# How to logically prove a round Earth



## Onijunbei (Sep 14, 2020)

1. One has a belief in the Creator.
2. One uses other means, typically Science, to explain the mechanics of the universe.

1. One would have to conclude the Creator to be deceitful. The most apparent celestial object within view is the Moon with obvious round shape and obvious shadows created by other round celestial objects. With the advent of telescopes, man has noticed all other celestial objects as round. The Creator represents Truth and Order, not Chaos. There is no Order when one celestial object is flat and all others are not. Thus a rational conclusion that Order does not exist if the earth has a shape inconsistent with other celestial objects.

2. The rules that govern our world must be uniform throughout the Universe. This is the first tenant of Physics. If ice reduces friction today it must also reduce friction tomorrow. The rules cannot change from day to day nor from location to location. There are no flat celestial objects. The rules must apply to every celestial object. Furthermore there are no apparent objects on Earth that are naturally flat. There are no flat animals, plants, mountains, rocks, elevations... A patch of ground might be flat in appearance , but the matter it consists of is not.

There is no Magic. Magic is slight of hand. It is deception.. It is a lie. 
Neither the tenants of Order (God) nor the tenants of Rationality and Logic rely on deception. 

Deception hits those opposed to Order the most....





> Note: This OP was recovered from the KeeperOfTheKnowledge archive.





> Note: Archived Sh.org replies to this OP: How to logically prove a round Earth


----------



## Six (Oct 16, 2020)

*Flat earthers (+ johnlevi fans), come here !*

While back, few years ago, I was introduced (same as everyone else here I guess) to the idea that the earth is flat. While some claims remain stable and "undeniable", I got hooked in to the idea.
So the journey of constant observation has started for me. I was trying very hard to maintain the FE claims (especially that guy who live(d) in Thailand or something, i don't remember his name) and to prove them one by one.


But my observation actually disprove all of the claims, one by one.

_Short introduction: 
a) I live in an rural area
b) I live in an area with small to no precipitations
c) no mountains, high structures around, so I could see the horizon 360 degrees
d) I looked at the sky both during day and night times_

So, let's begin.

*1.  *     Moon is closer, Sun is further (see 1.png)
1.1     Moon change its light / shadow pattern over its daily cycle. Also, it doesn't glow

We all have taken a ride with a car, in the nigh time. The absence of a powerful light (like a Sun during the day)(or like the tower light bulbs on a highway) will make the cars headlight more powerful to your eyes perception as soon as its gets closer. While the headlights of the opposite lane cars are coming your way, you will not be able to see clearly beyond that (if headlights are on long range); it will blind your vision or the accuracy of your observation. The same is happening with the sun. It is the most powerful light source in our observable universe. So, because the moon doesn't glow, all wee see it's a refraction of the Sun light over the moon terrain. 
There are 2 obvious positions : 
a) moon is visible
    - full moon display is always related to the Sun position in regarding the earth (or reverse). this occurrence is happening when the moon is in the opposite direction of the sun, with earth in between them. most of the moon eclipses are happening because of the earth shadow over it.
b) moon is invisible (see 2.png)
    - this occur when the moon is in between earth and the Sun in a nearly straight line (from earth to Sun or reverse)
    - visibility of the moon is given by its light refraction of the sun
    - in this position the Sun eclipses occur, when the "is in front" of the Sun light

*2.* the Earth is spinning and the Moon evolve around it
    - this is why there are small differences of the observable moon size over days, because the Moon circular path is not a perfect circle with Earth in the middle
    - the centrifugal force is what actually shape the Earth; things popping out, like volcanos, mountains, "land" slide / moving etc


*3.* our atmosphere change the perception of how we see them (Moon and the Sun)
    - during rise or set (for both Moon and Sun) the atmosphere act like a small magnifying glass 
    - also, during rise or set, the color of both celestial objects change from brighter to darker patterns because of the atmosphere formation [ you see them better when they are "above" your head, but dimmer when they are close to the horizon]

*4. *Sun is a big big big source of light
    - during night time, the stars appears. why we don't see them during the day time? simple: because the Sun light obscure our vision. the light is too strong to see beyond it (see the analogy with the car headlights on point 1)
    - our ability to clearly see the stars is given by 2 factors : 
                                        a) missing the Sun light over the earth surface (the stars come to our sight in a pattern given by the Sun position)
                                        b) the position (of the stars) on our sky (closer or further to the horizon). that's why some of them tend to pulse, because of the earth spinning and atmosphere composition

*5. *JohnLevi claims are disproven by the actual movement of the celestial bodies. If the Earth was much bigger and we would have lived on a small part of it (in a cave) we would only see glimpses of the Moon moving across our sky; but this is not the case, you can see the moon every day (when not in the position explained on *1. *and in 2.png) which means that Moon evolve around us every day. 
Also, thinking that the Moon is a mirror image of the Earth make no sense in the current observation exercise.

