-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 12:13 AM
Subject:
[geocentrism] Ships Hull for Regner
Dear Regner,
Smiles all around. Firstly, you must think I'm some wacky guy who is
merely a musician, but I have an open mind and am quite rational I
assure you. Since I've looked at the concave Earth quite a lot
recently, you might be surprised to know that I can expertly answer
your supposed proof of the Earth's convexity. I cite from the excellent
book "Earth not a Globe" by by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham)
[1881]. Although this is flat Earth material, it's relevant still for
the argument proposed.
If your using Thunderbird, make sure you allow remote images so
the diagrams display.
CHAPTER XIV.
EXAMINATION OF THE SO-CALLED "PROOFS" OF THE
EARTH'S ROTUNDITY.--WHY A SHIP'S HULL DISAPPEARS BEFORE THE MAST-HEAD.
IT has already been proved that the astronomers of the
Copernican school merely assumed the rotundity of the earth as a
doctrine which enabled them to explain certain well-known phenomena.
"What other explanation can be imagined except the sphericity of the
earth?" is the language of Professor de Morgan, and it expresses the
state of mind of all who hold that the earth is a globe. There is on
their part an almost amusing innocence of the fact, than in seeking to
explain phenomena by the assumption of rotundity, another assumption is
necessarily involved, viz., that nothing else will explain the
phenomena in question but the foregone and gratuitous conclusion to
which they have committed themselves. To argue, for instance, that
because the lower part of an outward-bound vessel disappears before the
mast-head, the water must be round, is to assume that a round
surface only can produce such an effect. But if it can be shown
that a simple law of perspective in connection with a plane surface
necessarily produces this appearance, the assumption of rotundity is
not required, and all the misleading fallacies and confusion involved
in or mixed up with it may be avoided.
p. 202
Before explaining the influence of perspective in causing-the
hull of a ship to disappear first when outward bound, it is necessary
to remove an error in its application, which artists and teachers have
generally committed, and which if persisted in will not only prevent
their giving, as it has hitherto done, absolutely correct
representations of natural things, but also deprive them of the power
to understand the cause of the lower part of any receding object
disappearing to the eye before any higher portion--even though the
surface on which it moves is admittedly and provably horizontal.
In the first place it is easily demonstrable
that, as shown in the following diagrams, fig. 71, lines which are
equi-distant
"The range of the eye, or diameter of the field
of vision, is
p. 203
[paragraph continues] 110°; consequently this is the largest angle under
which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. .
. . The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is
upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree,
or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from
the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be
distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can
behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches
or 250 feet." 1
The above may be called the law of perspective. It may
be given in more formal language, as the following:. when any object or
any part thereof is so far removed that its greatest diameter subtends
at the eye of the observer, an angle of one minute or less of a degree,
it is no longer visible.
From the above it follows:--
1.--That the larger the object the further will it require to go
from the observer before it becomes invisible.
2.--The further any two bodies, or any two parts of the same
body, are asunder, the further must they recede before they appear to
converge to the same point.
3.--Any distinctive part of a receding body will be-come
invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body.
The first and second of the above propositions are self-evident.
The third may be illustrated by the following diagram, fig. 73.
p. 204
Let A represent a disc of wood or card-board, say one foot
in diameter, and painted black, except one inch diameter in the centre.
On taking this disc to about a hundred feet away from an observer at A,
the white centre will appear considerably diminished--as shown at
B--and on removing it still further the central white will become
invisible, the disc will appear as at C, entirely black. Again, if a
similar disc is coloured black, except a segment of say one inch in
depth at the lower edge, on moving it forward the lower segment will
gradually disappear, as shown at A, B, and C, in diagram fig. 74. If the
disc is allowed to rest on a board D, the effect is still more
striking. The disc at C will appear perfectly round--the white segment
having disappeared.
p. 205
The erroneous application of perspective already referred to is
the following:--It is well known that on looking along a row of
buildings of considerable length, every object below the eye
appears to ascend towards the eye-line; and every thing above
the eye appears to descend towards the same eye-line; and an
artist, wishing to represent such a view on paper, generally adopts the
following rule:--draw a line across the paper or canvas at the altitude
of the eye. To this line, as a vanishing point, draw all other
lines above and below it, irrespective of their distance, as in the
diagram 75.
Let A, B, and C, D, represent two lines parallel but not
equi-distant from the eye-line E, H. To an observer at E, the vanishing
point of C, D, would be at H, because the lines C, D, and E, H,
would come together at H, at an angle of one minute of a
degree. But it is evident from a single glance at the diagram that H
cannot be the vanishing point of A, B, because the distance E,
A, being greater than E, C, the angle A, H, E, is also greater than C,
H, E--is, in fact, considerably more than one minute of a
degree. Therefore the line A, B, cannot possibly have its vanishing
point on the line E, H, unless it is carried forward towards W. Hence
the line A, W, is the true perspective line of A, B, forming an angle
of one minute at W, which is the true vanishing point of A, B, as H is
the vanishing point of C, D, and G, H, because these two lines are
equidistant from the eye-line.
p. 206
The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed,
consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to
converge to one and the same vanishing point. Whereas it is
demonstrable that lines most distant from an eye-line must of necessity
converge less rapidly, and must be carried further over the eye-line
before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the
vanishing point.
