« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Rowbotham's Perspective

  • 41 Replies
  • 13654 Views
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Rowbotham's Perspective
« Reply #30 on: August 21, 2013, 04:49:16 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 21, 2013, 03:54:14 PM
I cannot tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or not...
Logged
"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.."
?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham's Perspective
« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2013, 04:52:52 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 21, 2013, 04:49:16 PM
Quote from: Ski on August 21, 2013, 03:54:14 PM
I cannot tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or not...
Unless you have something to add to the debate, please leave. I'd report you to a moderator, but I have a sneaking suspicion that will accomplish nothing. Either tell me where I've erred in my interpretation of Rowbotham's chapter or just leave.
Logged
?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Rowbotham's Perspective
« Reply #32 on: August 21, 2013, 07:43:48 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 21, 2013, 03:09:03 PM
Any of the parts whose angular size as been reduced to sufficiently small size by perspective.   ???

And viewing them from the an elevated location or having them elevated moves their position as related to the eyeline. What is the rub?

The rub, as I mentioned before, is that no matter the angle, the buildings follow the classical laws of perspective, not Rowbotham's (unless the horizon begins to block the lower portion of the building, at which point it appears to follow Rowbotham's rules as the lower portion of the building goes out of sight long before the rest of the building becomes to small to see).

Here's something else you can try, if you have a tall structure that you can view from various distances. Place a sheet of A4 paper at eye level, and another several metres above it. Place a single playing card next to each piece of paper. Now, move away from the structure, and take note of the distance at which the upper and lower cards and papers become indistinguishable. Also, as you're moving away, take note of the apparent visual size of each object at various distances. Most of all, be objective about it.
Logged
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."
*

Rama Set

  • 6875
  • +1/-0
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Rowbotham's Perspective
« Reply #33 on: August 21, 2013, 09:30:24 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 21, 2013, 04:49:16 PM
Quote from: Ski on August 21, 2013, 03:54:14 PM
I cannot tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or not...

He made a pretty clear request.  He obviously has a different interpretation than you.  Why don't you defend your position instead of playing the patronizing game you always play? 
Logged
Quote from: charles bloomington on April 25, 2015, 04:13:06 PM
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.
*

Cartesian

  • 1965
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham's Perspective
« Reply #34 on: August 21, 2013, 11:46:37 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 14, 2013, 11:07:29 PM
And he isn't confusing the vanishing point with angular resolution. He simply states that an object of sufficiently small angular resolution will be come indiscernible, which no sane person disagrees with. I expect better of you, Markjo, though heaven knows why after all this time. You are both bastardizing the text and then bashing the straw men.

A binocular increases angular resolution. A 10x binocular magnifies a one minute angular resolution to 10 minutes. Is binocular able to extend the vanishing point then? Why not Ski?
Logged
I think, therefore I am
?

Kendrick

  • 369
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham's Perspective
« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2013, 08:56:20 AM »
Rowbotham's perspective is demonstrably false as the horizon lies below a centered theodolite levelled towards the horizon, and the distance between the theodolites 'level-line' and the horizon will increase with altitude.

Rowbotham acknowledges this in his passage 'Tangential Horizon'

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

He attempts to explain it away by saying that this is a result of 'collimation' faulty optics.

Modern surveying equipment can correct for any inherent Y axis errors that might exist as part of the pre-use calibration routine.

I encourage anyone who still subscribes to Rowbothams interpretations on perspective to rent a Theodolite and do thier own research.
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Rowbotham's Perspective
« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2013, 11:48:08 AM »
Quote from: Scintific Method on August 21, 2013, 07:43:48 PM

The rub, as I mentioned before, is that no matter the angle, the buildings follow the classical laws of perspective, not Rowbotham's (unless the horizon begins to block the lower portion of the building, at which point it appears to follow Rowbotham's rules as the lower portion of the building goes out of sight long before the rest of the building becomes to small to see).

Rowbotham's perspective doesn't work except that it does. I immediately cede my understanding to your well considered opinion.


