[Bikini Polaris]

I will keep this topic really simple. I wonder if FET does not find odd that, in general, the horizon line appears
so crisp clear, even at the level of the sea. Somehow that's not the view I'd expect in an atmosphere full of moisture that slowly blocks my view of the very far (https://wiki.tfes.org/Viewing_Distance). I think in FE I should always see a slowly fading, confused, horizon.

As a note for fellow GEs, delving into FE gave me this insight I never had. Now I really "sense" as obvious the frontal curvature of the sea and the "top" of the curving water in front ot me. The clouds in the far distance really looks diving down and disappearing in curvature. For this, thank you FE

[Tom Bishop]

Take a look at these experiments. They suggest that we can't see forever and that eventually limits of optical resolution will affect our vision.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

FIG. 73.

Let A represent a disc of wood or card-board, say one foot in diameter, and painted black, except one inch diameter in the centre. On taking this disc to about a hundred feet away from an observer at A, the white centre will appear considerably diminished--as shown at B--and on removing it still further the central white will become invisible, the disc will appear as at C, entirely black. Again, if a similar disc is coloured black, except a segment of say one inch in depth at the lower edge, on moving it forward the lower segment will gradually disappear, as shown at A, B, and C, in diagram fig. 74. If the


Fig. 74.

disc is allowed to rest on a board D, the effect is still more striking. The disc at C will appear perfectly round--the white segment having disappeared.

This boat seems to disappear to optical resolution when zooming in and out:

[Bikini Polaris]

Thanks for the reply. Yes, optical resolution hinders the view, but to clarify my point better, consider the 200X zoom in the video: shouldn't many more water and waves appear? I'd expect a sort of fractal there, showing a similar big part of the sea as in the initial view. At least, I think this should be the optical behavior of an ideal planar planet without any moisture and infinitely clean air. Instead, the waves behind the boat look to me as the clear cut end of the horizon.

[spherical]

I wonder if we can have real pictures demonstrating figure 73 above.
Any hand drawing objects used as proof of scientific research is at least childish.

I understand pretty well "optical resolution", I have several telescopes and deal with for deep sky observation.
Optical resolution has nothing to do with an artifact disappear on your vision, it is related to "resolving details" by Rayleigh criterion.
On your figure 73 item C, the center white dot would become fuzzy and edges out of focus, not disappearing like that.
When the wavelength becomes larger than the viewing angle, it just mix to each other, not disappears. 

This is a serious issue on microscopy since the observed micro elements can be out of resolution, needing much better and expensive optics.  It is not by chance that the electronic industry was improving its light wavelength projection every time they reduce silicon wafer width traces and slits. Decades ago they used regular visible light, as it become narrow and narrow, the slit definition in the films went way over the optical resolution of the light, they needed to migrate to blue, UV and even RX for the wavelength to be able to go through the film image density of details.

Also, lighter details tend to overcome the wavelength of less lighter artifacts, so, sorry, the white dot would even spread its fuzzy over its edge becoming a little bit larger.  This is why on sniper training they use while dots on center target, so the sniper would see the center target even a great distances. Also, snipers are trained to seek and focus on lighter artifact on the target for effect, even if smaller.
The same for your figure 74-C, that is not how it works, it will become fuzzy, but no magical disappearance.

In real life, bottom of several examples are normally in the shadow of itself, less brightness, tend to be more difficult to see.  The bottom of a car at distance tend to be confused with the road itself, but they don't disappear, you can see them, measure them, even zoom and nicely photograph them.  The bottom of a ship over the sea at distance just don't magically disappear by optical resolution, in that case is just below the horizon, you can zoom, telescope, whatever you want, the bottom will never to be seen, you can even see in details the windows and even rivets at the water level, what means resolution is pretty great.  And above all, if you lift yourself by helicopter, not changing your distance to the chip, you still be able to see the bottom of the chip, since you changed the horizon level.  Neat, isn't it?

Below, the fuzzy image (a) and (b) shows that effect, and better, the radiance of (b) didn't change from (a), since both still present in the same fuzzy image.  They don't disappear.

Sorry, no cigar this time.




Rayleigh criterion:



Further reading:
https://www.olympus-lifescience.com/en/microscope-resource/primer/digitalimaging/deconvolution/deconresolution/

[spherical]

Lake Pontchartrain transmission line, 15 miles, at 8" /mile² is 1800" (45.72m) down the horizon curvature.