A very good illustration of the difference is
given in fig. 76. False or prevailing perspective would bring the lines
A, B, and C, D, to the same point H; but the true or natural perspective
brings the line A, B, to the point W, because there
and there only does A, W, E, become the same angle as
C, H, E. It must be the same angle or it is not the
vanishing point.
The law represented in the above diagram is the "law of nature."
It may be seen in every layer of a long wall; in every hedge and bank
of the roadside, and indeed in every direction where lines and objects
run parallel to each other; but no illustration of the contrary
perspective is ever to be seen in nature. In the pictures which abound
in our public and private collections, however, it may too often be
witnessed, giving a degree of distortion to paintings and
drawings--otherwise beautifully executed, which
p. 207
strikes the observer as very unnatural, but, as he supposes,
artistically or theoretically correct.
The theory which affirms that all parallel lines
converge to one and the same point on the eye-line, is an error. It is
true only of lines equi-distant from the eye-line; lines more
or less apart meet the eye-line at different distances, and the
point at which they meet is that only where each forms the angle of one
minute of a degree, or such other angular measure as may be decided
upon as the vanishing point. This is the true law of perspective as
shown by nature herself; any idea to the contrary is fallacious, and
will deceive whoever may hold and apply it to practice.
In accordance with the above law of natural perspective, the
following illustrations are important as representing actually observed
phenomena. In a long row of lamps, standing on horizontal ground, the
pedestals, if short, gradually diminish until at a distance of a few
hundred yards they seem to disappear, and the upper and thinner parts
of the lamp posts appear to touch the ground, as shown in the following
diagram, fig. 77.
The lines A, B, and C, D, represent the actual depth or length
of the whole series of lamps, as from C to A. An observer placing his
eye a little to the right or left of the point E, and
p. 208
looking along the row will see that each succeeding pedestal
appears shorter than the preceding, and at a certain distance the line
C, D, will appear to meet the eye-line at H--the pedestals at that
point being no longer visible, the upper portion of each succeeding
lamp just appears to stand without pedestal. At the point H
where the pedestals disappear the upper portions of the lamps seem to
have shortened considerably, as shown by the line A, W, but long after
the pedestals have entered the vanishing point, the tops will appear
above the line of sight E, H, or until the line A, W, meets the line E,
H, at an angle of one minute of a degree. A row of lamps such as that
above described may be seen in York Road, which for over 600 yards runs
across the south end of Regent's Park, London.
On the same road the following case may at any time be seen.
Send a young girl, with short garments, from C on towards D; on
advancing a hundred yards or more (according to the depth of the limbs
exposed) the bottom of the frock or longest garment will seem to touch
the ground; and on arriving at H, the vanishing point of the lines C,
D, and E, H, the limbs will have disappeared, and the upper part of the
body would continue visible, but gradually shortening until the line A,
B, came in contact with E, H, at the angle of one minute.
If a receding train be observed on a long, straight, and
horizontal portion of railway, the bottom of the last carriage will
seem to gradually get nearer to the rails, until at about the
p. 209
distance of two miles the line of rail and the bottom of the
carriage will seem to come together, as shown in fig. 79.
The south bank of the Duke of Bridgewater's canal (which passes between
Manchester and Runcorn) in the neighbourhood of Sale and Timperley, in
Cheshire, runs parallel to the surface of the water, at an elevation of
about eighteen inches, and at this point the canal is a straight line
for more than a statute mile. On this bank eight flags, each 6 ft.
high, were placed at intervals of 300 yards, and on looking from the
towing path on the opposite side, the bank seemed in the distance to
gradually diminish in depth, until the grass and the surface of the
water converged to a point, and the last flag appeared to stand not on
the bank but in the water of the canal, as shown in the diagram fig. 80.
The flags and the bank had throughout the whole length the
altitude and the depth represented by the lines respectively A, B, and
C, D.
Shooting out into Dublin Bay there is a long wall about three
statute miles in length, and at the end next to the sea stands the
Poolbeg Lighthouse. On one occasion the author sitting in a boat
opposite "Irish Town," and three miles from the sea end
p. 210
of the wall, noticed that the lighthouse seemed to spring from
the water, as shown in the diagram fig. 81.
The top of the wall seemed gradually to decline towards the sea level,
as from B to A; but on rowing rapidly towards A the lighthouse was
found to be standing on the end of the wall, which was at least four
feet vertical depth above the water. as seen in the following diagram,
fig. 82.
