THEIR PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY "IDEA"


In a video I used a 2 by 1 oblong for scale. They wanted to claim that I had made the oblong appear half the length by having it at an angle to the camera. But the image in my video is a 2 by 1 rectangle, so if I had made it appear half the length I must have made it appear half the width at the same time! But you could see that the oblong was very much face so hardly at an angle!


They wanted to believe that you can take a 2 by 1 rectangle and make it look half the length and width by viewing it at an angle. I pointed out that if you take a 2 by 1 rectangle (well, any rectangle) and try to make the length and the width appear less by viewing it at an angle that the shape would look very distorted long before you got anywhere near half the length and width. In particular one diagonal would look a lot different in lengh than the other diagonal!!!!

These so-called maths people postulated that there is special angle and when you view a 2 by 1 rectangle at this special angle it makes it look half the length and width and without the shape hardly looking distorted!!!! Except they could not figure out how the hell to do this!!!! It didn't stop them from inciting stupid gullible people into bullying me with this absurd postualte.


I referred to their projective geometry idea as "geometry for the insane" or "magic orientations" on facebook.

(Much later I came up with an idea as to how to prove that their projective geometry idea is mathematically impossible which I have nearly finished developing).


TERMINOLOGY


I set up some terminology. Take two identical 2 by 1 rectangles. One of the rectangles you would put at an angle. The other rectangle you wouldn't have at an angle. I refered to the former as the "angled rectangle" and the latter as the "reference rectangle". 

The goal was then for these people to come up with an angle that would make the "angled rectangle" appear to be half the length and width of the "reference rectangle" and with the shape of the "angled rectangle" appearing hardly distorted.

I called the length the angled rectangle appeared to have as the "apparent length" and the width the angled rectangle appeared to have as the "apparent width".