Even if you think the world's flat your brain knows different

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
This video (apologies I dunno how to link properly and do time stamps and stuff so feel free to chip in with any help there.)...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGTK7eDp_j8


At 2:17:00 Ranty shows 2 diagrams, one rendered for a globe earth and one rendered for a flat earth.

At 2:25:52 we have Brian's globe residing brain trying to cope with the images. I think it's fascinating and very telling.

He wants to think the image creator has manipulated the perspective instead of appreciating how our brain interprets the perspective from the images (a brain that has grown up on a globe).

There's little bits like "camera is higher" which suggests to me his brain knows exactly what it lives on.

I think we all see the same things as Brian does here (like it does look like looking up on one and looking down on the other buts that cos they'd have to be to produce such results on the globe we live on, our brain knows that). But most people would understand it's not a trick by the creator of the image.

Do other people get the same impression of a "mighty" battle between Brian's brain and subconscious here?
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
SmartSelect_20220204-175252_Samsung Internet.jpg
At 2:25:52 we have Brian's globe residing brain trying to cope with the images. I think it's fascinating and very telling.

He wants to think the image creator has manipulated the perspective instead of appreciating how our brain interprets the perspective from the images (a brain that has grown up on a globe).

There's little bits like "camera is higher" which suggests to me his brain knows exactly what it lives on.

I think we all see the same things as Brian does here (like it does look like looking up on one and looking down on the other buts that cos they'd have to be to produce such results on the globe we live on, our brain knows that).
I'm reading it the opposite way.

I know the Earth is approximately flat nearby; I know I'm not going to see an 8 inch drop a mile away with the naked eye (height of a blade of grass), and most things I look at in daily life are closer than that. So most daily situations I'd see are adequately described by linear perspective without accounting for curvature. I know the water in my sink is curved, but it's on a microscopic scale, so it doesn't matter.

Brian interprets the 3D computer images on the left with the same mindset, and if he was looking at a physical scale model, he'd be absolutely right: it looks like different camera heights, because the green part of the mountain that's actually rising appears flat. But that's not true.

Brian thinks the camera was raised for the lower image, but it wasn't; the mountain was dropped for the upper image in accordance with Earth curvature. That's precisely why there was no "pre-supposed" globe: both CG images are honest.

Our intuition is wired for "flat" because we simplify what we see nearby (approximately flat), and then scale it up (generalisation).

How we reason about it depends on us. We can believe a ship disappearing behind the horizon is falling off the edge of the flat Earth. Or we can build one of the 7 wonders of the world in 280 BC so that sailors can see our port from farther away on the curved sea.
toppyramidenpharosgjpg100__v-HintergrundL.jpg
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
You bring up the colours which I do feel is very important to our interpretation. Makes me wonder what they'd look like in different colours. Would the base of the mountain being a darker green than it is make it look further away?

I'm concerned that I'm now in a situation where the image creator has manipulated the perspective and I just wanna curl up and die.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I'm concerned that I'm now in a situation where the image creator has manipulated the perspective and I just wanna curl up and die.
The perspective in these images has not been manipulated.

Play around a bit with Walter Bislin's online Earth curvature calculator to see that, it switches between flat and curved with a button and renders the scene accordingly.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
The perspective in these images has not been manipulated.
But it has been. You can't move things around an image (and without changing their size) and not manipulate the perspective.

You can't even include "intentionally" because the image creator intentionally moved things round.

This is the kind of semantics that flat earthers love to get arguments turned into.

I've been trying to work out the main visual cue in the "flat" image that leads to that "higher" or "lower" feeling between the two images or why the mountain seems pretty much right next to the tower (at least for me, gotta assume it does for others) and I think it's that we can see the bottom of it.

Seeing the bottom of something "tells" us certain information about where that item must be. One thing would be we have to be higher than its base. Hence it "feeling" like a higher viewpoint.

And the point I'm getting at is that we don't learn this. We aren't taught it. And we have no control over it ourselves.

Brian saw what we all saw. His subconscious is as uncomfortable with flat earth as all of ours but his "thinking" brain is willing to fight that for whatever reason. I really do think we see that there.

And it makes me wonder whether one of the best tools for a flat earth/round earth argument might be virtual reality, where a flat world could be created and our brains could experience it and possibly feel incredibly uncomfortable in.

The lengths it could be taken could be amazing. Imagine being able to put yourself in a world based on the AE map that you could experience. Imagine watching a world change from globe to flat before your eyes.

