What about a telescope aimed at the horizon?

If an object is 'sinking', then the light from the lower part that is hidden is not reaching the camera.  How would altering the positioning of the lenses inside the camera change the path of light outside the camera between the object and the camera's objective lens?

I have read a couple of books on this subject now, so I'm still a novice, but it seems to me that there are two distinct issues regarding your question.

The fact that a ship's hull disappears before the masts do would be due either to water obstructing the line of sight, or perspective. If due to water obstructing the line of sight, then a telescope would not restore the hull to view. If due to perspective, then it would.

Well documented experiments by Dr. Samuel Rowbotham on a stretch of canal in Cambridgeshire, England, called the 'Old Bedford', can be used to answer the first part of your question, "If an object is sinking ..." The results of Dr. Rowbotham's experiments showed conclusively that the object did not sink in the least over a distance of 6 statute miles.

Well documented experiments by Dr. Samuel Rowbotham on a stretch of canal in Cambridgeshire, England, called the 'Old Bedford'...

I do wish those horribly flawed 'experiments' would not be trotted out as 'proof'. Continue your research Novice, hopefully you will learn something useful.

I do wish those horribly flawed 'experiments' would not be trotted out as 'proof'. Continue your research Novice, hopefully you will learn something useful.

In what way(s) are they "horribly flawed"?

Quote from: Scintific Method on January 26, 2014, 01:17:40 PM

I do wish those horribly flawed 'experiments' would not be trotted out as 'proof'. Continue your research Novice, hopefully you will learn something useful.

In what way(s) are they "horribly flawed"?

This thread may be beneficial http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59507.0#.UuWodxDFKHs.

This thread may be beneficial http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59507.0#.UuWodxDFKHs.

Thank you, but this seems to be a whole load of bickering about the Hampden/Wallace wager, rather than the Rowbotham experiments.

I have no opinion on the Hampden/Wallace setup at the moment, I just wanted to know why Rowbotham's experiments were "horribly flawed."

I just wanted to know why Rowbotham's experiments were "horribly flawed."

Refraction.   Here's a couple pictures I took myself. 

The left half was taken from a height of about 17-20feet.  The right half from about 1 foot.  Everything was sinking below the horizon in the lower picture, yet the bottom of the bridge and buildings along the shore are still visible, only now they appear compressed.

The lines were for comparisons, but I don't remember why the green is where it is.  I made this awhile ago.

And voila, now nothing is sinking!

And voila, now nothing is sinking!

Are the tree line and bridge deck lower in the right picture?

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on January 26, 2014, 08:26:58 PM

And voila, now nothing is sinking!

Are the tree line and bridge deck lower in the right picture?

Yep. I would think you understand this more than I do since you are a photographer.  It may be an effect of how cameras focus.  There is no depth perception....or whatever it would be called on a 2 D photo.  The left one which is taken up higher, brings the background in closer for some reason. And the right one which is taken down by the water, brings the water in closer.  That's why you can see the detail of the water in the right one and not the left.

No we have not agreed.  All we've determined is that no one has shown a video of an optical device with a strong enough magnification to PROVE to you that that's all it is.

So you're actually claiming that—somehow—an optical device applied to one's eye can actually make visible something that is not visible to the naked eye?  Bear in mind that all a telescope or binoculars do is to enlarge an already existing image.

If you imagine a house 1km away from you, with a tree growing against the side opposite to you, and with its topmost tip precisely the same height as the roof of the house, then you won't—obviously—be able to see any of the tree.  Now look through a telescope.

Can you now see the tree?  Nope.  All you're gonna see is a much enlarged image of the shingles on the roof of the house.

This is exactly the same optical scenario as the "disappearing" ship over the horizon effect.

The magnification of the telescope has very little to do with proving this point.  It doesn't matter whether it's 10x or 80x.  It makes not one bit of difference.

