What about a telescope aimed at the horizon?

Here's what I'm talking about.  Will the left side (taken from a lower elevation) increase in height more than width as the zoom is increased so that it eventually matches the dimensions of the right side (taken from a higher elevation).

No.

So how about the hillside and bridge pictures EarthisaSpaceship?  Would increasing the zoom from 1x to something higher have changed the vertical compression in the left picture, altering the dimensions of the visible objects (beside the obvious enlarging) to look like the right picture?

No.  The height has to be the same in both photos.

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 04, 2014, 09:46:04 AM

Here's what I'm talking about.  Will the left side (taken from a lower elevation) increase in height more than width as the zoom is increased so that it eventually matches the dimensions of the right side (taken from a higher elevation).
http://imageshack.com/a/img703/3804/2j4l.jpg

No.

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 05, 2014, 08:47:17 AM

So how about the hillside and bridge pictures EarthisaSpaceship?  Would increasing the zoom from 1x to something higher have changed the vertical compression in the left picture, altering the dimensions of the visible objects (beside the obvious enlarging) to look like the right picture?

No.  The height has to be the same in both photos.

No?  Earlier you said it would.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on February 04, 2014, 06:56:18 AM

The compression I'm referring to is how the horizon smashes everything together the more distant it is.  Not bending light.

Would increased magnification gradually correct it?

Yes.  You can't see any detail when it's visually compressed. Magnifying it makes it visible.

The same thing happens with an optical device as it zooms.  The objects become less compressed.

Why the sudden change?

What sudden change?  You asked a separate question about those 2 photos.  Increasing the magnification won't make the height of the objects appear the same in each photo when the height of the observer was not the same to begin with.

What sudden change?  You asked a separate question about those 2 photos.  Increasing the magnification won't make the height of the objects appear the same in each photo when the height of the observer was not the same to begin with.

  I was asking if distinctly compressed objects should decompress as magnification is applied.  The left image is distinctly compressed.  According to RET, the compression in the left half is the result of curvature between myself and the objects, with refraction bending and compressing the light, thus allowing for the visibility of something that would otherwise be hidden behind the waterline/horizon.

According to you and/or FET, the sinking and compression is the result of (correct me if I'm wrong) the objects being far away and my camera being close to the surface.  If, as you said earlier, zoom has the same affect as physically moving closer;

That's because objects in the background of the fence move up visually as you get closer. The same thing happens with an optical device as it zooms.  The objects become less compressed.

Reason being that the glass lens magnifies the view.  It's like your eyes ARE physically there.  This is why the horizon is relative to what your eyes can see.

then the objects would rise back up or decompress, correct?

I'll ask it this way:  If I had set up the camera and scope at the low elevation, observed that the objects were visibly compressed compared to the view from a higher elevation (both magnified and un-magnified), and then zoomed in starting from 1x while at the low elevation, would the result be the objects growing larger and decompressing (A) or the objects growing larger while remaining compressed (B)?

Dr. Rowbotham suggests that the laws of perspective dictate that while the object will become larger through telescopic restoration, the real feat that is happening is the unequal decompression of objects nearer the eyeline than those distant to it.  I.e. -- the base of the bridge decompresses at a greater rate than those parts of the bridge farther from the eyeline. It is this phenomena that causes the "sinking ship" illusion. This is covered in great detail in Chapter 32 of ENaG.

Dr. Rowbotham suggests that the laws of perspective dictate that while the object will become larger through telescopic restoration, the real feat that is happening is the unequal decompression of objects nearer the eyeline than those distant to it.  I.e. -- the base of the bridge decompresses at a greater rate than those parts of the bridge farther from the eyeline. It is this phenomena that causes the "sinking ship" illusion. This is covered in great detail in Chapter 32 of ENaG.

Define "eyeline", please.

edit: And I think you mean Chapter 14 (XIV), Part 1, which has been discussed at length in a few threads. For example, you could read through this thread again: Rowbotham's Perspective

When discussing perspective the eyeline is the same as the horizon line.

I'm quite familiar with Dr. Rowbotham's perspective.

