What about a telescope aimed at the horizon?

I'm just curious to clarify whether 'Earthis' thinks that the 'compression' would 'uncompress' with increased magnification.

Yes, I commented before about it stretching the compressed horizon.

This I think is where you are not understanding me.
I am saying some times ships sink closer to the shore, some times ships sink further from the shore depending on the factors causing the effect.

Yes, I agree that weather, temperature, and elevation affect it.

I do not know diddly squat about camera's or photography but I have just purchased this
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/360831732682?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649
At the very least I might be able show you what I see as  sinking ship with zero zoom.

First Hoppy shows me up with 52x zoom, and now you with 62x zoom.  Having a 1.5mp sensor won't produce the greatest of still images, but who knows.  Guess we'll see.

One of the major (potential) issues with these high 63x zoom ratio video cameras is their extremely small sensor size, which in the case of the HC-V10 is only 1/6" or 2.46mm x 1.80mm.

And although it's rated at 1.5MP, its effective image size is only 0.56MP to 0.44MP depending on the zoom you're using.

I'm certainly not disparaging this camera, as it does an excellent job at its price point, but I wouldn't expect to be using all that 63x zoom with much success at showing fine detail 15km away.

I too will be interested to see the results you get, both from the standpoint of the camera's performance, and—more importantly of course—from the "sinking ship" point of view.

Good luck.   
 
 

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 01, 2014, 07:55:18 PM

I'm just curious to clarify whether 'Earthis' thinks that the 'compression' would 'uncompress' with increased magnification.

Yes, I commented before about it stretching the compressed horizon.

Should this happen gradually as the zoom is increased from little or no magnification to the point where the compressed objects take up most of the view?

Quote from: Novice on February 01, 2014, 05:05:14 PM

By your logic, we can disregard completely anything that Sir Isaac Newton said or did.

This is a ludicrous response!  Are you serious?
...

Rowbotham is not interesting. It doesn't make a iota of difference what a guy two centuries ago thought about something when we can simply go out and see for ourselves. ...

Since we cannot simply go out and position ourselves up to our necks in the Old Bedford stretch of the canal, reofcourse must be meaning that, "It doesn't make a iota of difference what a guy two centuries ago thought about something."

By this logic, not mine, it does not matter what Sir Isaac Newton thought about anything. And, since he wrote down his thoughts, it follows that it does not matter what he wrote about anything.

... we see a well-defined horizon, with equally well-defined objects clearly appearing beyond said horizon (note: I say 'well-defined', not 'crisp', meaning that, while they are a little fuzzy, they are still easy to tell apart). On a flat earth, in the absence of any thus-far unknown properties of light, this image would be impossible. Why? Simple geometry: nothing on a flat earth could ever appear to be beyond the horizon, as the horizon would either be the limit of vision (in which case, anything beyond that distance is not visible), or the edge of the earth (in which case, there is nothing beyond that point other than empty space).

EarthIsASpaceship and Novice, I would be interested to see you prove that the distant objects seen here can be brought back from 'over the horizon' with magnification only. That is your assertion, is it not?

"Prove" it? How are we going to do that? You have given no indication of how this photo was obtained even. What was the zoom, if any?

The horizon on a flat Earth is a line, yes, but it is not as far as you can see. You can see to infinity. What you won't be able to do is resolve things to any great distance. You'll need a telescope in order to do that (or a microscope, if the objects you can see but not resolve are on a microscope slide). Even the telescope will reach a limit whereby it will not improve with increasing diameter of primary mirror. So the Keck will not be any better at this than a good 'back garden' instrument.

If your image somehow represents a naked-eye view, which I suppose it does because you are saying that it would be impossible on a flat Earth, then using a good telescope will make the horizon recede. That is, more detail will be apparent.

Hypothetically, as long as the conditions favoured a suitable amount of refraction, the boat would remain visible until some other atmospheric condition (haze, fog, dust, etc) rendered it invisible. This is assuming a sufficiently powerful 'scope and, as indicated, perfect refractive conditions. On a crystal clear day, 20 miles should be no problem.

... In the absence of refraction, the boat would begin to progressively disappear from the bottom up as soon as it passed beyond 1 mile (this phenomenon being commonly referred to as the 'sinking ship effect'). Depending on how tall it was above the water line, it would be completely concealed at some distance much further than 1 mile.

So refraction can be brought in when needed in order to explain what we see. Hence, the ship 'disappearing over the horizon' can be said to prove nothing.

Q.E.D.

You have given no indication of how this photo was obtained even.

Uh... with a camera perhaps?

What was the zoom, if any?

Immaterial and irrelevant for this exercise.

You can see to infinity.

Nope.  It's impossible.

...then using a good telescope will make the horizon recede.