It could even simulate stuff like a sun could rise and set on a simulated flat earth. A sun could circle the sky but stay circular from the observer's point of view by manipulating its shape. It could even be multi player and manipulate the sun's shape for each observer but they all think it's in the same place. You could turn things on and off and see what difference it makes. I reckon it'd be pretty cool and I'd love to be clever enough to do something about it.

In fact the flat earth movement should probably embrace simulation theory for this very reason because it's a nice catch all for pretty much everything they can't answer.

The simulation could be what makes things appear to be round. It's the simulation that puts the curve into equations like the distance between two places. Everything's really flat but the simulation is tricking us. Flat Earthers have started to see beyond the simulation. Soon they will break out of the Matrix. Brian is Neo.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
But it has been. You can't move things around an image (and without changing their size) and not manipulate the perspective.
Yes, you can.
The difference between FE render and globe render is that objects get moved down according to curvature, without changing the camera position or the distance of the object from the camera. This does not change their size (actual or apparent)!

And it makes me wonder whether one of the best tools for a flat earth/round earth argument might be virtual reality, where a flat world could be created and our brains could experience it and possibly feel incredibly uncomfortable in
Almost every VR world that exists today is flat.
Nobody feels uncomfortable because of that.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
Yes, you can.
The difference between FE render and globe render is that objects get moved down according to curvature, without changing the camera position or the distance of the object from the camera. This does not change their size (actual or apparent)!
Maybe I'm using the word perspective wrong.

Like if you take something from the foreground of an image, move it higher in the image, and boom it's got bigger.

street.jpg

All I've done is move an image up. I've not changed its size but its apparent size has changed. This is what I'm referring to when I talk about manipulating perspective.

I believe this is happening with the mountain. As well as seeing the bottom of it being a major cue.

And although VR worlds are probably flat they also probably use visual tricks to give us the impression of round if they need to. Fogging's an obvious one. But you can't tell me if you were presented with that Blackpool tower flat world in VR and as you moved forward how nothing would react as your brain would expect that you wouldn't feel uncomfortable.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
Kind of intrigued by what the picture would look like if you couldn't see the bottom of the mountain. So I was thinking u could just stick some buildings between the mountain and the tower.

bp1.jpgbp2.jpg

I think it does push the mountains back. They don't "feel" as on top of the tower. That impression of being higher is kinda gone. Not sure if the mountains "feel" bigger or not.

Might need to do a better job on it.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Maybe I'm using the word perspective wrong.

Like if you take something from the foreground of an image, move it higher in the image, and boom it's got bigger.

street.jpg

All I've done is move an image up. I've not changed its size but its apparent size has changed. This is what I'm referring to when I talk about manipulating perspective.

I believe this is happening with the mountain. As well as seeing the bottom of it being a major cue.

And although VR worlds are probably flat they also probably use visual tricks to give us the impression of round if they need to. Fogging's an obvious one. But you can't tell me if you were presented with that Blackpool tower flat world in VR and as you moved forward how nothing would react as your brain would expect that you wouldn't feel uncomfortable.
Things looks smaller when they are far away but this perspective only works because we have other things (that we "know" the size of) to compare it with, your post box is looking big, because we are tricked into associating it with the other objects near it (cars/trees,) remove all those and you have a close post box floating up in the air.

One of the "tells" for your post box is that it is in focus where then other things that are distant are starting to lose focus., also you put it in sun when it is not lit and the shadows are wrong, but our reliance on comparison is very strong so it slightly overwhelms the other clues at first

You can easily trick the mind into thinking things are smaller/bigger/closer/further away if you add/remove the other clues, its called forced perspective.

Haze affects things as well, it's another clue we use for depth/distance perception.

But all of these depth clues work on a flat earth as well.

The curved Earth gives us a horizon beyond which the lower parts of tall object can be obscured.
 
Last edited:

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
One of the "tells" for your post box is that it is in focus where then other things that are distant are starting to lose focus., also you put it in sun when it is not lit and the shadows are wrong, but our reliance on comparison is very strong so it slightly overwhelms the other clues at first
I could blur the postbox. I could put in fake shadowing.

I'm merely demonstrating that you can't move things in an image (and leaving it the same size) without changing the perspective. Although perspective is probably the wrong word.