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 26, 2014, 09:18:08 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on January 26, 2014, 08:26:58 PM

And voila, now nothing is sinking!

Are the tree line and bridge deck lower in the right picture?

Yep. I would think you understand this more than I do since you are a photographer.

So wouldn't it be beneficial for your argument to actually understand photography and optics before making stuff up? 

I'm too cheap to be a 'real' photographer.  That would involve a DSLR and a decent telephoto lens.  I'm more of an amateur with a basic understanding of real photography who currently uses a cheap 'point and shoot' combined with binoculars or spotting scopes.

  It may be an effect of how cameras focus.

Same thing occurs looking through the binos or scope by itself with no camera.

The left one which is taken up higher, brings the background in closer for some reason.

Explain why the background is the same size then, both horizontally and vertically, with the exception of the compressed region (which is still unchanged horizontally).

And the right one which is taken down by the water, brings the water in closer.  That's why you can see the detail of the water in the right one and not the left.

Yes, the lower shot is capturing water much closer in the lower part of the frame, but what affect would that have on the dimensions of objects in the upper part of the picture?  How would that cause that kind of distortion?

The fact that a ship's hull disappears before the masts do would be due either to water obstructing the line of sight, or perspective.

Your assertion that it's the water that hides the hull is correct—due to the curvature of the planet and its "skin" of water.  The term "perspective" is actually meaningless, but is thrown into arguments repeatedly by FEs attempting to disprove the spherical shape of the planet.  It's simply a term used to describe a 3-D object on a 2-D plane:




 

Well documented experiments by Dr. Samuel Rowbotham on a stretch of canal in Cambridgeshire, England, called the 'Old Bedford', can be used to answer the first part of your question, "If an object is sinking ..." The results of Dr. Rowbotham's experiments showed conclusively that the object did not sink in the least over a distance of 6 statute miles.

Firstly, Rowbotham was not a "doctor" of any kind.  He was basically a snake-oil salesman.

His so-called experiment did not show "conclusively" that the object did not sink over a distance of 6 miles.  He failed to account for refraction and temperature inversion. His telescope was only 8" above the water.  Also an increase in air temperature or lapse rate of 0.11şC per metre of altitude would create an illusion of a flat canal, and all optical measurements made near ground level would be consistent with a completely flat surface.

... Refraction.   Here's a couple pictures I took myself. 

The left half was taken from a height of about 17-20feet.  The right half from about 1 foot.  Everything was sinking below the horizon in the lower picture, yet the bottom of the bridge and buildings along the shore are still visible, only now they appear compressed.

The lines were for comparisons, but I don't remember why the green is where it is.  I made this awhile ago.

Is there not just significantly less zoom in the right-hand picture?

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 26, 2014, 05:37:05 PM

... Refraction.   Here's a couple pictures I took myself. 

The left half was taken from a height of about 17-20feet.  The right half from about 1 foot.  Everything was sinking below the horizon in the lower picture, yet the bottom of the bridge and buildings along the shore are still visible, only now they appear compressed.

The lines were for comparisons, but I don't remember why the green is where it is.  I made this awhile ago.

Is there not just significantly less zoom in the right-hand picture?

Compare the section of the bridge tower between the lowest horizontal part (just under the bridge deck), and the next one up in both pictures. It's pretty much the same height.

Now compare the part between the lowest horizontal part of the tower, and the water level. The compression effect created by atmospheric refraction is quite obvious.

...

Explain why the background is the same size then, both horizontally and vertically, with the exception of the compressed region (which is still unchanged horizontally).
...

The image is changed horizontally, which makes me think that the zoom was adjusted between these two photos.

I superimposed the right-hand image onto the left-hand image and it clearly shows that the right-hand image is reduced both horizontally and vertically.

So you're actually claiming that—somehow—an optical device applied to one's eye can actually make visible something that is not visible to the naked eye? YES!  This is QUITE common.  Even Hoppy proved that in his posted photos and video.   Bear in mind that all a telescope or binoculars do is to enlarge an already existing image.