Nope again.  The true horizon neither moves forward nor recedes.  It's fixed by the sphericity of the planet (assuming one's elevation is constant of course).

That is, more detail will be apparent.

Correct.  But due solely to magnification; nothing else.  Exactly the same objects are in your line of sight whether you're using a telescope, or the naked eye.  And exactly the same rays of light are being reflected from that object in both cases too.
 

 

So refraction can be brought in when needed in order to explain what we see. Hence, the ship 'disappearing over the horizon' can be said to prove nothing.

Q.E.D.

No.  Refraction only applies when the optical instrument (or your eyes) are very close to the surface of the water—say 30cm for example.  And that's precisely one of the reasons Rowbotham got the false results he did.
 
And at that low observational height above the water, and over relatively short surface distances, refraction very closely mimics the curvature of the earth (which again was Rowbotham's undoing).
 

How about you Novice... do you agree with Spaceship in that an object or scene that is visibly compressed (as explained by refraction) will decompress with additional magnification?  If so, will it occur linear with the increased magnification?

Quote from: Novice on February 02, 2014, 11:06:05 AM

So refraction can be brought in when needed in order to explain what we see. Hence, the ship 'disappearing over the horizon' can be said to prove nothing.

Q.E.D.

No.  Refraction only applies when the optical instrument (or your eyes) are very close to the surface of the water—say 30cm for example.  And that's precisely one of the reasons Rowbotham got the false results he did.
 
And at that low observational height above the water, and over relatively short surface distances, refraction very closely mimics the curvature of the earth (which again was Rowbotham's undoing).

No. Rowbotham also confirmed his observations with flagpoles situated at one mile intervals along the bank of the canal, and with observations from elevations that included the top of certain buildings.

Refraction seems to be invoked when you guys find it convenient to do so.

No. Rowbotham also confirmed his observations with flagpoles situated at one mile intervals along the bank of the canal, and with observations from elevations that included the top of certain buildings.

Rowbotham again. And if Rowbotham lied deliberately? Why are you so opposed to your own experiments? Are you afraid it will contradict your beliefs?

"Prove" it? How are we going to do that?

Obtain a spotting scope with variable zoom, they're not all that expensive, although you will need to spend a bit to get a good one. Then, take photos at various zoom settings (while sitting in one location, of course) that show more of the ship becoming visible (not just the already visible parts of the ship in greater detail) as zoom increases. Seems like a pretty simple way to prove your assertion. About the hardest part would be finding a ship (or other object) which appears partially sunken to the naked eye to use as a starting point.

As for the image posted, I know next to nothing about it as it was not my image. What I can see though, is a clearly defined horizon, with a ship and a rock clearly appearing behind that horizon, and partially obscured by it.

Tappett, that looks like a cool camera. The weather is finally nice in Maryland again. I might be able to get some shots today.

I have not even received my camera yet and roundies are already canning it. I was asked to prove you can see sinking ship  easily using the naked eye. So surely the camera will do this.

... And if Rowbotham lied deliberately? ...

I am half way through reading Rowbotham's book for the second time and I have seen nothing so far to convince me that he was anything other than a genuine, clever and honest man. He would not gain anything by lying. He even used a pseudonym, presumably to avoid any sort of personal glory. So if you want to throw at him the claim that he was a liar, then you would need something to substantiate such an allegation.

By the way, I am basing my comments in this thread (and others) upon my own experience, education and reasoning, rather than just repeating what Dr. Rowbotham claimed, as you would see if you read his book.

... not just the already visible parts of the ship in greater detail ...

And herein lies the whole point. You are assuming the very thing that you claim the 'disappearing hull' is proof of. That is, that the hull of a ship is obscured at a certain distance due to a hill of water between you and the ship. All I am saying is that the 'disappearing' hull could be caused by such an obstruction, yes, but that this is not the only explanation and thus is no proof of what you claim to be true.

The hull can and does merge in with the water line. A telescope will 'restore' the hull which, of course, was never gone in the first place.

Even when the hull is over an horizon that you yourself are happy to agree to, you claim that it can be brought back into view by refraction.

I repeat, therefore, that a ship 'disappearing' hull first does not prove the World's alleged rotundity.

As for the image posted, I know next to nothing about it as it was not my image. What I can see though, is a clearly defined horizon, with a ship and a rock clearly appearing behind that horizon, and partially obscured by it.

Then you should not really be using this still image as an example.

Quote from: Scintific Method on February 02, 2014, 01:40:27 PM

... not just the already visible parts of the ship in greater detail ...

And herein lies the whole point. You are assuming the very thing that you claim the 'disappearing hull' is proof of. That is, that the hull of a ship is obscured at a certain distance due to a hill of water between you and the ship.