From the several cases now advanced, which are selected from a
great number of instances involving the same law, the third proposition
(on page 203)
that "any distinctive part of a body will become invisible before the
whole or any larger part of the same body," is sufficiently
demonstrated. It will therefore be readily seen that the hull of a
receding ship obeying the same law must disappear on a plane surface,
before the mast head. If it is put in the form of a syllogism the
conclusion is inevitable:--
Any distinctive part of a receding object becomes invisible
before the whole or any larger part of the same object.
p. 211
The hull is a distinctive part of a ship.
Ergo, the hull of a receding or outward bound ship must
disappear before the whole, inclusive of the mast head.
To give the argument a more practical and nautical character it
may be stated as follows:
That part of any receding body which is nearest to the surface
upon which it moves, contracts, and becomes in-visible before the parts
which are further away from such surface--as shown in figs. 63,
64,
65,
66,
67,
68,
69,
and 70.
The hull of a ship is nearer to the water--the surface on which
it moves--than the mast head.
Ergo, the hull of an outward bound ship must be the first
to disappear.
This will be seen mathematically in the following diagram, fig.
83.
The line A, B, represents the altitude of the
mast head; E, H, of the observer, and C, D, of the horizontal surface
of the sea. By the law of perspective the surface of the water appears
to ascend towards the eye-line, meeting it at the point H, which is the
horizon. The ship appears to ascend the inclined plane C, H, the hull
gradually becoming less until on arriving at the horizon H it is
apparently so small that its vertical depth subtends an angle, at the
eye of the observer, of less than one minute of a degree, and it is
therefore invisible; whilst the
p. 212
angle subtended by the space between the
mast-head and the surface of the water is considerably more than one
minute, and therefore although the hull has disappeared in the horizon
as the vanishing point, the mast-head is still visible above the
horizon. But the vessel continuing to sail, the mast-head gradually
descends in the direction of the line A, W, until at length it forms
the same angle of one minute at the eye of the observer, and then
becomes invisible.
Those who believe that the earth is a globe have often sought to
prove it to be so by quoting the fact that when the ship's hull has
disappeared, if an observer ascends to a higher position the hull again
becomes visible. But this, is logically premature; such a result arises
simply from the fact that on raising his position the eye-line recedes
further over the water before it forms the angle of one minute of a
degree, and this includes and brings back the hull within the vanishing
point, as shown in fig. 84.
The altitude of the eye-line E, H, being
greater, the horizon or vanishing point is formed at fig. 2 instead of
at fig. 1, as in the previous illustration.
Hence the phenomenon of the hull of an outward bound vessel
being the first to disappear, which has been so universally quoted and
relied upon as proving the rotundity of the earth, is fairly, both
logically and mathematically, a proof of the very contrary, that the
earth is a plane. It
p. 213
has been misunderstood and misapplied in consequence of an
erroneous view of the laws of perspective, and the unconquered desire
to support a theory. That it is valueless for such a purpose is now
completely demonstrated.
Footnotes
203:1
"Wonders of Science," by Mayhew, p. 357.
The next chapter: "Perspective on the Sea"
is equally as good. :-)
So I hope this has given you an enlightening read, I'm not so silly as
it may seem! Concave or convex? This is my question to you, can you
prove it?
Best Wishes,
Steven.
Regner Trampedach wrote:
Steven,
Just a quick experiment for you:
Go to the coast and bring some good binoculars. Scan the horizon
for ships (you need good visibility for this). You will notice that
at first you can only see the masts, and only when the ship gets
closer, does the hull come into view; You have seen the curvature of
the Earth - directly.
- Regner
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting Steven Jones <steven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
oh dear, uhmm, I don't know what to say. This is the first I've heard.
Maybe it's time to investigate the concave Earth then! Since if the
Earth can be proven to be concave and not convex than heliocentrism can
be shown to be false!
Smiles. :-)
Steven.
Neville Jones wrote:
Dear All,
I respected Regner's request not to immediately respond to his last
posting, but instead have been giving this whole matter very careful
consideration.
There is now no doubt in my mind that the 24-hour images about the
ecliptic polar axis are always going to be snapshots of the diurnal
rotation in the heliocentric model and I concede, therefore, that the
celestial poles argument does not disprove the heliocentric model.
Steven and my web site will be amended in the near future, God willing,
to reflect this retraction.
I would just like to thank you all for some excellent debating and for
the many illustrations that several of you have provided. I hope that
none of you feel that your efforts were either wasted or unappreciated.
This topic will not be closed yet, since Allen has not had a chance to
fully digest Regner's post. If he concedes, as I have, then we will
close it off, otherwise he will now have one more to convince!
I hope that our little forum family is strengthened by this discussion
and that each one of us has learnt something from it, I know that I
have. If, however, anyone feels disappointed, then I apologise to you
for building your hopes up.
Best wishes,
Neville
www.GeocentricUniverse.com
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.7/1151 - Release Date:
25/11/2007 4:24 PM