Closing thought: 
- to understand better, do this trick : play with 2 balls (one small for moon, one bigger for earth) and a light source (home lamp for example). try to assemble a spinning path of the small ball (the moon) while observing the light refraction on both surfaces (big and small balls)


Thank you for your time, I hope my English didn't hurt you


----------



## Paul R (Oct 16, 2020)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgZKUzOYNdE_


----------



## _harris (Oct 16, 2020)

my main observation, a glaringly obvious one, and easily repeatable around the world:
look at the sunset on a semi-cloudy day... if the earth is flat, how can the rays shine on the _underside_ of the clouds?!

my second observation, another easily repeatable one:
i live near the coast. there is a small island around 7M (10k) from the beach i was on just last month. climbed down a few metres of rock to small beach only visible at low tide.... and no island. climbed back up the few metres there was the island. simple

also, where the "vanishing point" should be is above the horizon (if we were on a flat plane, the horizon would strech equally for miles and gradually fade into mist), this becomes even more obvious when at a slight elevation (you can observe this even below 100m if your area is flat!)

i have another one involving hilltops but i cannot express it properly in writing right now 

	Post automatically merged: Oct 16, 2020

ps- i actually have researched flat earth and tried to prove it, but what i can visually observe is much more convincing than any FE arguments i've ever heard.
then the fact there's no 1 single unifying FE theory shows that it's not scientific, compared to repeatable observances.
i'm yet to see how the distances in southern hemisphere could logically work on any FE models i've seen.


----------



## Jd755 (Oct 16, 2020)

How do lights on the ceiling prove the floor you are stood on is level?
Ever stood still at night and watched a helicopter with its night sun light turned move towards and or away from you?
How do parallel railway lines appear to converge and then disappear?
Why do people and their dogs disappear from the feet up when they walk away from you on a flat pavement or road or promenade?
Ever walked around a large table to establish it has four ninety degree corners and level sides then noticed that you cannot see the recatngle shape it truly is?
Ever sat on a beach and watch people walk out across the mudflats disappear completely from view from the feet up once they get to a certain distance?

Seems obvious to say this but these eyes we have are unable to perceive the shape of anything accurately. Even this laptop screen I am looking at whilst writing I know is a rectangle appears wider at the bottom than it is at the top and it's only my arms length away from my eyes.

These two ships are at anchor so not moving. Barring the funnel arrangement they are identical and yet the one furthest away would appear to be able to sail under the bow of the one nearest to the camera.  Were they sat afloat on water that was followed the outside curve of a ball shape the water would be falling away in all directions from the point of view and it would be below the furthest ships water line.
It would also mean that instead of the further ships water line appearing to be above the nearest ships it would in fact be below it. The water would also be falling away to the extreme left and extreme right of the image so both edges would be lower than the midpoint. This never ever happens.
In fact the water level just to the left and right of both ships hulls meets the hulls at the exact same points which proves beyond any possible doubt that both ships are at anchor on a flat not curved surface.


----------



## Paul R (Oct 16, 2020)

_harris said:


> my main observation, a glaringly obvious one, and easily repeatable around the world:
> look at the sunset on a semi-cloudy day... if the earth is flat, how can the rays shine on the _underside_ of the clouds?!
> 
> my second observation, another easily repeatable one:
> ...


----------



## Six (Oct 16, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> How do lights on the ceiling prove the floor you are stood on is level?
> Ever stood still at night and watched a helicopter with its night sun light turned move towards and or away from you?
> How do parallel railway lines appear to converge and then disappear?
> Why do people and their dogs disappear from the feet up when they walk away from you on a flat pavement or road or promenade?
> ...


Never crossed to your sigh this picture?


----------



## _harris (Oct 16, 2020)

@Paul R , got a legit source for that shoddy "memesque" picture?

