The Depth Leveling Fallacy
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (14)
sorted by:
I am uncertain what it even means for the 'horizon to rise to eye level'. I'm going to need context, for both the point, and the counter points, in addition to a submission statement.
when people say the horizon rises to eye level, Level refers to eye height , Those that take it out of context and says it means level from the eye to the horizon by showing heavily refracted images are morons and muppets. These people love warping reality to confirm their religious dogma. And no i didnt down vote your comment, but i can if you request it.
With all due respect. I still do not know what "rises to eye level" means, nor do I have context for why it matters. It's just a video repeating the same words over and over again, often times in slow motion.
I have never once in my entire life heard the words "the horizon rises to eye level" before. It makes no sense. There is no context. There is no reason for, or against horizon rising to eye level, nor reason for or against, and proves, disproves nothing.
Eye level isn't even a fixed point of reference. I don't even get search results from "depth leveling". I have literally no context here.
go to the beach, notice the horizon is at your eye height. Now go to the roof of a 30 story condo by the beach, the horizon is still at your eye height. That only occurs because the horizon is an optical thing relative to your eye height. Now go to a construction site, ask around to see if anyone measures level along the depth axis of 3d space, after they all laugh at you for being so stupid, maybe you can start to figure out how why we always measure level along height or width, never depth.
Eye level is simply where you are looking and or approximately 5'5" off the ground, and can only be used as reference for short distances of around 20 feet. Has nothing to do with refracted light, horizons, or anything else.
You should have posted a submission statement, along with a reference to who's argument this was addressing, as this was never a major talking point for or against flat earth.
if your referencing "level" to mean from your eye to the horizon in a 3d perspective view and your claiming "level" along the depth axis in a photo while not accounting for refraction, diffraction, then your probably a moron who doesnt understand Level is a height reference, not depth, you dont understand that in 3d, we never measure level along depth. And if you dont know who the muppet is , then your just further proving your ignorance in the matter.
Yes. My ignorance of "nothing of importance."
Now lets talk true ignorance.
https://conspiracies.win/p/140w2NrqUS/my-personal-list-of-recommended-/c/
Enjoy the show!
nice playlist, watching the first one, i like it
This video you've linked is embarrassing, imo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV39QwDY_JQ
Literally the first frame, showing the horizon rising to meet eye level at 127,523 feet
From 0:04 to 0:20 you get a great look at it
Did you spend any time looking around the internet to verify the claim in this shit tier video you've linked?
the horizon rises to eye height IRL whether youre at 5 feet high or 100k feet high. If your looking though a lense and trying to measure your eye height (or level), to the horizon as "level" - your guilty of a depth levelling fallacy while not accounting for in Camera refraction Atmospheric diffraction, and the fact that the horizon is the optical edge of your ability to perceive diffraction as per Raleigh's criteria. But thanks for the shit tier comment, please derp some more plz, its very funny.