If you move a mountain up or down you are effecting the perspective (changing its size). YOU may know that the mountain has been moved up or down but how your sight interprets the image does not know that, nor can you tell it. Nor was it ever taught how to interpret it.

But all of these depth clues work on a flat earth as well.
Viewing things over long distances would be very different as demonstrated by these two pictures.

I don't believe I'm the only person who "thinks" the mountains look closer to the tower in the flat image than the globe image. And I don't think it's a coincidence that that's because the only way (I think, could be wrong) that image could exist in real life is if the mountain was closer to the tower.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
You adding buildings just adds some more context clues for our brains to start assigning scales/distances to.

The curve doesn't really affect things apart from making the mountains seem shorter a little, but mountains are something we are used to from our local experiences which is why really huge ranges like the alps are breath-taking when you see them 1st hand if you are used to say UK mountains.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
You adding buildings just adds some more context clues for our brains to start assigning scales/distances to.
Umm, I know it does. That's why I added them.

I'm interested in what those clues does to peoples' perception of the image. The thing we have no control over. While your thinking brain knows what I've done your seeing brain doesn't, nor does it really care. It just tells you what it sees (like big postbox).

Like, I don't know the exact distance between the mountains and the tower, but however many miles that is my "seeing" brain doesn't see that distance between the mountains and the tower in the flat image (lack of cues but also the cue that I can see the bottom of it) but I "know" that that land is there in the flat image. Extra points if you have any idea how distance cues between the tower and the mountain would look for flat earth. I have no idea personally.

I'm trying to remove the "know" from the "seeing".

We and Brian see the same thing in those images. But he thinks the first one's how it should look on flat and the second picture is a trick yet we get a glimpse of what his seeing brain's telling him as he tries to deal with the second image. He can't lie to that part of himself.

I'll add that I think there is also differences when viewing the images together or just on their own. Like I think the whole height thing is more pronounced when viewing the two original images side by side.
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
I love how Brian's first slide contains the word "polar".

Brian also seems to not understand that it's not the density that bends light, but the density gradient. Similary, he didn't seem to understand the difference between compressing what is visible above ground level, and moving that which is above ground level below a horizon. I genuinely couldn't make it more than 20 minutes into the vid, as the counter-argument made didn't seem to be identifying the weakest parts of Brian's argument.
 

Ann K

Active Member
You bring up the colours which I do feel is very important to our interpretation. Makes me wonder what they'd look like in different colours. Would the base of the mountain being a darker green than it is make it look further away?

I'm concerned that I'm now in a situation where the image creator has manipulated the perspective and I just wanna curl up and die.
Artists and photographers recognize the thing called "aerial perspective", which is the effect of the atmosphere on our perception of depth. Distant mountains can look more grey or blue if there is a lot of water vapor in the air, for example, and a distant object Is never as bright in color as it would be when you're close to it. This is obvious in many cases (especially in humid climates) even for fairly short distances, and since it is absent in the computer generated images, they lack that important visual clue.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
it makes me wonder whether one of the best tools for a flat earth/round earth argument might be virtual reality, where a flat world could be created and our brains could experience it and possibly feel incredibly uncomfortable in.

This was done over six years ago, and flatties still stayed flat. For example:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg

and:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h6FVfsVk2g

Metabunk thread here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/de...-14-ways-the-flat-earth-theory-is-false.7148/
 

JMartJr

Senior Member
Maybe I'm using the word perspective wrong.

Like if you take something from the foreground of an image, move it higher in the image, and boom it's got bigger.

street.jpg
It's not just moving it up or down, though, it's where you anchor it in the image. A fast and dirty example of what I mean is this silly image:
red post box stack.jpg
...wherein I've moved a postbox higher in the image without making it seem larger. While not necessarily an analogue to anything in this thread (I'm not 100% sure I understand your concern, but I'll keep trying!:)) my thought is that perspective in flat images has some nuances beyond "higher = bigger."
 

Ann K

Active Member
Maybe I'm using the word perspective wrong.

Like if you take something from the foreground of an image, move it higher in the image, and boom it's got bigger.

street.jpg

All I've done is move an image up. I've not changed its size but its apparent size has changed. This is what I'm referring to when I talk about manipulating perspective.
You moved the box "up" in the image and it looked bigger. @JMartJr moved it "up" in a different photo and it did not. The difference is in the perspective lines of the road in the first photo, while the second shows mostly a face-on image of a building. I think this is an effect that almost everyone recognizes, that of a flat road that is "up" in the photo but appears to be a flat road to the observer. In other words, the feeling of perspective, of roads looking narrower (and higher up in our field of vision) as they recede into the distance, is near universal, and I'd be surprised to find people that would mistake that flat road for an actual hill. I'm sure there must be some, but equally sure their number is very small, and such confusion about everyday views might be accompanied by other problems of perception.
 
