What about a telescope aimed at the horizon?

Quote from: Novice on February 02, 2014, 06:37:26 PM

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.
...

There seems to be this question all the time regarding magnification and resolution. The two are fundamentally related.

Resolution depends upon the angle the object subtends at the focal plane. Magnify the object by way of a convex lens, for instance, and you increase the angle subtended at the focal plane.

Things at the horizon of the eye, which can be seen but not resolved, by magnification are both seen and resolved.

Quote from: tappet on February 03, 2014, 02:42:14 AM

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.

Look at the boat at 27 seconds. See the masts , now look again at 31 seconds the masts are facing the same direction.
Can you not see this?

Look at the boat at 27 seconds. See the masts , now look again at 31 seconds the masts are facing the same direction.
Can you not see this?

Same direction, you say? Almost 90 degrees of turn...

... 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?

29silhouette, if the outline (of the hull I presume you are talking about?) is distinguishable, then the object has not become unresolvable by your eye. Using magnification will thus only result in increased detail becoming apparent.

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

He really was - where do you think he got his money from?  The guy went by about 4 different names and claimed he had a doctorate.  He used to sell his "phosphorised medicine" under the name Tyron.

He was a classic 19th century quack.

...
Resolution depends upon the angle the object subtends at the focal plane. Magnify the object by way of a convex lens, for instance, and you increase the angle subtended at the focal plane.
...

Very good! You have managed to both state the obvious, and avoid the more interesting part of my post:

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Aground_Tauranga_Pukehina_5_Oct_11_4.jpg

...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.

Quote from: Novice on February 03, 2014, 11:54:36 AM

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

He really was - where do you think he got his money from?  The guy went by about 4 different names and claimed he had a doctorate.  He used to sell his "phosphorised medicine" under the name Tyron.

He was a classic 19th century quack.

He studied at University of Edinburgh Medical School. His many obituaries by various editors (globularists all, I'm sure) list him as a doctor, and one of his patents was issued to "Samuel Rowbotham, of Putney in the County of Surrey, Doctor of Medicine". His tombstone reads "M.D., Ph.D.". What exactly leads you to believe he was not really a doctor?

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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Aground_Tauranga_Pukehina_5_Oct_11_4.jpg

...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.

I appreciate the requirement, but this is the middle of winter. I may well conduct such an experiment in the summer, hopefully, with some decent equipment.

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 03, 2014, 10:02:21 AM

... 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?

29silhouette, if the outline (of the hull I presume you are talking about?) is distinguishable, then the object has not become unresolvable by your eye. Using magnification will thus only result in increased detail becoming apparent.

So a blurry blob on the horizon that cannot be verified to be a 'sunken' ship until it is resolved into a ship (using increased zoom/resolution) that appears to be 'sunk', will not visibly rise up out of the water into full view using further increased zoom, as that would result in the resolved outline changing.  Sound right?

What about something on the horizon with a compressed appearance, which RET explains as refraction affecting the light coming from a 'sinking' object? 

Would increased zoom cause the compressed objects to decompress?  Spaceship seems to say so.

He studied at University of Edinburgh Medical School.

Source?  What did he study, and for how long?

His many obituaries by various editors (globularists all, I'm sure) list him as a doctor, and one of his patents was issued to "Samuel Rowbotham, of Putney in the County of Surrey, Doctor of Medicine".

That's what he would have put down on the patent form - they would hardly have checked his qualifications.

His tombstone reads "M.D., Ph.D.".

His followers erected that.

What exactly leads you to believe he was not really a doctor?

I clearly can't prove he wasn't, it's just apart from his own claims there is no reason to think he was - he was just a well known liar and snake-oil salesman who went by several pseudonyms, some of which had the Dr in front of them.  He never practiced medicine.

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

Definitely not.  Where did I say that?

Rowbotham willfully misinterpreted the "results" of his own experiments despite understanding that they were bogus.  He did this simply to promote his ongoing lecture tours, during which he made hundreds of pounds charging people sixpence (5 cents) a lecture to listen to his fanciful stories about a purported flat earth.

So yes;  he was a "snake-oil salesman" ultimately.

So yes;  he was a "snake-oil salesman" ultimately.

You don't actually need to put it in quotes - he made his money selling carbonated drinks as a medical cure-all - pretty much the definition of a snake-oil salesman.

...

What about something on the horizon with a compressed appearance, which RET explains as refraction affecting the light coming from a 'sinking' object? 

Would increased zoom cause the compressed objects to decompress?  Spaceship seems to say so.

Refraction is the bending of light as it travels from one medium to another. It will hence not be affected to any appreciable extent by magnification.

I don't know what EarthIsASpaceship thinks. I cannot answer for her.

Things are not "lifted out of the water" by pointing optical instruments at them, as we all know.

Would increased zoom cause the compressed objects to decompress?  Spaceship seems to say so.

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

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

You'll need to be more specific about the term "smashes everything together".  Can you please explain this mechanism in detail?
 

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 03, 2014, 07:02:36 PM

Would increased zoom cause the compressed objects to decompress?  Spaceship seems to say so.

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.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 04, 2014, 05:08:33 AM

So yes;  he was a "snake-oil salesman" ultimately.

You don't actually need to put it in quotes - he made his money selling carbonated drinks as a medical cure-all - pretty much the definition of a snake-oil salesman.

people might think he sold skincare products for reptiles otherwise. 