@kd-755 not sure what you're trying to show with the boat picture... there's no frame of reference, no measurements, no nothing, just a picture of 2 boats not too far from one another..



kd-755 said:


> How do lights on the ceiling prove the floor you are stood on is level?


lights on a ceiling... ?  

im talking about the clouds in the sky dude... clouds are sometimes only 1-200m above the ground, or lower still and i live on a hill...
does your flat earth theory explain how the sun's rays shine UPWARDS through the clouds around/just after sunrise/set, if we are on a flat plane?
i'd love to hear a rational explanation (other than the conclusion the earth must be convex), especially rather than just naysaying and bringing needless rhetoric into a discussion

does the sun on the flat earth"model" go below the clouds?... if we're on a disk with the sun above the clouds, how would it ever be able to shine upwards from a "ground level"?


----------



## Jd755 (Oct 16, 2020)

​


_harris said:


> not sure what you're trying to show with the boat picture... there's no frame of reference, no measurements, no nothing, just a picture of 2 boats not too far from one another..


There is a very clear frame of reference as the sea level horizon runs dead level across the image. What the image is clear evidence of is how our eyes create a version of a reality that is not actually there.  The two ships are floating on the same level surface. You can create the exact same illusion on any flat surface with two identical objects. Say a table top for example.
Get a pair of identical fag packets and position them the same way up on a flat table right next to each other and observe them by placing your eye at table height.
Then move one a foot or so further away from your point of view and get your eye back where it was and you will see the further packet has got smaller and appears to be lower than the one you didn't move yet you know they are both the same size even though your eyes are showing you different.
That is the visual effect you are seeing with the ships in the photograph.



_harris said:


> does your flat earth theory


I never mentioned flat earth or theorised anything. Don't put words in people's mouths, please it's bad form.
The only thing that is demonstrably flat is the surface of contained water. It is dead level all around at its surface no matter what shape the container is nor what shape the bottom of the container is.
The earth is obviously not flat Flat is to me just a descriptor of level and it is anything but level, unlike water.

As for the sun and the moon I have no idea what they are, what they are doing, why they are where they are and what they have to do with the shape of thing I'm currently sitting whose shape I am also equally ignorant of. I know of no way to determine its shape.



shase66 said:


> Never crossed to your sigh this picture?


If that means have I ever seen this picture well I have now and it is a perfect example of what I said above about how things going away from your point of view disappear from the ground upwards. The black supports get closer and close together then become just a thick black line and then disappear from view whilst at the same time the pylons appear to rise up in the water.
Were we looking at the pylons on a curved surface they would be falling away from our point of view as on a curved surface it falls away in every direction from the point of view. The horizon would curve across the frame from left to right but doesn't does it in that fantastic picture.
Like the ship picture all they are is direct evidence of the way our eyes work and of the level nature of contained water which is always level at its surface.

Here's another ship picture, probably a better choice than the first one.
If we are looking at water on the exterior surface of a ball shape then the ship furthest away from the point of view with the dark blue hull should be lower down in the image than the one nearest to the point of view, the one with the light blue hull. What we see is only possible on a level surface. Again do the table top test to see it in action.





​I'm not making this up nor am I interested in convincing anyone of anything, we all find truth for ourselves. It is repeatable experiment. Go try it out and if you are lucky enough to have access to a large ball shaped surface do the same experiment on that as well and if you have a camera to hand use it to record what is seen and share on here. I'd do it myself but ball shaped surfaces are thin on the ground.
Our point of view delivers images of things as they appear to be not as they are in reality.
This conflation of appearance and reality is the source of all flat and ball earth theory.


----------



## _harris (Oct 16, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> There is a very clear frame of reference as the sea level horizon runs dead level across the image.


the "horizon" you speak of actually has land in the background so you've completely lost me there.. and the ships are a lot taller than the photographer so the perspective is all off. also, camera lenses and the human eye capture images differently.
recreating this on a table with any identical objects would not create the same effect... unless the objects were a lot larger than a fag packet, and the table was massive.
what are you trying to show me?


kd-755 said:


> I never mentioned flat earth or theorised anything. Don't put words in people's mouths, please it's bad form.


your post had the inklings of flat earther.,.. no real discussion, just using a random image to prove/not prove a point (that i'm yet to understand)...