Dr. Rowbotham suggests that the laws of perspective dictate that while the object will become larger through telescopic restoration, the real feat that is happening is the unequal decompression of objects nearer the eyeline than those distant to it.  I.e. -- the base of the bridge decompresses at a greater rate than those parts of the bridge farther from the eyeline. It is this phenomena that causes the "sinking ship" illusion. This is covered in great detail in Chapter 32 of ENaG.

Do you feel the vertical compression of the bridge, buildings, and hillside shown would be corrected as I zoomed in?

Also, why only vertically?  If being near to the horizon/waterline/eyeline causes objects to become smaller at a greater rate than those higher up, why does it only occur vertically?   

Dr. Rowbotham suggests

Why should anyone care what he suggests?

Quote from: Ski on February 06, 2014, 01:58:40 PM

Dr. Rowbotham suggests

Why should anyone care what he suggests?

The FES cares . It's their Bible.

Dr. Rowbotham suggests that the laws of perspective dictate that while the object will become larger through telescopic restoration, the real feat that is happening is the unequal decompression of objects nearer the eyeline than those distant to it.  I.e. -- the base of the bridge decompresses at a greater rate than those parts of the bridge farther from the eyeline. It is this phenomena that causes the "sinking ship" illusion. This is covered in great detail in Chapter 32 of ENaG.

Firstly, Rowbotham was not a doctor—of any kind.  This is a common self-styling for charlatans.
Secondly, his optical theories about telescopic compression were only calculated guesses at the time, and are in fact incorrect.
Thirdly, Rowbotham's self-defined research has been repeatedly debunked during the 150 years since he postulated his flat earth theory.
Lastly, aeroplanes hadn't even been invented during Rowbotham's lifetime:  any true scientific perspective of the planet was very limited ("merely" theoretical for another century).
 

When discussing perspective the eyeline is the same as the horizon line.

Nope.  You're confusing vanishing point with horizon.  The vanishing point(s) define(s) the position of the horizon line.

This diagram illustrates graphically the definition of perspective:
 

 
"Perspective" is a term invariably used incorrectly by flat earthers.
 

Look what I found when browsing on the web:

http://budapest.skyviewair.hu/

Aerial photography with an octocopter. If only it was over water... FEers should hire that company to create comparable shots over the ocean, it would settle it for once and for all...

Quote from: Ski on February 06, 2014, 06:57:06 PM

When discussing perspective the eyeline is the same as the horizon line.

Nope.  You're confusing vanishing point with horizon.  The vanishing point(s) define(s) the position of the horizon line.

This diagram illustrates graphically the definition of perspective:
 

 
"Perspective" is a term invariably used incorrectly by flat earthers.

Geoff, sorry but that isn't right.

In both graphical and visual perspective the horizontal line, that the vanishing point sits on, is referred to as the 'horizon'.

When talking specifically about visual perspective, that horizontal line is referred to as the 'geometrical horizon' which is higher than the 'true horizon'. The difference is marginal when observing from ground level but much more apparent when you go up in altitude.

"Perspective" is a term invariably used incorrectly by flat earthers.

Irony...  Also, if you drag another thread off-topic trying to besmirch the name of Dr. Rowbotham, I'll let you take a vacation.

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 07, 2014, 02:26:24 PM

"Perspective" is a term invariably used incorrectly by flat earthers.

Irony...  Also, if you drag another thread off-topic trying to besmirch the name of Dr. Rowbotham, I'll let you take a vacation.

I wouldn't gloat, you weren't right either. The true horizon isn't at eye level, the geometric horizon is.

Weren't you the one to bring Samuel 'Fraudster' Rowbotham into this thread anyway?

...trying to besmirch the name of Dr. Rowbotham...

Would you like me to add to my collection of threads where I have shown the many mistakes, misunderstandings, and misrepresentations committed by 'Dr.' Rowbotham? With the sheer quantity of incorrect information in his work, I'm surprised anyone puts any value on it.

Geoff, sorry but that isn't right.

In both graphical and visual perspective the horizontal line, that the vanishing point sits on, is referred to as the 'horizon'.

When talking specifically about visual perspective, that horizontal line is referred to as the 'geometrical horizon' which is higher than the 'true horizon'. The difference is marginal when observing from ground level but much more apparent when you go up in altitude.

Yep.  You're quite correct.  I guess I made the mistake of trying to oversimplify things for the flat earthers who now seem to have introduced the meaningless definition "eyeline".