Yes.  You can't see any detail when it's visually compressed. Magnifying it makes it visible.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

That video demonstrates the digital and optical zoom capabilities of the camera, but as soon as the resolution allows for the ship to resolve, there's no evidence of it being compressed followed by increasing in height as the zoom is increased.  Sure it's enlarged, but the height and width retain the same ratio.

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).

Nice little calculation with pictures. Nothing very precise but still very much in the ballpark.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/how-to-estimate-the-radius-of-the-earth-with-a-lake/

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 04, 2014, 05:08:33 AM

So yes;  he was a "snake-oil salesman" ultimately.

You don't actually need to put it in quotes - he made his money selling carbonated drinks as a medical cure-all - pretty much the definition of a snake-oil salesman.

Carbonated drinks were commonly thought to be healthy by the medical profession at the time. Coca-Cola was sold as a drug. Both it and Dr.Pepper were started by pharmacists. Indeed Dr. Rowbotham preceded them in history.
I also noticed you ignored his obituaries written by detractors which all named him doctor. Surely they would have jumped at the chance to call him a fraud had that also been true. I hardly think the American Association for the Advancement of Science would have called him a doctor based on their obit. if he were not in fact a doctor — "We observe this note in a late number of the Athenaeum: '• ' РАRRALAX' is dead! Dr. Samuel Rowbotham used this name as the author of ' Zetetic astronomy,' and he was well known by it as a lecturer on such subjects as 'the earth not a globe.' The doctor, some years before his death, directed his 'seeking philosophy' to chemistry; but we never heard of any discovery resulting from his search."
Not exactly "erected by his followers".
At anyrate, you've provided no evidence he was not a doctor. If you'd like to start another thread to assassinate his character, feel free to do so. Let this thread be for globularists coming to terms with telescopic restoration.

Nice little calculation with pictures. Nothing very precise but still very much in the ballpark.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/how-to-estimate-the-radius-of-the-earth-with-a-lake/

Yes that view 10cm above water definitely does show curvature of the earth.

Quote from: reofcourse on February 04, 2014, 10:32:12 AM

Nice little calculation with pictures. Nothing very precise but still very much in the ballpark.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/06/how-to-estimate-the-radius-of-the-earth-with-a-lake/

Yes that view 10cm above water definitely does show curvature of the earth.

That's because the camera is not level.  It's tilted downward.  That is a classic effect of the camera trying to focus on objects close to the lens and in the distance.

Quote from: Novice on January 31, 2014, 10:42:47 AM

Quote from: Spank86 on January 31, 2014, 10:40:31 AM

Quote from: Novice on January 31, 2014, 08:55:40 AM

Quote from: Spank86 on January 31, 2014, 02:20:27 AM

Quote from: Novice on January 30, 2014, 05:53:53 PM

Can you show the right-hand-side of this picture, please?

not anymore, I cropped it to save space and don't have the original, I'd have to load it again, ...

A pity you chose to crop it just there, I'd really like to see the area to the right of the ship rather than all that wasted area to the left.

I thought we were interested in the ship and the video time, that's what i left in. I don't recall anything at all showing to the right.

There is another (farther away) ship or rig to the right of the main ship.

well if I remember I'll see what I can do on sunday.

Did you manage to get the right-hand-side of the picture yet?

Quote from: Spank86 on January 31, 2014, 10:44:11 AM

Quote from: Novice on January 31, 2014, 10:42:47 AM

Quote from: Spank86 on January 31, 2014, 10:40:31 AM

Quote from: Novice on January 31, 2014, 08:55:40 AM

Quote from: Spank86 on January 31, 2014, 02:20:27 AM

Quote from: Novice on January 30, 2014, 05:53:53 PM

Can you show the right-hand-side of this picture, please?

not anymore, I cropped it to save space and don't have the original, I'd have to load it again, ...

A pity you chose to crop it just there, I'd really like to see the area to the right of the ship rather than all that wasted area to the left.

I thought we were interested in the ship and the video time, that's what i left in. I don't recall anything at all showing to the right.

There is another (farther away) ship or rig to the right of the main ship.

well if I remember I'll see what I can do on sunday.

Did you manage to get the right-hand-side of the picture yet?

no, I forgot and I was very hung over.

That's because the camera is not level.  It's tilted downward.  That is a classic effect of the camera trying to focus on objects close to the lens and in the distance.

It doesn't look tilted at all. But let's suppose for a moment it is. What difference does that make? Surely you don't want to imply that today's cameras are incapable of producing useful pictures unless whatever you want to show is in the dead center of the picture taken?

Besides, being an obviously cropped picture, you don't even know where that center was...

no, I forgot and I was very hung over.

Ohhh, now I understand why your mind can't comprehend a Flat Earth.  You need to start with a clear head.

It doesn't look tilted at all. But let's suppose for a moment it is. What difference does that make? Surely you don't want to imply that today's cameras are incapable of producing useful pictures unless whatever you want to show is in the dead center of the picture taken?
Besides, being an obviously cropped picture, you don't even know where that center was...

You're right.  Neither of us can really say what is going on with the camera so it's foolish to assume the Earth is curved or not based on that photo.

Quote from: Spank86 on February 04, 2014, 11:58:59 PM

no, I forgot and I was very hung over.

Ohhh, now I understand why your mind can't comprehend a Flat Earth.  You need to start with a clear head.

I'd say it's probably better to start the night before.

That causeway and bascule picture on the lake in the link looks like curvature in the top picture.  Another from higher up would have helped.  The 10cm picture almost looks more like a slight wave was coming in, although the causeway and bascule were still probably blocked from view.

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?