kd-755 said:


> Here's another ship picture, probably a better choice than the first one.


again no frame of reference. no distances, measurements. no clue as to where the camera is in relation to the subject.
just a stock photo that shows me nothing other than 3 boats at sea. and the photo has clearly been taken from a level far above the first boat in shot... (looking down onto the roof)
photographs do not show perspective properly, camera lenses work differently to the human eye... and i would bet money on which one is a better judge of reality!

so you don't think the earth is flat? is it globular?

and yes the water would always be level in relation to any point you are, our perspective is tiny and we can't discern curvature of oceans a few miles away

even on a ferry to france, there's that point when the land disappears behind, below the horizon... and you're in an open sea... if it was flat, why does the land disappear at all? it should fade into mist/ distance that you can't see.. but it drops below horizon, just as you'd expect on a convex plane.
and why is there a period of time when you can't see the land ahead? that exact same reason. convex plane.

water is not always level... raindrops on leaves?


----------



## Jd755 (Oct 16, 2020)

_harris said:


> the "horizon" you speak of actually has land in the background so you've completely lost me there


The water line maybe a better way of putting it. The line where the water ends and the land begins is what I mean by water horizon. As in the pylon picture it runs dead level from right to left as the human eye is well capable of rendering level across its line of sight but is incapable of rendering level going with or askew to its line of sight. So looking at a line of pylons in the water from the side so they cross the vision it will be seen that they in fact do not fall away at either end and they are all level in relation to the waters surface. Moving our eyes to the camera position and the appearance they give is the one in the image. Even though our eyes have just proved to us when in the previous position they are all in fact level.
This to can be repeated at home. Take six fag packets or six of anything you know to be identical in size, lego bricks or lighters even. Stand them up on the long edge of the table as evenly spaced apart as you can guess. Stand as far back as you can to see they are all the same height in relation to the surface of the table from left to right, perhaps a worktop would be a better choice if there is no table about. Then walk to the short end of the table and look down the same line which you and your eyes know is a dead level line of fag packets or whatever and you will see the same effect as the pylon picture delivers. This is how our eyes deceive us into seeing things as the eyes make them appear not things as they are in reality. We cannot help it it's the way the eyes work so using them to determine shape is not practical. All they are good for in regards to shape is to determine a horizontal level. They are useless for vertical levels for the same reason they are useless for determining shape.

What all the pictures posted show is visual effects of the way the eyes work. All lenses are designed to work with the way our eyes work save one whose name I cannot recall but it literally straightens converging verticals to show things in the vertical plane as they really are not as they appear to every other lens including the ones inside our eyes.
All I am saying is we are not equipped with a vision that can show us the true shape of anything except the determining of level.
Earth's shape is not determinable by humanity's senses nor its machines which are all designed to work with said senses.


----------



## _harris (Oct 16, 2020)

the camera only has one lens, and a photograph will never be able to compare with how the human eyes work!


----------



## Jd755 (Oct 16, 2020)

_harris said:


> the camera only has one lens, and a photograph will never be able to compare with how the human eyes work!


A camera lens has many lenses within it. Ever taken one apart I have and there is a lot of fancy glass in them.
I'm with you though in regards to photographs as they are but a pale shadow of what eyes can do. That is why I suggest you do either or both experiments for yourself as it will be your human eyes which will show you what I am saying about how they work. The photographs are only useful to a point as they are taken on devices that are built to work with a human eye.
Vertical shift lens might be the name of the one that corrects our eyes appearance of reality into actual reality.
Can I ask why is it that a railway line converging and disappearing even though it doesn't actually converge or disappear in reality as travelling along them proves beyond all doubt seems to be acceptable to you as evidence of the way in which our eyes work but applying this same acceptance to the ships or the pylons seems to be unacceptable?

Edit to add this as I see you added some points in as I was replying to the lens post.

A raindrop is not contained. Only contained water exhibits a level surface.