Am I? In the posted image (originally posted by tappet, if you care to check), only a certain portion of the ship is visible. I am making no assumption as to what has rendered the remainder invisible, although the fact that the only thing visible below the horizon line is water would seem to indicate that there is indeed a 'hill of water' in the way. There does not appear to be any merging, or significant compression, of the lower portion of the ship; it would seem to genuinely be out of sight.

All I am saying is that the 'disappearing' hull could be caused by such an obstruction, yes, but that this is not the only explanation and thus is no proof of what you claim to be true.

The hull can and does merge in with the water line. A telescope will 'restore' the hull which, of course, was never gone in the first place.

I would really like to see this proven, ideally with two clear images, one showing a similar scene to the image presently being discussed, where a distant object appears partially hidden by the horizon; and a second image using enough magnification to reveal the portion of the distant object which is apparently hidden by the horizon (if such a thing is possible). A third image taken closer to the object, or from a higher point, showing the object in it's entirety, would be useful for comparison and confirmation that apparently hidden features had been revealed.

Even when the hull is over an horizon that you yourself are happy to agree to, you claim that it can be brought back into view by refraction.

As I said earlier, the causes of refraction are well understood, and such effects can be avoided or corrected for by those who are aware of them. If you wish to learn more about it in relation to objects remaining visible when they should have passed over the horizon, research 'superior mirages'.

I repeat, therefore, that a ship 'disappearing' hull first does not prove the World's alleged rotundity.

Until you can conclusively demonstrate an alternate cause, I will stick with the one that works, thanks.

I would really like to see this proven, ideally with two clear images, one showing a similar scene to the image presently being discussed, where a distant object appears partially hidden by the horizon; and a second image using enough magnification to reveal the portion of the distant object which is apparently hidden by the horizon (if such a thing is possible). A third image taken closer to the object, or from a higher point, showing the object in it's entirety, would be useful for comparison and confirmation that apparently hidden features had been revealed.

In the meantime,

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nikon Coolpix P510 zoom test (ship at the sea)

In the meantime,

Quote from: tappet on January 10, 2014, 10:11:44 PM

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nikon Coolpix P510 zoom test (ship at the sea)

Not clear, and not appearing beyond the horizon.

Just another demonstration of how magnification can clarify something that is already visible.

I would really like to see this proven, ideally with two clear images...

What I am looking for is a 'before' (unmagnified, or with minimal magnification) shot similar to this:



...and an 'after' shot (with as much magnification as necessary/achievable) which shows more of the ship/object than could be seen before. Using the above image as an example, the 'after' shot would need to show another row of containers, or the actual hull, to convince me that magnification alone can 'un-sink' a 'sunken' ship.

BTW, I have looked into the origin of that image, and it is a picture of the Rena, run aground on Astrolabe Reef just off the coast of Tauranga, New Zealand.

And I would like to see sinking ship photo's taken with variation of all weather conditions before I will accept sinking ship proves round earth. Get your camera's out roundies, remember it's your claim.

And I would like to see sinking ship photo's taken with variation of all weather conditions before I will accept sinking ship proves round earth. Get your camera's out roundies, remember it's your claim.

So you want a picture of a sinking ship on a foggy day?

Right well I want the moon on a stick before I'll believe in a flat earth then. 

And I would like to see sinking ship photo's taken with variation of all weather conditions before I will accept sinking ship proves round earth. Get your camera's out roundies, remember it's your claim.

The earth is round, accept it.

Quote from: tappet on February 02, 2014, 09:50:53 PM

And I would like to see sinking ship photo's taken with variation of all weather conditions before I will accept sinking ship proves round earth. Get your camera's out roundies, remember it's your claim.

So you want a picture of a sinking ship on a foggy day?

That might be a good starting point.

Quote from: Spank86 on February 02, 2014, 11:57:55 PM

Quote from: tappet on February 02, 2014, 09:50:53 PM

And I would like to see sinking ship photo's taken with variation of all weather conditions before I will accept sinking ship proves round earth. Get your camera's out roundies, remember it's your claim.

So you want a picture of a sinking ship on a foggy day?

That might be a good starting point.

We'd need a significantly smaller earth to make that possible.

Fog not being a great medium for light to travel through.

I would like to know why in this video :
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The earth is round DERP
At 11:00 am the footage is poor quality when it should be crystal clear.
At 11:30 am the footage should be still clear and with the boat at this size out of the water no magnification is needed, and at the 27 second mark in reality that boat would be of better clarity just with the naked eye or zero magnification compared to this footage.
At around the 25 second mark the boat is running parallel but continues to disappear.
But I really like where the spars are running left to right no matter what direction the ship points.

I would like to know why in this video :
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The earth is round DERP
At 11:00 am the footage is poor quality when it should be crystal clear.
At 11:30 am the footage should be still clear and with the boat at this size out of the water no magnification is needed, and at the 27 second mark in reality that boat would be of better clarity just with the naked eye or zero magnification compared to this footage.
At around the 25 second mark the boat is running parallel but continues to disappear.
But I really like where the spars are running left to right no matter what direction the ship points.