If you imagine a house 1km away from you, with a tree growing against the side opposite to you, and with its topmost tip precisely the same height as the roof of the house, then you won't—obviously—be able to see any of the tree.  Now look through a telescope.  Not sure what you mean by "against the side opposite to you"
Can you now see the tree? Nope. All you're gonna see is a much enlarged image of the shingles on the roof of the house.
This is exactly the same optical scenario as the "disappearing" ship over the horizon effect. I disagree.
The magnification of the telescope has very little to do with proving this point.  It doesn't matter whether it's 10x or 80x.  It makes not one bit of difference.

This has been posted previously but please pay attention to how the water appears where the ship is as the magnification/zoom moves out:" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[/b][/color]

This has been posted previously but please pay attention to how the water appears where the ship is as the magnification/zoom moves out:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Amazing. I noticed that the other ship (or rig) on the horizon, to the right, can also be made to reappear by simple magnification.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on January 27, 2014, 02:19:15 PM

This has been posted previously but please pay attention to how the water appears where the ship is as the magnification/zoom moves out:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Amazing. I noticed that the other ship (or rig) on the horizon, to the right, can also be made to reappear by simple magnification.

This is simply a matter of angular resolution, not the same as something being obscured behind something else.

You moving away from the ship (which is what the zoom out simulates) is exactly like the ship moving away from you.

The ship can be brought back after the hull has disappeared, simply by zooming in on it.

So the video of the OP does not demonstrate any hill of water.

This is simply a matter of angular resolution, not the same as something being obscured behind something else.

So your horizon is a certain perceived distance away, which depends upon the angular resolution of the human eye.

Increase the diameter of the objective lens and the horizon recedes accordingly. Hence a ship that has disappeared 'over the horizon' can be shown not to have disappeared 'over the horizon' at all?

You moving away from the ship (which is what the zoom out simulates) is exactly like the ship moving away from you.

Except that, if there is no change of actual distance, then there will be no actual 'sinking ship effect'. The effect is caused by the observer moving around the curve of the earth away from the object being observed (or the object moving away from the observer). If you're not moving relative to the object you're observing, then you won't see the actual 'sinking ship effect'.

All of these 'zoom-in, zoom-out' videos are just proving that angular resolution can render an object effectively invisible until magnification is used to 'restore' it. However, when an object is actually obscured by the horizon, there is no bringing it back with magnification.

Increase the diameter of the objective lens and the horizon recedes accordingly.

I have never seen that happen, and I've been playing with telescopes for quite a while. However, if you increase your altitude, the horizon most definitely recedes. As you climb higher, objects which were once obscured come into sight. I have seen this over land and over water, in various atmospheric conditions. An increase in altitude will always yield an increase in distance to the horizon, proportional to the increase in altitude.

You moving away from the ship (which is what the zoom out simulates) is exactly like the ship moving away from you.

The ship can be brought back after the hull has disappeared, simply by zooming in on it.

So the video of the OP does not demonstrate any hill of water.

So this applies when looking at any distant object behind another one.

All of these 'zoom-in, zoom-out' videos are just proving that angular resolution can render an object effectively invisible until magnification is used to 'restore' it. However, when an object is actually obscured by the horizon, there is no bringing it back with magnification.

I disagree.  I think everything can be brought back as long as the magnification is large enough.  The mere fact that something that begins to fade with the naked eye can be "brought back" with a zoom, is evidence.  The more the distance, the more the magnification needed.

The reason the sun disappears is because it's moved TOO far for any telescope to see.  We can see the sun during the day, the moon, the stars and planets through a telescope because they are closer to us.

Quote from: Scintific Method on January 27, 2014, 03:23:32 PM

All of these 'zoom-in, zoom-out' videos are just proving that angular resolution can render an object effectively invisible until magnification is used to 'restore' it. However, when an object is actually obscured by the horizon, there is no bringing it back with magnification.

