Crow's nest declared useless

  • 148 Replies
  • 34838 Views
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #90 on: August 29, 2011, 05:49:56 AM »
Yes I saw these pictures.

But they do not prove anything. How can a picture be a proof?

This way of reasoning is not serious science.

For example, how do your pictures explain atmosphere reflection?

Do you know that many UFOs sightings were boats spotted as UFOS because their light was reflected onto the atmosphere?

What you should do is take the pictures with a CCD camera, and see if the light waves are homogeneous or heterogenous at the horizon level. This way your picture can tell you something. Otherwise it's just a mix of pixels.
1. The camera does  use  a Charged Coupled Device (CCD)
2. Atmosphere reflection is explained by the science of optics.  HIgh School Physics my dear watson.
3. The pictures are not proof they are evidence that bears out, amongst other evidence, the curvature of the Earth
4. I saw a ufo once.  It wasan object flying through the air, maybe a bug or a daisy seed.  But I couldn't identify it.
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

?

Agnostic

  • 682
  • Sylvain P. - French Engineer & Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #91 on: August 29, 2011, 05:56:37 AM »
So where is your spectographic analysis of the pictures?
"The earth is flat indeed. Saying it is a sphere was the worst mistake of our modern science." 1893. Pr. Orlando Ferguson, Academy of Science

"The world is flat." 2005. Thomas Friedman

Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #92 on: August 29, 2011, 06:06:26 AM »
So where is your spectographic analysis of the pictures?
can't you see the pretty colours?
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

?

Agnostic

  • 682
  • Sylvain P. - French Engineer & Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #93 on: August 29, 2011, 07:45:27 AM »
If your camera is not tri-CCD or quad-CCD it's just a failed experiment.

You need to make a spectrographic analysis of your raw pictures, because they conserved the different layers of light capture, eventually by using different exposure times to reinforce the captures, while being absolutely motionless.

Once you have your captures, you extract the different areas to observe from them and run the spectrographic analysis on these samples.



You will need to do that at least twice (during two days, because at the same hour) where air temperature, air pressure and humidity are the same. This will permit you to eliminate the false positives due to climatic changes and focus on the meaningful samples.

Once you did that, you must compare your samples with the spectrographic samples of environments where refraction or difraction of light is high (in desert for example). Do not forget to note the air pressure, temperature and humidity this day.

Once you got these samples, you can tell if that behavior was not happening with your boat.

Until then, I am afraid that your pictures are meaningless.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 08:07:21 AM by Agnostic »
"The earth is flat indeed. Saying it is a sphere was the worst mistake of our modern science." 1893. Pr. Orlando Ferguson, Academy of Science

"The world is flat." 2005. Thomas Friedman

Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #94 on: August 29, 2011, 08:18:51 AM »
There is such a thing as a superior mirage, that can make a boat appear hovering above the horizon, or can refract light along the surface showing something from behind the horizon as if it was sitting on the horizon.  But it doesn't show something that is on the horizon as if it was under the horizon.  The reflection you see in my images at sea level is a superior mirage.  It makes the boats look higher than they are, but when you look closely you can see the line of the actual horizon (the midpoint of the reflections), and compared to the 10 metre images you can see the reflection has obscured details of the hull (in actuality it's the hill of water between me and the boats that is obscuring the hull).  The refraction (and reflection in this case) is on the surface of the water, not above it.  So the fold point of the reflections is the true horizon.


« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 08:21:45 AM by pitdroidtech »
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #95 on: August 29, 2011, 08:40:35 AM »
It's true to say that a scientific experiment will involve exhuastive analysis and repetition, which I haven't done here.  I hope to do more, including using a 900mm telescope with camera attachment (Tom - every telescope can take a t-piece - it fits in the same place as your replacable eye pieces.)

Nevertheless, my examples here are a considerable amount more than I have seen from any FE'er to date. 