Do other people get the same impression of a "mighty" battle between Brian's brain and subconscious here?
I hope I'm not missing the point here, but totally agree. Moreover, the mind of flat earthers and conspiracy theorists in general when faced with clear evidence that contradicts them, of course, is something that draws the attention of all of us who like to investigate their claims. I don't exactly remember the video because it was a long time ago, I would have to look it up, but it was a video of Dwayne Kellum, a well-known flat earther (I don't know if he will continue to be one, I guess so) launching stratospheric balloons.

On one of the occasions, he sent what he himself would call a rectilinear lens to about ~35 km high if I'm not mistaken, and seeing the expected curvature on the horizon (it was even subtle but evident to the naked eye) and the guy flatly denied what I was seeing directly. It said there was no curvature, when it was right in front of their eyes... And it wasn't someone else's video, it was HIS own balloon with HIS own cameras.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
It's not just moving it up or down, though, it's where you anchor it in the image. A fast and dirty example of what I mean is this silly image:
red post box stack.jpg
...wherein I've moved a postbox higher in the image without making it seem larger. While not necessarily an analogue to anything in this thread (I'm not 100% sure I understand your concern, but I'll keep trying!:)) my thought is that perspective in flat images has some nuances beyond "higher = bigger."
You moved the box "up" in the image and it looked bigger. @JMartJr moved it "up" in a different photo and it did not. The difference is in the perspective lines of the road in the first photo, while the second shows mostly a face-on image of a building. I think this is an effect that almost everyone recognizes, that of a flat road that is "up" in the photo but appears to be a flat road to the observer. In other words, the feeling of perspective, of roads looking narrower (and higher up in our field of vision) as they recede into the distance, is near universal, and I'd be surprised to find people that would mistake that flat road for an actual hill. I'm sure there must be some, but equally sure their number is very small, and such confusion about everyday views might be accompanied by other problems of perception.
Good points, well made, and taken on board. Thanks.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
I hope I'm not missing the point here, but totally agree. Moreover, the mind of flat earthers and conspiracy theorists in general when faced with clear evidence that contradicts them, of course, is something that draws the attention of all of us who like to investigate their claims.
Yeah, the point has drifted here.

Gonna try and take it back.

I'm interested in peoples' opinion on things like why Brian thinks the camera has been raised for the second picture.

I look at them and see the same thing. I imagine most people do. It's not something we can control.

But there's a difference between "looks" and "is". Although for Brian "looks" = "is".
 
his videos that show sensor data also prove there's near vacuum at that height
Yes, I think that this is one of the biggest gaps in flat earthing. His main chains of arguments are always based on incorrectly applying classical physics laws in systems or environments that do not correspond (for example, thinking that because water does not adhere to a balloon at sea level, it should not adhere to the Earth, completely ignoring how gravity works and how to apply it correctly).

However, the fact that the density of the air decreases as the height increases is a shot in the butt for them, since in a closed system the gases would tend to fill the space much more uniformly, it is a basic concept of the gas laws. For this, our FE friends obviously put the most ad hoc and unfalsifiable explanations that they can think of, such as almost magical properties of density (which still seems incredible to me that they continue without understanding it, just like gravity) or some other concept again of properties of the supposed dome or of the gases themselves.

Here in my region (Spanish-speaking language) an Argentine flat earther leader used a concept called "gases en estado crítico" or "gasses in critical condition" in english, which honestly I don't know what he meant, and I have to be honest: I didn't take the time to investigate it either.
 
Yeah, the point has drifted here.

Gonna try and take it back.

I'm interested in peoples' opinion on things like why Brian thinks the camera has been raised for the second picture.

I look at them and see the same thing. I imagine most people do. It's not something we can control.

But there's a difference between "looks" and "is". Although for Brian "looks" = "is".
Oh, I get where you're going. Sorry.

Sometimes it is a bit difficult for me to read in English.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
interested in peoples' opinion on things like why Brian thinks the camera has been raised for the second picture.