_harris said:


> even on a ferry to france, there's that point when the land disappears behind


This is just the way our vision works. It's the exact same effect as the pylon photograph exhibits. Once again you can recreate it for yourself. Find a long straight level pavement and lie on the ground with your camera/phone resting on the ground. Get a friend to walk away from you in a direct line from the camera position. She or he will appear to disappear from the ground up. Both your eyes and the camera lens will record this phenomenon. You know they are not actually disappearing. If the pavement is long enough she or he will disappear from sight completely. If at that point you shout them or phone them to turn around and walk back towards you they will be invisible and then they will appear head first ultimately becoming full body again.
That is nothing more than the visual limitations that are part and parcel of the way our eyes work. Disappearing Dover and appearing Calais or friend walking towards or away from you its the same thing.
I'll stop there as it feels as though I am trying to convince and I'm not and wouldn't dream of doing so. It has been an interesting conversation thank you.


----------



## Whitewave (Oct 17, 2020)

I'm going to have to add another topic to never discuss in public: religion, politics, Roe v Wade, and shape of the earth.


----------



## veeall (Oct 17, 2020)

Rotation of the earth - not happening.
Earths shape - i've only seen the planate.
*Planate* - flattened, plane.
Shape and mechanics of heavenly plane(?) or firmament - another unknown (to me).

	Post automatically merged: Oct 17, 2020



shase66 said:


> kd-755 said:
> 
> 
> > How do lights on the ceiling prove the floor you are stood on is level?
> ...



This video actually convinced me what kind of light refraction effects are going on at the horizon. It's so obvious. Far image becomes blurry and shifts down. While alleged curve starts right where the blur or fuzziness begins. I have the video, in that crop it is debatable.


----------



## Jetsam (Oct 17, 2020)

No sorry we can't prove anything about the planets by messing around with lights and balls. I wish earth was flat, it would solve multiple problems. But no, its unfortunately globe shaped and if we're lucky it will stop rotating at some point and we'll all fly off into space. That would be a reset for sure if anyone held on and survived. Supposedly.


----------



## Paul R (Oct 17, 2020)

_harris said:


> @Paul R , got a legit source for that shoddy "memesque" picture?
> 
> @kd-755 not sure what you're trying to show with the boat picture... there's no frame of reference, no measurements, no nothing, just a picture of 2 boats not too far from one another..
> 
> ...




_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPksF_JFNEI_


	Post automatically merged: Oct 17, 2020



_harris said:


> @Paul R , got a legit source for that shoddy "memesque" picture?
> 
> @kd-755 not sure what you're trying to show with the boat picture... there's no frame of reference, no measurements, no nothing, just a picture of 2 boats not too far from one another..
> 
> ...


Original video: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivgisEWLeM8_


	Post automatically merged: Oct 17, 2020



Paul R said:


> _harris said:
> 
> 
> > @Paul R , got a legit source for that shoddy "memesque" picture?
> ...



Another explanation: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcEpmm1vLiU_


----------



## _harris (Oct 17, 2020)

absolute non science gaff!

why does he need a plastic screen between the light and his "clouds"?
is this repeatable with a non-white tablecloth?
how far was the light above the "clouds" on his model?
was it to scale to the FE model?
how far up is the sun supposed to be on FE model?
(bear in mind some clouds are under 200m above ground)


----------



## Paul R (Oct 17, 2020)

Paul R said:


> _harris said:
> 
> 
> > @Paul R , got a legit source for that shoddy "memesque" picture?
> ...



And yet another,\


_harris said:


> absolute non science gaff!
> 
> why does he need a plastic screen between the light and his "clouds"?
> is this repeatable with a non-white tablecloth?
> ...



_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1ij1hCl9AY_


----------



## _harris (Oct 17, 2020)

kd-755 said:


> A camera lens has many lenses within it. Ever taken one apart I have and there is a lot of fancy glass in them.


yes but still only one point of focus... which is what i meant by lens.
several lenses working in a row creates only one lens to look through

	Post automatically merged: Oct 17, 2020

@Paul R , those first 2 videos contradict each other. the guy with the LED light says the light distorts due to lens effect caused by humidity in the atmosphere... then the oil rig vid, he even PROVES it's possible to see all 3 from his view point, and no "humidity lens" effect is taken into accout (why you can see slightly over the horizon.
another thing he doesn't take into account is his measurements are from sea level... sea level is a mean tidal point , and probably not measured from the sea in his location... and it could be low tide for all we know!!
i grew up near the beach with the world's highest tidal range... sometimes the distant power station tower appears to be floating above the water, sometimes there a doubling effect, sometimes it looks 'normal'...
water + light = refraction. air directly above the sea is very humid due to evaporation = more refraction the on land... simple stuff

	Post automatically merged: Oct 17, 2020

i'm done with this thread. make your own observations of reality, not believing shit i watch on youtube with contradictory presentations.
will never believe it until there is a unified concept without contradictions (and a model that actually makes logical sense!)

and, funnily enough, we do have a very unified scientific model for a globe earth


----------



## Paul R (Oct 17, 2020)

_harris said:


> kd-755 said:
> 
> 
> > A camera lens has many lenses within it. Ever taken one apart I have and there is a lot of fancy glass in them.
> ...