Parallel?? It'd have to be a pretty stumpy little ship if that were the case!

It's quartering away from the observer up to the 33 second mark, after which it is traveling almost directly away. This is why it continues to move away at 25 seconds, and why the yards appear to be running left to right the whole time.

I agree that the quality could be better, it has obviously been compressed more than ideal. It's still good enough to make out the last few yards around the 43-44 second mark though.

Refraction seems to be invoked when you guys find it convenient to do so.

Nope.  We only "invoke" refraction when it impacts the observations.

You really need to read about the thorough debunking of the FE's favourite snake-oil salesman Samuel Rowbotham.

Anyway... refraction of light could produce the results noted by Rowbotham... Because the density of air in the earth's atmosphere decreases with height above the earth's surface, all light rays travelling nearly horizontally bend downward. This phenomenon is routinely allowed for in levelling and celestial navigation.

If the measurement is close enough to the surface, light rays can curve downward at a rate equal to the mean curvature of the earth's surface. In this case, the two effects of curvature and refraction cancel each other out and the earth will appear flat in optical experiments.

This would have been aided, on each occasion for Rowbotham, by a temperature inversion in the atmosphere with temperature increasing with altitude above the canal... Temperature inversions like this are common. An increase in air temperature or lapse rate of 0.11 degrees Celsius 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.

If the lapse rate were higher than this (temperature increasing with height at a greater rate), all optical observations would be consistent with a concave surface, a "bowl-shaped earth". Under average conditions, optical measurements are consistent with a spherical earth approximately 15% less curved than its true diameter. Repetition of the atmospheric conditions required for each of the many observations is not unlikely, and warm days over still water can produce favourable conditions.

Since Earthisaspaceship agrees that a distinguishable object that is visibly either 'sunk' below the horizon, or compressed, will 'unsink' or 'decompress' (respectively) with increased magnification, and it seems Novice also agrees with this (let me know if you feel differently Novice), here is my question to you two just so I can clarify;

As one zooms in on a 'sunken' or compressed distinguishable (having an outline that can be made out at least) object, will it gradually 'rise out of the water' or decompress as magnification is increased from little or 1x, to higher power?

And I would like to see sinking ship photo's taken with variation of all weather conditions before I will accept sinking ship proves round earth. Get your camera's out roundies, remember it's your claim.

The universally accepted shape of the planet is an oblate spheroid.  This has been evidenced by tens of thousands of images taken from hundreds of space vehicles and satellites over decades.  Therefore it is not a "claim" that the earth is round; it's a statement of fact.

It's the flat earthers that are proposing an alternative shape, therefore it's their task to provide supporting evidence for their proposition.  Conversely, if they could prove unequivocally that the satellite images were bogus they could mount their case with more confidence.  To date though, not one single image has ever been proven to be faked.

Incidentally, weather conditions on any given day do not influence the outcome of the "sinking ship" effect—providing of course a hurricane hasn't whipped up 30m waves LOL.

Quote from: Novice on February 02, 2014, 12:38:42 PM

Refraction seems to be invoked when you guys find it convenient to do so.

Nope.  We only "invoke" refraction when it impacts the observations.

You really need to read about the thorough debunking of the FE's favourite snake-oil salesman Samuel Rowbotham.

Anyway... refraction of light could produce the results noted by Rowbotham... Because the density of air in the earth's atmosphere decreases with height above the earth's surface, all light rays travelling nearly horizontally bend downward. This phenomenon is routinely allowed for in levelling and celestial navigation.

If the measurement is close enough to the surface, light rays can curve downward at a rate equal to the mean curvature of the earth's surface. In this case, the two effects of curvature and refraction cancel each other out and the earth will appear flat in optical experiments.

This would have been aided, on each occasion for Rowbotham, by a temperature inversion in the atmosphere with temperature increasing with altitude above the canal... Temperature inversions like this are common. An increase in air temperature or lapse rate of 0.11 degrees Celsius 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.

If the lapse rate were higher than this (temperature increasing with height at a greater rate), all optical observations would be consistent with a concave surface, a "bowl-shaped earth". Under average conditions, optical measurements are consistent with a spherical earth approximately 15% less curved than its true diameter. Repetition of the atmospheric conditions required for each of the many observations is not unlikely, and warm days over still water can produce favourable conditions.

Good. So you're quite happy that Rowbotham was not a liar, nor a "snake oil salesman."

In that case, since you will know that he also did experiments of a similar nature that were not close to the surface of a still canal, and that he obtained the same results, do you accept that these additional experiments cannot be explained away by mere refraction?