Quote
Here's something else you can try, if you have a tall structure that you can view from various distances. Place a sheet of A4 paper at eye level, and another several metres above it. Place a single playing card next to each piece of paper. Now, move away from the structure, and take note of the distance at which the upper and lower cards and papers become indistinguishable. Also, as you're moving away, take note of the apparent visual size of each object at various distances. Most of all, be objective about it.

I strongly encourage experimentation. Why should anyone take my word for it, or that of Dr. Rowbotham for that matter.
Logged
"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.."
?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Rowbotham's Perspective
« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2013, 05:28:02 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 23, 2013, 11:48:08 AM
Quote from: Scintific Method on August 21, 2013, 07:43:48 PM
The rub, as I mentioned before, is that no matter the angle, the buildings follow the classical laws of perspective, not Rowbotham's (unless the horizon begins to block the lower portion of the building, at which point it appears to follow Rowbotham's rules as the lower portion of the building goes out of sight long before the rest of the building becomes to small to see).

Rowbotham's perspective doesn't work except that it does. I immediately cede my understanding to your well considered opinion.

Are you incapable of understanding what you read?

Objects are obscured by the horizon as they pass beyond a certain distance (dependent on certain local variables, such as terrain, the height of the object, and the height of the observer). Such objects cannot be restored by looking through a telescope (I know, I've tried it), but can be brought back into sight by increasing the observer's altitude (again, been there done that, and may I say, it's pretty cool watching things 'roll' into view as you climb higher and higher!). Invariably, the object appears smaller as it gets further away, in accordance with the classical rules of perspective, and only ever disappears from view when it is so far away that it becomes indiscernible (the smaller features - such as masts on sailing ships - having long since been lost to sight), or when it is obstructed by the horizon.

EDIT: >> A thought that occurred to me after posting this: For Rowbotham's perspective to work as he says it does, where objects further from the eye line shrink to invisibility less rapidly than those closer to the eye line, objects such as buildings should actually appear to taper toward their bases as they get further away, with the base rapidly tapering into invisibility at the horizon line. This is definitely not what is seen. <<

Essentially, Rowbotham's perspective is a failed attempt to provide an alternative explanation of why objects disappear as they pass over the horizon. It defies logic and contradicts itself, as Alex pointed out in the OP.


Quote from: Ski on August 23, 2013, 11:48:08 AM
I strongly encourage experimentation.

Then I suggest you do some of your own.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2013, 05:47:32 PM by Scintific Method »
Logged
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."
?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • +0/-0
  • Trust, but verify.
Re: Rowbotham's Perspective
« Reply #38 on: August 26, 2013, 10:12:45 PM »
No response in 4 days. Do I take that as acknowledgement that Rowbotham's perspective is incorrect? If so, what explanation is there for this, and this? Is there an alternative explanation for sunrise/sunset? The "sinking ship effect"? Those photos of Chicago from across Lake Michigan? Contrails?
Logged
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Rowbotham's Perspective
« Reply #39 on: August 27, 2013, 07:29:51 AM »
Not liking the answers you've been given is not the same as no answer.  ::)
Logged
"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.."
?

Alex Tomasovich

  • 1030
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham's Perspective
« Reply #40 on: August 27, 2013, 08:09:21 AM »
Quote from: Ski on August 27, 2013, 07:29:51 AM
Not liking the answers you've been given is not the same as no answer.  ::)
I agree, but words that don't answer anything do count as no answer.

"Hey, Billy, why does fire burn?"
"Well, Bob, Unicorns are white."
"... So you don't know why fire burns."
"Just because you didn't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer."
Logged
*

Cartesian

  • 1965
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham's Perspective
« Reply #41 on: August 27, 2013, 08:48:06 AM »
Quote from: Scintific Method on August 26, 2013, 10:12:45 PM
No response in 4 days. Do I take that as acknowledgement that Rowbotham's perspective is incorrect?

+1 for that.

As markjo pointed out before, Rowbotham is confusing vanishing point with angular resolution. A binocular or telescope can restore angular resolution but can not extend the vanishing point which can be easily tested with a camera equipped with a good zoom lens. The part of an object hidden behind horizon cannot be restored by changing the lens magnification level.
Logged
I think, therefore I am
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »