Pictures taken at Sea

  • 68 Replies
  • 25169 Views
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #60 on: October 05, 2008, 09:36:13 AM »
Next point:

"The deformable mirror, which corrects for turbulent atmospheric conditions, allows astronomers to take images from ground-based telescopes that rival those taken from space.

The Yerkes telescope was a refracting telescope. Good show, Tom.

Actually, Yerkes is the observatory.  They have (at least) two different telescopes there.  A 40" refracting telescope and a 41" mirror telescope with adaptive optics.  Tom doesn't seem to know that bit of trivia.

I knew that. I assumed Tom was talking about the 40" refractor, seeing as that was built in the 1800s. Actually, the 41" is only 40" in diameter, but they call t the 41" to avoid confusion with the older refracting telescope.

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #61 on: October 06, 2008, 02:49:26 AM »
Seeing as there hasn't been any activity for a while, I think we can draw conclusions from this whole argument:

1) Modern telescopes are superior to 1800s telescopes.
2) Magnification does not restore features close to the waterline.
3) Fom 1) and 2): Rowbothian perspective is incorrect, and FET needs some other way to explain ships dissapearing behind the horizon, hull first.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42559
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #62 on: October 06, 2008, 05:39:59 AM »
I knew that. I assumed Tom was talking about the 40" refractor, seeing as that was built in the 1800s. Actually, the 41" is only 40" in diameter, but they call t the 41" to avoid confusion with the older refracting telescope.

Apparently, it didn't work.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #63 on: October 11, 2008, 08:55:11 AM »
Quote from: Rig Navigator
Here are pictures that I took yesterday...
Without Binoculars:


With Binoculars:


Your binoculars seem to have uncovered a good part of the obscured structure's bottom, exactly as Samuel Birley Rowbotham, Thomas Winship, and Cyrus Teed said they would.

Maybe if you had a telescope instead of some binoculars we could see even more of it.

That is an illusion that you see more of it. you see just as much of it in the binocular picture as you do on the without binocular picture...
oh so now the moon is in on the conspiracy too?

Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #64 on: October 11, 2008, 10:22:24 AM »
That is an illusion that you see more of it. you see just as much of it in the binocular picture as you do on the without binocular picture...

As I showed here.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8767
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #65 on: October 11, 2008, 11:54:34 AM »
Your binoculars seem to have uncovered a good part of the obscured structure's bottom, exactly as Samuel Birley Rowbotham, Thomas Winship, and Cyrus Teed said they would.

Maybe if you had a telescope instead of some binoculars we could see even more of it.

That is an illusion that you see more of it. you see just as much of it in the binocular picture as you do on the without binocular picture...

Actually Tesla3, ran some numbers that showed exactly this. He dismissed it as "inconclusive".
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #66 on: October 12, 2008, 07:28:39 AM »
Actually Tesla3, ran some numbers that showed exactly this. He dismissed it as "inconclusive".

I measured the width and the height of the oil rig in the two photos.

I attributed an error to all of my measutrements of +/- one pixel.

Within experimental error the height:width ratio was the same in both pictures (see below).

So from a proper, scientific viewpoint there was no recovery of height with magnification.

If anyone wants to ignore the experimental error, please go ahead.

But that would be un-scientific, anti-scientific or pseudo-scientific.

----------------------------------



Zoomed out

Height (H1) = (30 +/- 1) mm (where 1 mm is the width of one pixel)
Width (W1) = (58 +/- 1) mm

Fractional error in H1 = 1/30 = 3.33%
Fractional error in W1 = 1/58 = 1.72%

H1/W1 = 0.517

Fractional error in H1/W1 (FE1) = 3.33% + 1.72% = 5.06%   

Zoomed in

Height (H2) = (83 +/- 1) mm
Width (W2) = (155 +/- 1) mm

Fractional error in H2 = 1/83 = 1.20%
Fractional error in W2 = 1/155 = 0.65%

H2/W2 = 0.535

Fractional error in H2/W2 (FE2) = 1.20% + 0.65% = 1.85%

Comparing the two pictures

(H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = 0.535 / 0.517 = 1.0353

Fractional error in (H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = FE1 + FE2 = 5.06% + 1.85% = 6.91%

Actual error in (H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = 6.91% x 1.035 = 0.0715

Conclusion

The shape of the rig in the two images is the same within experimental error.

(Given that: 1.0353 - 0.0715 = 0.9638; and 0.9638 < 1.0000)
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #67 on: October 12, 2008, 07:36:03 AM »
Actually Tesla3, ran some numbers that showed exactly this. He dismissed it as "inconclusive".

I must take issue with this statement.

I concluded that there was no recovery of height with magnification; a conclusion which was wholly justified by my results.

Nothing was "dismissed", i.e. thrown out, neglected, overlooked or ignored.

My methodology, results and conslusion where perfectly rigorous, scientific and open, and they are, therefore, perfectly valid.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

*

3 Tesla

  • 808
  • Flat Earth double agent
Re: Pictures taken at Sea
« Reply #68 on: October 12, 2008, 07:38:41 AM »
Conclusion
The shape of the rig in the two images is the same within experimental error.

I want to have a look at the "experimental errors" in my numbers again, but this time from a more intuitive angle.

When I say that something is 10 +/- 2 mm long, I mean that as far as I can tell (with the measurement techniques at hand) the real length could be anywhere between (10-2) and (10+2) mm; that is somewhere between 8 and 12 mm.

If I make four length measurements (L1, L2, L3 & L4), all with errors attached (E1, E2, E3, E4), and calculate a fifth variable from them, e.g X = (L1/L2)/(L3/L4), then the individual errors will all add together to give a cumulative error. This is known as the theory of "progression of errors" and it is taught to all first year physics undergraduates in their first term because it is of fundamental importance to good science.

The maths for the above example states that the fractional (percentage) error in X will be the sum of the fractional errors in the individual lengths:

FE(X) = FE1 + FE2 + FE3 + FE4 = E1/L1 + E2/L2 + E3/L3 + E4/L4.

To illustrate this intuitively, let us re-examine my rig data:

H1 = 30
W1 = 58
H1/W1 = 0.5172

H2 = 83
W2 = 155
H2/W2 = 0.5355

(H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = 1.0353

So it seems that the rig gets taller in the 'zoomed in' image.

Because of the relative pixel size I assumed that any of my lengths were only accurate to within plus or minus one pixel width (which was 1 mm) so the true lengths might have been as follows:

H1 -> H1 + 1 = 31
W1 -> W1 - 1 = 57
H1/W1 = 0.5439

H2 -> H2 - 1 = 82
W2 -> W2 + 1 = 156
H2/W2 = 0.5256

(H2/W2)/(H1/W1) = 0.9665

So now it seems that the rig is taller in the 'zoomed out' image.

That is why I said that "within experimental error" the height/width ratio is the same in both images.

The experiment is "inconclusive" at best.

If Rig's original images (not the ones he posted) have better resolution, perhaps we could re-do the measurements with less error and get a more "precise" result.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)