Here is a timelapse of Skink Bay rising and dipping, as well as the mountains behind, clearly giving a visual show of what refraction is and how it works to confuse our vision...

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyLzdQFU3Og_


	Post automatically merged: Oct 17, 2020



Paul R said:


> _harris said:
> 
> 
> > kd-755 said:
> ...



This is with explanations, if needed: 
_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMnoku6EUjY_


----------



## codis (Oct 17, 2020)

OMG


----------



## _harris (Oct 17, 2020)

Paul R said:


> Here is a timelapse of Skink Bay


i have already stated that water, and water in air (aka humidity) affects the way light moves. (do we all agree on this?) so what is the video supposed to show me?
i had to watch with captions because i thought i was missing something, but it's exactly what i would expect to see as the humidity changes throughout the day!

what you don't, and never will get from a camera lens is actual real-life perspective...

the point i didn't make about hills the other day:
(some simple orienteering to visually confirm a convex shape...)
go somewhere hilly with an OS map, find a view about half way up a hill, get your bearings and see what heights the hills around you are..
keep those in mind, and as you walk up the hill, further peaks appear, look at their altitudes.. keep going up... i'm sure you can see where i'm going with this!!
i have done this observation myself and it is 100% repeatable and only has 1 explanation


----------



## _harris (Oct 18, 2020)

and another very simple logical proof 
(apologies for the copied picture but it explains better than i could put into words!)




https://flatearth.ws/southern-flight
this is still yet to be explained by any sensible FE theory
[the planes don't simply "fly 3 times faster" than in the northern hemisphere... and they certainly don't fly up and over, crossing over the equator, through the northern hemisphere, then back over the equator... nonsense!]


----------



## codis (Oct 18, 2020)

_harris said:


> and another very simple logical proof...
> ...this is still yet to be explained by any sensible FE theory


I suspect you might start with some wrong assumption.
Namely that all FE proponents actually believe in the stuff they post. Or want to learn something.
Of course I might be wrong here ...


----------



## Six (Oct 18, 2020)

_harris said:


> Paul R said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a timelapse of Skink Bay
> ...


Best proof is that Moon tend to disappear couple of days, but yet sometimes you see it every day, for at least 10 days for example. On FE model it's (?) no explanation to this occurrence. The only logical one is that Moon goes in to a "blind spot" in between Sun an Earth trajectory.


----------



## Kahsmick (Oct 18, 2020)

Professional Engineer here.
I drew up the alleged ball earth math back in Spring 2015 in AutoCAD, to quell arguements over what actual measurement values We SHOULD see in real life.
We don't see Curvature anywhere on quiescent water.
Not for 100s and 100s of now-observable miles with modern optical equipment.
Stolen Cosmology is part and parcel of Our Stolen History, in my studied opinion.


----------



## James G (Jan 30, 2021)

Six said:


> _harris said:
> 
> 
> > Paul R said:
> ...


Yeah, ok thats why...NOT.


----------



## Oracle (Jan 31, 2021)

Onijunbei said:


> There is no Magic. Magic is slight of hand. It is deception.. It is a lie.


I agree with all you say other than this statement. "Magic" is very real but it is not related to the physical world of which you have been speaking.
It operates on a level beyond observable reality. We do not exist solely in a three dimensional world.

It must be remembered that our eyes, and all lens have finite limitations.



> Optical Illusions can use color, light and patterns to create images that can be deceptive or misleading to our brains. The information gathered by the eye is processed by the brain, creating a perception that in reality, does not match the true image. Perception refers to the interpretation of what we take in through our eyes. Optical illusions occur because our brain is trying to interpret what we see and make sense of the world around us. Optical illusions simply trick our brains into seeing things which may or may not be real.


A link  Optical Illusions | Optics For Kids just for fun because you've all given me such a good laugh reading this thread.


----------

