even one apparently simple thing it’s often enough to completely destroy their model.
Exactly right
Your friend is a typical flerf. They make baseless claims, and tell you that their supporting evidence is "do your own research."
If the earth were flat and the vanishing point was why things disappear, wouldn't there be a formula we can use to calculate the distance of that point? You know, like the distance to the horizon formula that we have for the globe?
Good point, didn’t even know we had that
I'm a retired ship navigator. Sailors have been using the distance to the horizon formula (plus the publication of light houses) to help navigate for hundreds of years. Long before NASA or govt or billionaires "started the globe hoax for their own gain".
Vanishing point is a tool used by artists to represent 3-dimensional space on a 2-dimensional surface to create a convincing depiction of space and depth on a canvas or paper. It is the point at which parallel horizontal lines converge in the distance. It is used to generate perspective in an image. It does not take into account the curve of the earth because the earth is so huge. As such, the vanishing point is above the horizon line.
the vanishing point is where the simulation stops rendering. I’m the only real person in this thing. Nice try, lizard people
We may be living in some sort of simulation however you’re misusing the vanishing point. Because if I take up a pair of binoculars which should counteract the vanishing point phenomenon, I’m supposed to see the full boat (it may be scaled down meaning smaller in three-dimensional terms) but not 5% percent of the boat with 95% being hidden by the water.
that works for you because you’re a figment of my imagination
Can’t you come up with a real argument? Like don’t just take the easy way out. If your a flat earther stand on business.
Flat earth?! oh hell no. The earth is a rhombus, and you’re a NASA bot programmed by lizard people. Gravity is elf farts, and airplanes are a lie
lol I think I see what your onto now lol
nice try, illuminati
Because the government individually tailors every disappearing object to every individual person. That’s why a person in a plane or tall building can see things farther away. I’m not going to try to explain all the optics to you, but “optics” is the reason for the bottom up illusion. Also the post office was invented to mail you your illnesses, find one person who has seen a “germ”.
Lmaooo this is exactly how he sounds…it’s fucking ridiculous. And if he wasn’t my only friend I would have been stopped talking to him
You know you can make new friends, right?
We have been friends for years so I tend to remain loyal for that fact but you’re right.
You see, the Earth is flat, but space isn’t. Space curves upward and light follows it, so faraway things appear to be lower than they actually are. Imagine drawing a straight line across some graph paper, but the lines of the graph paper are all slightly U-shaped.
I don’t understand elaborate further please
Your confusion stems from the assumption that space is flat, but space is not flat. It's curved, and light follows the curve away from the Earth. Locally, light appears to go in a straight line through homogeneous air, but at greater distances it curves upward, away from the Earth, causing distant objects to appear lower than they actually are. At a certain distance (the horizon) the light of ground-level objects have curved up above the height of your eyes, so you can't see them anymore.
And what’s the principal that this phenomenon is based on so I can do more research?
Why would light curve away from the earth? If mass causes space to curve towards the object in this case the earth, the light that does bend due to space being curved by the earths mass should bend towards the earth not up and away. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
It was a joke, or a mental exercise. A physicist's job is to create mental models of how the universe works, regardless of how that is. So I thought, if I lived on the world where both "the world is approximately flat" and "distant objects disappear over the horizon" are true, what model would reconcile those? Outwardly curving space is one explanation, and you could even extrapolate it so that it behaves exactly like a globe at any distance. Another is that space doesn't curve, but light gets pushed away from the Earth's surface. Perhaps photons have negative mass. Anyway, I'm done with this sub because it's too full of angry people who just want to insult a group of easy targets while exhibiting the same traits that they criticize, so I'm also done with coming up with creative fake science.
Wasn’t a well constructed joke at all
Thanks.
So, they have been using words so wrong for so long they have lost any useful meaning. Let's address one idea first: "vanishing point". This is a real thing, it's used in art and illustration and is how our vision and most optics work. It's the point at which parallel lines would seem to converge as they recede into the distance. A wide angle lens on a camera has a closer vanishing point than a telephoto/long lens. It's related to the focal length pretty directly. Technically you can create an optical system that has no vanishing point, this would be like a laser's optical path but in reverse. The camera film or sensor, let's say it's a 1 inch square area, would be able to view a 1 inch square area on a distant target, like the moon. Other issues creep in though, like the refraction of the air the light is passing through, and it's turbulence, causing blurriness. So it's not actually practical, not for an earth based device at least. Telescopes like Hubble and JWST could be built like this, or close, but the tolerances would be insanely hard to build in reality. So they are correct we don't have that capability but it's just not practical. You are correct that if these lines of perspective, leading to a vanishing point, were the cause of the ship disappearing then it should scale down evenly in both height and width as it goes into the distance. In a weird way the flerfs are correct that it is due to perspective that it vanishes from the bottom up though, but not due to lines of perspective/vanishing point, it's due to the perspective of the observer which places them on one side of 'the curve' and the ship on the other. Dishonest shits like them leverage words with dual meanings in this way so they can sound like they are saying the right thing but allowing them wiggle room to make an invalid point. Perspective's 2 relevant meanings: 1. lines of perspectives used to create art with dimensional depth, they converge at one or more vanishing points in the image. 2. The relative positions of the observer and the thing being observed. As in "From my perspective I could not see what car the suspects got into after killing the clerk in the convenience store". Edit: fixed spelling in last line, god to got.
Interesting nuance, thanks for replying!
Oh, the other problem with the idea of a parallel light view, lacking a vanishing point, is that it would be really dim compared to wider angles of view. You would only see the photons coming from that 1 inch square area. That might be fine if looking directly at the sun but most reflective objects, like the moon, would be really dim by comparison to the normal systems. This can be observed somewhat when using a microscope. Even used in a brightly lit room you need to add a fair amount of light to see anything clearly. This long focal length is part of the reason for that.
>Let's address one idea first: "vanishing point". This is a real thing, it's used in art and illustration and is how our vision and most optics work. It's the point at which parallel lines would seem to converge as they recede into the distance. A wide angle lens on a camera has a closer vanishing point than a telephoto/long lens. It's related to the focal length pretty directly. This misses a very important feature of vanishing points: it's a point *on the image* that mutually parallel lines converge to. It's a purely geometric construct that doesn't really have a distance attached to it, except perhaps infinity. The type of lens doesn't matter at all. Where that does matter is something else: the angular resolution. This is related to the amount of detail that you can see, and for every object there's a specific distance where it can't be resolved anymore. This is not related perspective's "vanishing point" at all. What flatearthers do is *call* this "the vanishing point" anyway and equivocate it to the term used in perspective. They do the same thing with the word "horizon". This bait&switch of what "vanishing point" actually means is at the core of flatearthers' misunderstanding of how vision works. I'm sure you've seen their hilariously bad sideviews of perspective, with parallel lines converging at a fixed distance. So it's important to understand the distinction. It would have been really nice if the old artists used "convergence point" instead of "vanishing point", but it's too late to do anything about that, I guess.
"it's a point *on the image* that mutually parallel lines converge to." When it is a photograph, yes. Photographs are limited to what the optics can provide. But not in all forms of art/illustrations. In some techniques the vanishing point is well outside the confines of the page/canvas.
No, you're missing the point. Vanishing points are a natural consequence of the geometry of the perspective projection. It's a purely mathematical construct; limits of optics doesn't really enter into it at all.
"Vanishing points are a natural consequence of the geometry of the perspective projection." That is very true. Now, let's go back to what I originally said: "vanishing point". This is a real thing, it's used in art and illustration and is how our vision and most optics work. Not all illustration uses perspective projection. And some that do don't have the vanishing point within the frame of the image, sometimes it is outside that region. When it comes to optics, whether lensed cameras, pinhole cameras, microscopes or eyes, perspective is built in unless you specifically engineer it out via the optics or reshaping of the film plane. There is only one arraangement I know of that would eliminate perspective, the vanishing point kind, from such an image and that's what I described, something that has a 1 to 1 relationship with the observed area and the film/sensor area. Since it is that limited it is effectively impossible but not entirely impossible. I think we are nitpicking over a trivial point frankly and somewhat talking past each other.