I look at them and see the same thing. I imagine most people do. It's not something we can control.
We intuitively feel that both pictures show the same scene, because that's how reality works: we move, the landscape stays.
But what actually happened was that the scene was changed: the floor was "bent" to match the globe vs. FE.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
since in a closed system the gases would tend to fill the space much more uniformly, it is a basic concept of the gas laws
I don't think that is true. The pressure gradient is caused by gravity, and you should be able to measure it in any container (e.g. in a walk-in freezer with a Samsung galaxy phone) as well as outside.
 

Amber Robot

Active Member
I don't think that is true. The pressure gradient is caused by gravity, and you should be able to measure it in any container (e.g. in a walk-in freezer with a Samsung galaxy phone) as well as outside.
Yes. There are apps that let you access your phone’s sensors and I can measure the pressure changes just going up and down the stairs in my house.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Do other people get the same impression of a "mighty" battle between Brian's brain and subconscious here?
More of a battle between what he sees and his cognitive dissonance. Brian was shown a CGI representation of what he would see on a flat earth, juxtaposed with an actual photo of what one actually sees from that location and he gets caught up in the size of the text box. Granted, the text boxes could have been made the same size, but the image would have been similar.

As Mendel said:
So most daily situations I'd see are adequately described by linear perspective without accounting for curvature.
For the most part we operate in a flat world. Our brain is not "programmed" to see a globe. We see a flat earth, until it's pointed out, at long distances that, ships gradually disappears over the horizon or the area between the tower and the mountains becomes obscured by the curvature. At which point most of say, "Oh yeah, I guess the earth is round".

Brian isn't having a problem because his brain evolved on a globe and can't deal with a flat world. He's having a problem because he was confronted with what a flat earth would look like and it's not what he sees.

Believing the world is flat has consequences and people like Brian don't like when what they believe and what they see don't add up.
 

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
More of a battle between what he sees and his cognitive dissonance.
Isn't that what I said but just using different (better) words?

In my sentence I'm saying it's the subconscious that sees. Probably the wrong word to use but cos we have no control over it I've just lumped it in with subconscious. I'm not a doctor.

And cognitive dissonance would be his brain arguing.
We see a flat earth, until it's pointed out, at long distances that, ships gradually disappears over the horizon or the area between the tower and the mountains becomes obscured by the curvature. At which point most of say, "Oh yeah, I guess the earth is round".
Pointed out? By who? That's leaning towards our sight relying on being taught when surely it's nothing more than can't see the bottom so it must be behind thing in front of it?

And that's kinda what I'm getting at I suppose. Brian's sight brain (I ain't googling whatever lobe it is but I'll refrain from subconscious) knows the mountain is behind horizon. And Brian's sight brain knows the mountain in flat image isn't behind the horizon.

How could you get mountain above horizon?

One way would be to go higher. If you were on a globe. And can't be moving closer based on the visual cues.

Brian's seeing brain knows that. He told us.
 
Last edited:

MyMatesBrainwashed

Active Member
Although where I guess I'm wrong is that things would still be behind things in flat world and you would still be able to see more of it if you go higher.

More of it being everything at some point.

I can't shake the feeling that things have got to be different on a larger scale. Like now I'm wondering why my brains happy for there to be nothing beyond a point.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
And that's kinda what I'm getting at I suppose. Brian's sight brain (I ain't googling whatever lobe it is but I'll refrain from subconscious) knows the mountain is behind horizon. And Brian's sight brain knows the mountain in flat image isn't behind the horizon.

How could you get mountain above horizon?

One way would be to go higher. If you were on a globe. And can't be moving closer based on the visual cues.
Faraway mountains "go higher" when the observer goes higher, in both models; that's how eye level works with perspective.

For a "flat intuition" (which we all have), the different size of the green area usually indicates a camera height change. Try it on your kitchen table: how big is is the table surface visually depending on how high your head is? That change of aspect of the table, which we experience similarly many times each day, leads Brian to misinterpret the difference between the renders.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Do other people get the same impression of a "mighty" battle between Brian's brain and subconscious here?

The way I see it - as with many things on this site - it's a battle between a person's untrue belief and the actual facts. And because the belief has been heavily invested in and become wrapped up with the person's self-identity the incompatible facts/truth are felt as an attack on one's own being and must be batted off at all costs. Hence cognitive dissonance. And hence the strange measures one must take to preserve the beliefs/sense of self.

Beliefs are stronger than facts. And self-identity more important than truth. Until it's not.
 
Top