The burden is on FET to prove itself.  Since they insist on refusing to accept any of the available evidence of a round earth on the basis that it is part of some elaborate conspiracy, they must therefore prove to the world with modern experiments that the world cannot be round.  But they seem rather apathetic about actually proving anything.

So, I take it upon myself to participate in this charade, just for the entertainment value, and provide some actual proof of my own, not hyperbole.
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #96 on: August 29, 2011, 08:56:54 AM »
Quote
The burden is on FET to prove itself.

No. The burden is on you to read through the material and challenge it. Your pictures have not challenged the theory since you did not look at the ship through a telescope. You are seeing exactly what Samuel Birley Rowbotham and Thomas Winship saw.

There are accounts of looking at half-sunken ships through telescopes and seeing them restored. This proves that the ships are not really hiding behind a "hill of water." Until you can contradict those accounts they remain stand fully in tact.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 09:17:43 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

Part of the Problem

  • 385
  • The Liberal
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #97 on: August 29, 2011, 10:34:50 AM »
Since Rowbotham and Winship generally didn't document the specifications of their telescopes beyond claiming that the telescopes should be of "good quality", it's hard to know exactly what those requirements should be.

You've been here long enough to know that ambiguity is the crutch that holds up the FES.
By eliminating all present contradicting possibilities you would arrive at the present truth. It's impossible to arrive at a future truth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #98 on: August 29, 2011, 12:28:35 PM »
A good quality telescope is one with a 300-500x magnification ratio.

?

Part of the Problem

  • 385
  • The Liberal
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #99 on: August 29, 2011, 01:52:24 PM »
A good quality telescope is one with a 300-500x magnification ratio.

Is that what Rowbotham used?
By eliminating all present contradicting possibilities you would arrive at the present truth. It's impossible to arrive at a future truth.

Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #100 on: August 29, 2011, 02:15:02 PM »
A good quality telescope is one with a 300-500x magnification ratio.

Is that what Rowbotham used?

"Good quality" to TB means 300-500x, good quality to rowbotham is probably any telescope in good shape. Rowbotham failed to mention the tools he used to draw conclusions, seems like he didnt want legit scientists duplicating his experiments.
Ice wall ninja

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #101 on: August 29, 2011, 03:35:58 PM »
A good quality telescope is one with a 300-500x magnification ratio.

Please cite where Rowbotham or Winship specify that 300-500x magnification is required to restore the hull of a partially sunken ship.  Also, what was the resolution of the "good quality" telescopes that Rowbotham and Winship used?
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #102 on: August 29, 2011, 04:15:29 PM »
A good quality telescope is one with a 300-500x magnification ratio.

Please cite where Rowbotham or Winship specify that 300-500x magnification is required to restore the hull of a partially sunken ship.  Also, what was the resolution of the "good quality" telescopes that Rowbotham and Winship used?

I didn't say that Rowbotham stated such a thing. I was telling you guys what a good telescope was.

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #103 on: August 29, 2011, 05:00:10 PM »
A good quality telescope is one with a 300-500x magnification ratio.

Please cite where Rowbotham or Winship specify that 300-500x magnification is required to restore the hull of a partially sunken ship.  Also, what was the resolution of the "good quality" telescopes that Rowbotham and Winship used?

I didn't say that Rowbotham stated such a thing. I was telling you guys what a good telescope was.

For all of us to replicate Rowbotham's experiments we don't need a 'good' telescope - we need one that he would have had used.  That means we need a Mid 1800's telescope or an analog of what it would have shown.  Unless you can come up with an accurate description of what he used - you cannot comment on what constitutes acceptability.

Considering his lack of funds and the limited technology of the time his "telescope" may have been no more powerful than what a very good pair of binoculars that could be purchased for today. 

Berny
More of what is lacking in EnAG
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #104 on: August 29, 2011, 06:11:35 PM »
Quote
The burden is on FET to prove itself.