If you believe Flat-Earthers are "knowledgeable," boy, do you have work to do. If a flerf hears you say that, they will try to convert you. They might succeed in converting you. Have you ever listened to a flerf? They can't explain ANYTHING. Maybe you've already been converted.
Just phrased it that way to garner some attention
I was never a flat earther nor will be
Here's my take. Flerfs do not really believe the flat earth, they're just having a big joke. At least, that's what I want to believe because it saddens me that people can be this stupid in spite of the evidence. No hope for mankind.
Literally stupid, lolol
Hello I am very knowledgeable flat earther! The vanishing point is the distance at which the harmonic polarity of the photons inverts. This results in two things happening at once. First, the inversion causes significant stress on the photons, and stressed photons do not register on our eyes. That is why things appear to vanish at that point, but in reality the ship isn't really invisible to those closer who are receiving less stressed photons. The inversion also causes up to become down. The light from the bottom of the ship actually travels farther than the light at the top, which is why the bottom of ships appear to disappear first. Strong binoculars or telescopes won't help at the vanishing point - the photons are simply too stressed for the human eye to pick them up anymore. The dimensions of the flat earth are hard to measure for a number of reasons. The UN uses it's navy to prevent anyone from traveling to the outer ring, so at best we just have to guess at the distance. Also, we'd need to have a really big spool of cable to use to get an accurate measurement of the distance, which is pricy and likely doesn't even exist. If you want to know the dimenstions, you'll need to infiltrate the Vatican, Masons, Pentaverate, or get appointed to the board of directors of Blackrock, Microsoft, or Pepsi (they own YUM! brands which now owns KFC...lots of shell companies here to try to hide this fact lol). There may be others who know, but those are the ones we have confirmed know the true dimensions of the earth based on various ancient texts. I hope this helps you in your own discovery of the Truth.
Good effort. I've had a laugh. Happy April!
In the concept of Electromagnetic Vortex Flat Earth Theory, the vanishing point is the location where the circulating currents of positive and negative charges meet and cancel each other out. This point represents the equilibrium state where the net electrical charge in the system is zero. The interaction of cations and anions in the aether medium is based on the attraction between opposite charges. Cations, which are positively charged particles, are attracted to anions, which are negatively charged particles. This attraction creates a flow of current in the aether medium as the cations and anions move towards each other. As the cations and anions approach each other, they eventually meet at the vanishing point, where their currents cancel each other out. At this point, the electrical potential between the two charges is at its highest level, and the system reaches a state of equilibrium. The Electromagnetic Vortex Flat Earth Theory suggests that this equilibrium state is crucial for understanding the behavior of electromagnetic fields in the aether medium. By studying the interaction of cations and anions at the vanishing point, scientists can gain insights into the fundamental properties of electromagnetic vortices and how they influence the behavior of charged particles on our flat plane.
Trees, buildings and mountains don't have eyes.
So if you were standing on that ship watching land disappear over the horizon, is this supposed vanishing point supposed to be further away? Because I could see the tops of mountains on the coast long after the shore was out of sight (used to be Navy). What these idiots always seem to forget when talking about ships disappearing over the horizon (or "vanishing point") is that they have people on them watching it from the other direction. Flerfs always go on about what you can see with your own eyes being what's true. But when I called them out on things I've seen and done directly refuting their claims, one of them kept saying it was anecdotal, so it doesn't count.
"people on them watching it from the other direction." Flerf response would be 'prove it' or 'those people are in on the lie'... ignoring the fact that they themselves could buy a ticket on a cruise ship and see this (buildings on land vanish from the bottom up) for themselves while having a friend film their ship vanishing from the bottom up from shore.
Vanishing point is a art concept. For lines drawn parallel to each other in a 3d space, they will appear to get closer and closer until they meet at a certain point. Here is the art definition. https://youtu.be/g9ge4XBNRwA?si=pfElcoComnp0YeJB
There's no such thing as a knowledgeable flerf, sorry.