I maybe should've posted something like this to illustrate perspective:




I also note that Ski never got around to defining exactly what he meant by "eyeline".  Rather than defining the peculiar FE terminology they use (instead of accepted scientific terminology) they seem more than keen to pick every little error that REs might make.  Which makes me think they don't have all that much faith in their own arguments.
 
 

Also, if you drag another thread off-topic trying to besmirch the name of Dr. Rowbotham, I'll let you take a vacation.

Can I ask you if you have some particular gripe with my input here?

It certainly wasn't me that "dragged" this thread off-topic by discussing Rowbotham.  It was actually novice who brought up the subject days before I even mentioned Rowbotham myself.

You've actually taken this thread more "off topic" than I have by posting this comment.  And you talk to me about irony LOL.
 
—If you do have any issues with my comments, then by all means please PM me.

Quote from: Ski on February 11, 2014, 12:35:45 PM

Also, if you drag another thread off-topic trying to besmirch the name of Dr. Rowbotham, I'll let you take a vacation.

Can I ask you if you have some particular gripe with my input here?

It certainly wasn't me that "dragged" this thread off-topic by discussing Rowbotham.  It was actually novice who brought up the subject days before I even mentioned Rowbotham myself.

You've actually taken this thread more "off topic" than I have by posting this comment.  And you talk to me about irony LOL.
 
—If you do have any issues with my comments, then by all means please PM me.

I think you miss the point of the admonition. It is the besmirching of Samuel Rowbotham's name that is the problem and the digression. I brought in what Rowbotham claimed from his experiments on the Old Bedford stretch of water in Cambridgeshire, as this was completely relevant to the thread. Those claiming a convex spherical Earth seem to have now conceded his observations as being truthful and factual.

It is the ridicule that is uncalled for and derailing, I think.

Those claiming a convex spherical Earth seem to have now conceded his observations as being truthful and factual.

Eh? When did that happen?  The guy was a quack.

Those claiming a convex spherical Earth seem to have now conceded his observations as being truthful and factual.

No.

And to avoid a low content post...

Quote from: Ski on February 06, 2014, 01:58:40 PM

Dr. Rowbotham suggests that the laws of perspective dictate that while the object will become larger through telescopic restoration, the real feat that is happening is the unequal decompression of objects nearer the eyeline than those distant to it.  I.e. -- the base of the bridge decompresses at a greater rate than those parts of the bridge farther from the eyeline. It is this phenomena that causes the "sinking ship" illusion. This is covered in great detail in Chapter 32 of ENaG.

Do you feel the vertical compression of the bridge, buildings, and hillside shown would be corrected as I zoomed in?

Also, why only vertically?  If being near to the horizon/waterline/eyeline causes objects to become smaller at a greater rate than those higher up, why does it only occur vertically?   

Any answer yet?   

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 07, 2014, 02:26:24 PM

"Perspective" is a term invariably used incorrectly by flat earthers.

Irony...  Also, if you drag another thread off-topic trying to besmirch the name of Dr. Rowbotham, I'll let you take a vacation.

Bahha!! Blasphemy!! YOu're lord and creater has been besmrched!!!

Said like a true crackpot.

Quote from: Ski on February 11, 2014, 12:35:45 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 07, 2014, 02:26:24 PM

"Perspective" is a term invariably used incorrectly by flat earthers.

Irony...  Also, if you drag another thread off-topic trying to besmirch the name of Dr. Rowbotham, I'll let you take a vacation.

Bahha!! Blasphemy!! YOu're lord and creater has been besmrched!!!

Said like a true crackpot.

Please restrain from low content posts in the upper fora.  Consider this another warning. 

What, stating the obvious - fools following fools - is low content?


It's not the only low content going on here.

I am giving you another warning.  Please stop spamming the upper fora with low content posts. 

No, i shall continue calling you the fool that you are. I will continue referring to your flat earth god as a delusional snake oil sales man with a gaggle of ignorant, gullible infantile follows.. (thats you)...

I'm going to take my spotted elephant and fly to the moon to prove that the world is in fact a mushroom held up by Universal rubber bands on the holy tree of the universe.

twits.

That is fine, as long as you do not post low content posts in the upper fora. 

What the fuck is the upper fora for fucks sake?