No. The burden is on you to read through the material and challenge it. Your pictures have not challenged the theory since you did not look at the ship through a telescope. You are seeing exactly what Samuel Birley Rowbotham and Thomas Winship saw.
I have seen no "restoration" of ships hulls.  None is visible in my photos.  So did Rowbotham see restoration or not?  If not, is he relying completely on his own rewrite of the laws of perspective to draw the conclusion that restoration 'would' be possible, if only he had a 300-500x telescope??  If he did see the restoration, then what he saw was the superior mirage affect, and he has convenitently ignored the fact that his view of the ships did not actually show the lower hull "restored", but only the upper hull reflected onto the water making it appear as if the hull was restored.  Measurement of the height of the reflection "fold" point to the deck would show that the full view of the hull has not been exposed.

What Rowbotham has failed to do, likewise I myself have failed to do but I have nothing to proove, is conduct varied repeated experiments in the same and other locations at different times of the day to build up an exhaustive data set.

As you say, my experiment and Rowbothams are analogous. Except I have photos to show what was actually seen, but Rowbothams we have to rely on his judgement and description about what he saw.  He didn't even bother sketching his view onto paper.


There are accounts of looking at half-sunken ships through telescopes and seeing them restored. This proves that the ships are not really hiding behind a "hill of water." Until you can contradict those accounts they remain stand fully in tact.
His accounts are worthless.  They are third party accounts without any details beyond generics; no mention of specific weather conditions, no mention of the kind or power of trelescope used.

The telescopes he is talking about are without doubt, within the range of a medium power zoom lens or medium power binoculars of todays technology.  We know superior mirages can appear to restore hulls, even in some extreme circumstances enough refracted light will make the ship appear to hover above the horizon.

It is easy to discount this as a mirage however since 1. ships don't hover above the surface of the water, no matter how flat the earth is 2. even though sometimes the mirage ship is ON the horizon, there are many instances where superior mirages are not occuring and in these cases no amount of magnification power will restore the hulls.

Tom, I have a telescope, it has a camera attachment, and I fully intend to use it to replicate my photoseries here.  I also live near a bay, and will photograph the far shore thrugh the telescope, and you will see no happy children playing in the water, or indeed no beach at all.  You will see the mountains on the far shore appearing to rise magically outof the water, because their bases will be obscured by the horizon.

First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #105 on: August 29, 2011, 07:01:25 PM »
For all of us to replicate Rowbotham's experiments we don't need a 'good' telescope - we need one that he would have had used.  That means we need a Mid 1800's telescope or an analog of what it would have shown.  Unless you can come up with an accurate description of what he used - you cannot comment on what constitutes acceptability.

Considering his lack of funds and the limited technology of the time his "telescope" may have been no more powerful than what a very good pair of binoculars that could be purchased for today. 

Berny
More of what is lacking in EnAG

Consumer grade telescopes are virtually unchanged since the 1800's. Glass making and lens making are ancient technologies which were perfected by the Ancient Greeks. A telescope is just a tube and some lenses and little more.

Telescopes are not computers. A telescope built in the 1800's is just as good as one built today, just as a fork made in the 1800's would be just as good as one made today.

Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #106 on: August 29, 2011, 07:25:58 PM »
For all of us to replicate Rowbotham's experiments we don't need a 'good' telescope - we need one that he would have had used.  That means we need a Mid 1800's telescope or an analog of what it would have shown.  Unless you can come up with an accurate description of what he used - you cannot comment on what constitutes acceptability.

Considering his lack of funds and the limited technology of the time his "telescope" may have been no more powerful than what a very good pair of binoculars that could be purchased for today. 

Berny
More of what is lacking in EnAG
Consumer grade telescopes are virtually unchanged since the 1800's. Glass making and lens making are ancient technologies which were perfected by the Ancient Greeks. A telescope is just a tube and some lenses and little more.

