This is called the Sinking Ship Effect. Wave action has a tendency to 'hide' objects further in the distance.
Let's say I'm five feet above the water's surface and there are 100,000 one foot waves between me and a distant object on the water's surface. How much of that object will be hidden by waves if the water is perfectly (FE) flat? Roughly 99.999% of one foot (depends on distance a lot of course too). If the waves were actually blocking visibility of the objects along the water, I wouldn't be able to see them. In the pictures I took I can still them though, they're just being compressed.
Objects on the shore line, and the towers themselves, show the effect of perspective near the eye-line compressing the objects. Eventually the bottom of the bridge pillar is so compressed that the eye is unable to resolve it resulting in the "sinking-ship effect." This is shown to greater effect on the details of the shoreline at the right of the horizon. All this is related by Dr. Rowbotham in ENaG.
I've been reading that section.
Perspective makes objects become visibly smaller both vertically and horizontally as the distance increases correct? How exactly does adding a physical object (a surface of some kind whether a "board" (-quote Rowbotham) water, salt flats, whatever) cause imaginary 'lines of perspective' to change if not because of refraction? Rowbotham says nothing of objects becoming 'squashed' that I could find. Refraction accounts for this though, and a 'hill of water' due to curvature accounts for the higher objects descending toward the water. So I guess (according to ENaG) objects get smaller as distance increases, but at a certain point, they get smaller vertically faster than horizontally? Also, the bridge and hillside weren't any further away in the lower picture versus the higher picture. They were the same distance.
Increased magnification also restored absolutely nothing. I can post a 15x and a 60x shot both from the exact same elevation if need be, but other than slight detail enhancement, nothing changes. Everything close to the water still has a compressed look.
There is no wave effect. the same phenomenon appears whether the waves are high, medium, low or inexistent.
repeated observations show clearly that
What do repeated observations show?
And there is no such thing as a scenario in which there are no waves. There always are, even if they are small.
There were lots of little waves. I'm not sure how a swell would work in a long narrow and shallow (about 140 feet) channel like that. How high would a swell need to be to create the effect I saw, and wouldn't it be somewhat noticeable especially with a railroad running almost the entire distance along the shoreline to the hill?
Should I have someone located halfway down along the tracks to report on the vertical distance between the rails and the water (or if they're flooded) in the event I witness (according to FE) a big stationary swell again?
There are also no repeated observations of that bridge and waterway from that particular vantage point as of yet. It's about 40 miles away for me. If I get the job I want, I'll be able to simply swing by after work, but until then my trips down to that spot rely on me heading that way for other agendas, and time permitting.
We don't need to invent anything.
Now that's funny.
Pay particular attention to the last photo. Notice how some of the bottom of the sun has "dissappeared" out of view and it appears to float. Its not below the horizon. Its just invisible.
The sun would have to travel a looooong ways farther away between the top and bottom picture to get that much closer to the horizon (Not to mention the massive curvature of light since the sun would be somewhere out past the icewall assuming that series of pictures is looking west at sunset, and according to FE the sun should be well along it's circular path toward the other side of the disk)
There would also have to be an 'enlarging' effect to keep the sun the same size as it sets (plainly evident with the top portion still above the horizon), but then an abrupt 'shrinking' at the bottom portion due to 'perspective'. And then some mirage thrown in, which I'm guessing helps facilitate the 'perspective shrink'?
Oh, and the whole time as the sun travels by throughout the course of the day, it keeps the same side turned towards me (as I photographed and posted awhile back), which means (if the sun is a sphere) it also would have to adjust it's rotation speed slightly throughout the day (speeding up and then slowing in the evening as it travels further away.
Now if the sun is a spotlight, it would somehow have to appear round, even at a distance of 20,000 miles (3000 miles high and 20 degrees above the horizon if I remember correctly), and the light would somehow have to curve along it's path while maintaining a round look, which would involve a varying curve radius for the light rays. Aetheric whirlpools take care of it all though I guess right?
Anyway, I'm starting to get off topic. I guess what I mean to say is, without invoking some wild bendy light properties, RET works much easier with sunsets.