I disagree.  I think everything can be brought back as long as the magnification is large enough.  The mere fact that something that begins to fade with the naked eye can be "brought back" with a zoom, is evidence.  The more the distance, the more the magnification needed.

So, if I had enough zoom, I could see a house on the other side of a mountain range?

The reason the sun disappears is because it's moved TOO far for any telescope to see.  We can see the sun during the day, the moon, the stars and planets through a telescope because they are closer to us.

Then why is it that the sun at sunset is the same (measurable) size as at midday, and too intense to look at, then 5 minutes later is completely out of sight?

"So, if I had enough zoom, I could see a house on the other side of a mountain range?"
Come on.... Of course not.  Not from an ocean bank.

Then why is it that the sun at sunset is the same (measurable) size as at midday, and too intense to look at, then 5 minutes later is completely out of sight?

That has nothing to do with this topic.

...
Then why is it that the sun at sunset is the same (measurable) size as at midday, and too intense to look at, then 5 minutes later is completely out of sight?

It is the same size because it is emitting light across its full extent.

It disappears from the bottom up because it is crossing the observer's horizon. Hence, an interesting point is whether the Sun can be brought back into view after setting by use of a telescope (and filter, of course).

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 27, 2014, 09:51:58 AM

...

Explain why the background is the same size then, both horizontally and vertically, with the exception of the compressed region (which is still unchanged horizontally).
...

The image is changed horizontally, which makes me think that the zoom was adjusted between these two photos.

I superimposed the right-hand image onto the left-hand image and it clearly shows that the right-hand image is reduced both horizontally and vertically.

Indeed it is slightly different horizontally.  The main problem with my shots through the scope at 15x was an increasing distortion from the center outward.  You may have noticed the bridge tower leaning more in one vs the other.  Unfortunately I had aimed at the waterline in the higher shots, but aimed at a point just below the bridge deck in the lower shots.  Really wasn't thinking about it at the time and hadn't experimented enough before-hand.  I used those two pictures because they were pretty much the clearest.  The magnification was the same.

So regarding your concerns about that slight bit of horizontal difference, the 35 pictures taken from the two different heights through three different systems totaling five different magnifications, 12x binos, 15,30,60x spotting scope, and 96x telescope, (camera was at 3x optical zoom for all of them) all show the same result. 

The base of the bridge and buildings are compressed and the upper part of the bridge and trees are uncompressed, but lower in the low-shots.

Also, it's 9 miles to the bridge, and 12 to the hillside.

 

That image...



...shows what I was getting at when I said...

The compression effect created by atmospheric refraction is quite obvious.

...really well!

The interesting part is that you absolutely don't need a telescope to see the horizon and the curvature. A simple play that a lot of us did when we were children, I guess: on a beach at sunset, just lie down flat on the sand and look for the sun to disappear under the horizon. Then, in the moment that it disappears, jump up as quickly as you can and you'll see the sun disappear behind the horizon once more. Actually, it works better for adults than children... :-)

With the proliferation of cameras, it is actually equally simple to make proof of this, if you happen to travel somewhere where tall structures can be found (not necessarily as tall as the famous Burj, although that altitude really helps). All it takes is two people with synchronized cameras to make a short video of the sunset, with timestamp visible, from both the ground level and the top of the building. With the Burj, there will be minutes of difference between the sunsets, with a smaller building, proportionally less but still easy to demonstrate (if the timestamp displays seconds, a usual skyscraper will suffice). And this can be done by any couple of FE enthusiasts themselves, so the question of "government falsification" is moot.

Note: I registered specifically because I was intrigued to see that there really were people who claim that what mankind has known for almost 2,500 years is false and part of a conspiracy plot. :-)

FE believers, let me ask you a question. Do you claim that the alignment of the tree top and the hill top in the attached image depends on the magnification of the observer's view?

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/689/iwtw.png