Telescopes are not computers. A telescope built in the 1800's is just as good as one built today, just as a fork made in the 1800's would be just as good as one made today.
The difference is in the price, and in the portability.   Lenses can be ground by machine these days, and more accurately.   The external materials used are lighter and stronger, so telescopes are more portable.  A good telescope in Rowbothams day could mean anything, but since the context is not astronomy it's likely that he is talking about a good quality Naval style telescope which was maybe 50x at maximum.  It doesn't matter anyway, Rowbotham's perspectives are wrong.  Any instrument with the ability to make superstructure of a distant ship clear, will also make the hull (which is larger and has less fine detail) clear as well.

btw, the Greeks did not invent glass lenses.  They used a glass globe filled with water to magnify, but they didn't grind lenses.  The telescope was invented in 1608.
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #107 on: August 29, 2011, 08:40:23 PM »
pitdroidtech please post your pictures soon. i look forward to them

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #108 on: August 29, 2011, 08:44:33 PM »
Consumer grade telescopes are virtually unchanged since the 1800's. Glass making and lens making are ancient technologies which were perfected by the Ancient Greeks. A telescope is just a tube and some lenses and little more.

Since when does a consumer grade telescope qualify as a good quality telescope?  Consumer grade anything is generally of cheap quality in order to keep prices low.
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.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #109 on: August 30, 2011, 05:27:28 AM »

The difference is in the price, and in the portability.   Lenses can be ground by machine these days, and more accurately.   The external materials used are lighter and stronger, so telescopes are more portable.  A good telescope in Rowbothams day could mean anything, but since the context is not astronomy it's likely that he is talking about a good quality Naval style telescope which was maybe 50x at maximum.  It doesn't matter anyway, Rowbotham's perspectives are wrong.  Any instrument with the ability to make superstructure of a distant ship clear, will also make the hull (which is larger and has less fine detail) clear as well.

btw, the Greeks did not invent glass lenses.  They used a glass globe filled with water to magnify, but they didn't grind lenses.  The telescope was invented in 1608.
And lens coating. The lenses made in previous centuries were ground by hand (I actually had in my youth a book showing the process) and mounted in contact of each other, but it was impossible to avoid a gap between the two lenses. This caused multiple reflections, making the images fuzzier. With lens coating the reflections are controlled and camera lenses with several individual lenses inside becomes possible, making current lenses enormously better than previous ones.

And lens design. With the combined advantages of lens coating and multiple element lenses, lens design has become an art in itself. You no longer make an objective grnding two different types of glass by hand and hoping they will match, you design a whole path for the light so it is magnified gradually and efficiently.

And aspherical lenses. Aspherical lenses were not possible with hand grinding methods, but are now common in any high end amateur camera or in professional cameras.

And new materials. Untold numbers of new types of glass are available now, and even plastics are available to make lens designs that were impossible only 50 years ago.

Claims like this one, that telescopes have not changed in 150 years, should be expected from someone who says he saw kids and beach balls at 50 km with a 4 inch telescope. He thinks he can claim any lie about telescopes because he thinks nobody knows about telescopes and so nobody will call out his lies.

Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #110 on: August 30, 2011, 05:57:02 AM »

The difference is in the price, and in the portability.   Lenses can be ground by machine these days, and more accurately.   The external materials used are lighter and stronger, so telescopes are more portable.  A good telescope in Rowbothams day could mean anything, but since the context is not astronomy it's likely that he is talking about a good quality Naval style telescope which was maybe 50x at maximum.  It doesn't matter anyway, Rowbotham's perspectives are wrong.  Any instrument with the ability to make superstructure of a distant ship clear, will also make the hull (which is larger and has less fine detail) clear as well.

btw, the Greeks did not invent glass lenses.  They used a glass globe filled with water to magnify, but they didn't grind lenses.  The telescope was invented in 1608.
And lens coating. The lenses made in previous centuries were ground by hand (I actually had in my youth a book showing the process) and mounted in contact of each other, but it was impossible to avoid a gap between the two lenses. This caused multiple reflections, making the images fuzzier. With lens coating the reflections are controlled and camera lenses with several individual lenses inside becomes possible, making current lenses enormously better than previous ones.

And lens design. With the combined advantages of lens coating and multiple element lenses, lens design has become an art in itself. You no longer make an objective grnding two different types of glass by hand and hoping they will match, you design a whole path for the light so it is magnified gradually and efficiently.

And aspherical lenses. Aspherical lenses were not possible with hand grinding methods, but are now common in any high end amateur camera or in professional cameras.

And new materials. Untold numbers of new types of glass are available now, and even plastics are available to make lens designs that were impossible only 50 years ago.

Claims like this one, that telescopes have not changed in 150 years, should be expected from someone who says he saw kids and beach balls at 50 km with a 4 inch telescope. He thinks he can claim any lie about telescopes because he thinks nobody knows about telescopes and so nobody will call out his lies.

Thanks for that information.   I sorta knew something along those lines, but my Google Foo is depleted from all the fact checking lately....

 :)
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #111 on: August 30, 2011, 05:58:19 AM »
pitdroidtech please post your pictures soon. i look forward to them
I'll do my best... plus it gives me an excuse to play with my telescope... ;D
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #112 on: August 30, 2011, 06:31:51 AM »
For all of us to replicate Rowbotham's experiments we don't need a 'good' telescope - we need one that he would have had used.  That means we need a Mid 1800's telescope or an analog of what it would have shown.  Unless you can come up with an accurate description of what he used - you cannot comment on what constitutes acceptability.

Considering his lack of funds and the limited technology of the time his "telescope" may have been no more powerful than what a very good pair of binoculars that could be purchased for today. 

Berny
More of what is lacking in EnAG

Consumer grade telescopes are virtually unchanged since the 1800's. Glass making and lens making are ancient technologies which were perfected by the Ancient Greeks. A telescope is just a tube and some lenses and little more.

Telescopes are not computers. A telescope built in the 1800's is just as good as one built today, just as a fork made in the 1800's would be just as good as one made today.

Prior to the late 1800's Relecting telescopes were limited by the mirror surface - speculum metal - in essance a mirror that continually tarnishes.  Silvered glass mirrors were not invented during Rowbotham's initial experiments.  Therefore fore simplicity he would have been using a Refracting telescope.  In essence a Spy Glass.

Telescopes of that time to properly use to view the solar system were in the size ranges of 12 - 45 feet or longer.  Some so long that that they did away with the body - the tube - and were able to have focul lengths of 600 feet.

Telescopes have considerably shrunk over the times with better glass grinding techniques, developing of achromatic lenses.  To say that a telescope built in the 1800's is the same as one in present day is to compare an 1800 steam engine to one of today's with the same mass/size.

Berny
TB is shooting himself in the foot again
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #113 on: August 30, 2011, 07:41:08 AM »
Absolutely.  There is no way that the equipment Rowbotham was using could be said to be so much better than todays optics that teh results from a 400mm lens could not reveal this so called "resotration" Rowbothom speaks of.
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #114 on: August 30, 2011, 11:06:16 AM »
Not to mention the quality of the optical glass itself had improved tremendously over the years.
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: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #115 on: August 30, 2011, 04:01:33 PM »
Not to mention the quality of the optical glass itself had improved tremendously over the years.
I had to laugh at bishop comparing the resolving ability of a glass globe filled with water to that of a modern scientific instrument!
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #116 on: September 02, 2011, 12:38:30 AM »
False. Telescopes haven't changed since the mid 1800's. The mid 1800's were the golden age of telescopes; a time when glass and lens technologies hit their peak.

Optical telescopes have not gotten any better. Big 1800's era telescopes are still actively used in observatories, state of the art as any optical telescope built today. High end reflector telescopes in the 1800's were 300x-500x, just as they are today. A telescope is a simple tool. People in the 1800's didn't have trouble polishing a glass to crystal clarity.

Please cite your sources that telescope have gotten significantly better over the last 150 years. They haven't.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2011, 12:42:28 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #117 on: September 02, 2011, 02:51:48 AM »
False. Telescopes haven't changed since the mid 1800's. The mid 1800's were the golden age of telescopes; a time when glass and lens technologies hit their peak.

Optical telescopes have not gotten any better. Big 1800's era telescopes are still actively used in observatories, state of the art as any optical telescope built today. High end reflector telescopes in the 1800's were 300x-500x, just as they are today. A telescope is a simple tool. People in the 1800's didn't have trouble polishing a glass to crystal clarity.

Please cite your sources that telescope have gotten significantly better over the last 150 years. They haven't.
You are getting your reflectors and refractors mixed up.  Reflectors use mirrors not lenses.  Reflector mirror technology didn't really come of age until after the 19th century.

Refractor telescopes on the other hand, did go through a major advance in the mid 1800's.  That's not to say that there wasn't even more advance during the 20th century, especially in portability and cost.    The point is, Rowbotham wasn't going to be dragging about a large astronomical telescope. 

Regardless of the magnification of the telescope (resolution is a more relevant specification), if one already has a clear view of the subject in the viewfinder, a more powerful telescope is not going to reveal any more detail.
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #118 on: September 02, 2011, 03:29:22 AM »
False. Telescopes haven't changed since the mid 1800's. The mid 1800's were the golden age of telescopes; a time when glass and lens technologies hit their peak.

Optical telescopes have not gotten any better. Big 1800's era telescopes are still actively used in observatories, state of the art as any optical telescope built today. High end reflector telescopes in the 1800's were 300x-500x, just as they are today. A telescope is a simple tool. People in the 1800's didn't have trouble polishing a glass to crystal clarity.

Please cite your sources that telescope have gotten significantly better over the last 150 years. They haven't.
It is so funny that a supposed owner of two state of the art telescopes, who has done observations that are not humanly possible, does not understand the difference between magnification (ex. 300x or 500x) and definition.

For those who have not had the good fortune of having telescopes, let me explain: ever since the basics of telescopes were discovered, around the 1700's or so, it has been possible to make 300x telescopes, or even 5000x telescopes. You just put one additional lens to the eyepiece. Making high magnification telescopes with good resolution is a whole different story. With the highest magnifications you just see blurry images, so you normally use a middle magnification that gives you good definition.

Tom Bishop's position is so unsustainable that he has to mix reflector telescopes with refractor telescopes. For one thing, in the 1800's the only way to get decent images was with cumbersome reflector telescopes, but now refractor telescopes are good enough and have replaced  reflectors for almost every application except astronomy.

Just to show how Tom Bishop is too lazy to do some googling, look at http://www.antiquetelescopes.org/20thc.html, the last paragraph, about Zeiss. Optics have improved a lot since Rowbotham's time, and explanations of these accomplishments are everywhere.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #119 on: September 02, 2011, 06:14:54 AM »
False. Telescopes haven't changed since the mid 1800's. The mid 1800's were the golden age of telescopes; a time when glass and lens technologies hit their peak.

Optical telescopes have not gotten any better. Big 1800's era telescopes are still actively used in observatories, state of the art as any optical telescope built today. High end reflector telescopes in the 1800's were 300x-500x, just as they are today. A telescope is a simple tool. People in the 1800's didn't have trouble polishing a glass to crystal clarity.

Please cite your sources that telescope have gotten significantly better over the last 150 years. They haven't.

Perhaps the basic concepts of telescopes haven't changed over the years, but if you seriously believe that the quality of optical glass has not improved in the last 150 years, then you are so far out of touch with reality that it really isn't possible to have an intelligent debate with you.  Even today's optical plastic is far superior to the optical glass of the 1850s.
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.