The author tells us that it took over 400 photos to get the one that he wanted:
"In all the images I took today - there were over 400 in total"
He goes on to tell us that the horizon was curved and the beams were straight in the remainder of the 400 photos that he does not show us:
"the curve of the horizon shows the same, while the straight edges stay straight."
However, of the couple of photos he shows us, the curvature of the beams are inconsistent:
Straight:
Then the author shows us a version with the beams tilted in comparison with the horizon. In this one we can see that there is clearly curvature on the beams:
I bet that if I took over 400 photos of distortion, I could eventually get what I wanted too.
I simply printed off the picture and put a ruler against the bar edges: There's no consistent
curvature to them the way there is the horizon line. The bars tilt in some images, they're a bit blurry and have some unevenness true, but tilted, blurry or uneven edges do nothing to falsify the horizon's curve which the author claims is in all 400 images. Think about it: The telling thing is that the line of the bars, be it level, wavy, tilted or even if they had some apparent curve of their own,
never follows the curve of the horizon - so whatever is causing the horizon curve isn't a result of the lens, the shape of the imaging surface, or a global distortion of the image in post production. It comes from outside the mechanism of the camera. Nor can it be distortion from the expansion, as the horizon and bars have undergone the exact same expansion and the horizon is clearly curved in a way, and to a degree, that the bars are clearly not. You could even stretch and distort the image so the horizon
was flat, but the bars would tell on you because they would then be curved to the same definite degree the horizon actually is but the other way up (a 'smile' instead of a 'frown' if you see what I mean).It is also worth being clear:
Both bars would need to be curved, following the horizon curve, along the exact same line for there to be evidence that the horizon curvature was from inside the camera.
You ask the author for all 400 images and go through them, you go ahead Tom, and with enough dedication and you might be able to find a handfull where blur or lighting puts an touch of apparent curve on the bars. But it's the
difference between the curve of the horizon and the bars, the bars that in the original image are so incredibly close to the horizon, that shows the horizon curve is not a distortion from within the camera.
WRT QED's ask to see all 400 images, that is fair - but the author expecting people to actually ask for them, if they are that interested, is also fair: They are trying to communicate their finding, and including all 400 in the first instance it would make the piece pointlessly long and might discourage readers. I worked in research, using optical microscope images. I would analyse hundreds, tabluate and graph my findings of where certain visible phenomena occured under my test conditions, but any paper I published could only include a few images, because the majority of readers are ready to extend at least a bit of trust and aren't so interested in every single image, and because people's time and attention is limited. But I had them (I may still do in fact) and was always happy to share them - even the whole folder - via a site like mailbigfile.com
It's also fair, obviously, to invite repetition of the experiment under comparable conditions. If I get the time, and if my camera with the decent resolution is still working (haven't used it for years) I'll definitely give this a go: As I said, as far as I get this the important thing is not that the bars are perfectly straight and level, but that they are as close to the horizon as possible and clearly don't show the same curve.
From the same article I note it says this...
It looks flat, and in fact the horizon IS geometrically flat. Since all the points on the ocean horizon are the same distance away from you, and the same distance below you, the horizon forms a flat circle with its center some distance below your feet.
And I do believe I have pointed this out before, for the very same reason that the photographer state. So how does a flat horizon prove a flat Earth?
The photographer also points out correctly that the curvature will only become apparent once you gain enough height. You need to be able to see enough of the surface area of the Earth before the curve becomes directly apparent. I made reference to that in the last paragraph of my opening post for this thread. The photos shown in the posts above will never show any hint of curvature.
That is a fair point in principle, but any actual observer is at least slightly elevated, therefore looking slightly 'downhill' to the horizon, and therefore on a spherical surface should be able to pick up some curvature if they can examine it, in comparison to another line, closely enough. The greater the elevation the greater the curvature will be, so to repeat this well its still a good idea to get high as you can. Or do I misunderstand what you mean?
Jeppspace: What evidence is there in the image that the left and right edges are closer to the shore? And, as you point out, the sea is constantly changing - how could any swell or confluence of waves produce a curvature that stays centred on the middle of the shot, for 400 images?