[Tumeni]

Take a look at these experiments. They suggest that we can't see forever and that eventually limits of optical resolution will affect our vision.

I'm not expecting to see forever, and the horizon in that photo is not at the limit of my optical resolution, it's on an iPad screen some 8 to 9 inches from my nose .... with a clear horizon.

[Tom Bishop]

Thanks for the reply. Yes, optical resolution hinders the view, but to clarify my point better, consider the 200X zoom in the video: shouldn't many more water and waves appear? I'd expect a sort of fractal there, showing a similar big part of the sea as in the initial view. At least, I think this should be the optical behavior of an ideal planar planet without any moisture and infinitely clean air. Instead, the waves behind the boat look to me as the clear cut end of the horizon.

The zoomed in view seems a bit more hazy at the edges, in my opinion.

[stack]

Take a look at these experiments. They suggest that we can't see forever and that eventually limits of optical resolution will affect our vision.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

FIG. 73.

Let A represent a disc of wood or card-board, say one foot in diameter, and painted black, except one inch diameter in the centre. On taking this disc to about a hundred feet away from an observer at A, the white centre will appear considerably diminished--as shown at B--and on removing it still further the central white will become invisible, the disc will appear as at C, entirely black. Again, if a similar disc is coloured black, except a segment of say one inch in depth at the lower edge, on moving it forward the lower segment will gradually disappear, as shown at A, B, and C, in diagram fig. 74. If the


Fig. 74.

disc is allowed to rest on a board D, the effect is still more striking. The disc at C will appear perfectly round--the white segment having disappeared.

To be clear, these are not experiments that Rowbotham performed. He never says he did. He simply states:

"The above may be called the law of perspective. It may be given in more formal language, as the following:. when any object or any part thereof is so far removed that its greatest diameter subtends at the eye of the observer, an angle of one minute or less of a degree, it is no longer visible.
From the above it follows:--
1.--That the larger the object the further will it require to go from the observer before it becomes invisible.
2.--The further any two bodies, or any two parts of the same body, are asunder, the further must they recede before they appear to converge to the same point.
3.--Any distinctive part of a receding body will be-come invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body."

Followed by the diagrams of the disks with dots. Which, as spherical pointed out, SBR's diagrams and notion of this "law of perspective" he made up is incorrect. The dot would shrink and blur as it got farther away from the observer. It wouldn't be a crisp dot and then just vanish. As well, in the second diagram, SBR cleverly uses the bottom painted white as an example, almost like a ships hull vanishing as it got further away. Again, the white would blur and shrink. And the same would happen if just the top, instead of the bottom, of the disk were painted white. It would blur and shrink.

[Macarios]

In Rowbotham's book there is Fig. 1

In real sunset we have Fig. 2

[Tom Bishop]

To be clear, these are not experiments that Rowbotham performed. He never says he did. He simply states:

"The above may be called the law of perspective. It may be given in more formal language, as the following:. when any object or any part thereof is so far removed that its greatest diameter subtends at the eye of the observer, an angle of one minute or less of a degree, it is no longer visible.
From the above it follows:--
1.--That the larger the object the further will it require to go from the observer before it becomes invisible.
2.--The further any two bodies, or any two parts of the same body, are asunder, the further must they recede before they appear to converge to the same point.
3.--Any distinctive part of a receding body will be-come invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body."

Followed by the diagrams of the disks with dots. Which, as spherical pointed out, SBR's diagrams and notion of this "law of perspective" he made up is incorrect. The dot would shrink and blur as it got farther away from the observer. It wouldn't be a crisp dot and then just vanish. As well, in the second diagram, SBR cleverly uses the bottom painted white as an example, almost like a ships hull vanishing as it got further away. Again, the white would blur and shrink. And the same would happen if just the top, instead of the bottom, of the disk were painted white. It would blur and shrink.

Rowbotham does perform the experiments discussed.

I've performed the experiment as well. I printed out a ship that had a hull 1/8th of an inch tall and the hull disappeared once I got far enough away.

The angular resolution of the eye is 1/60th of a degree. An object will disappear at about a little over 3000 times its own diameter.

Angular resolution is common knowledge and part of  high school science curriculum.

[stack]

To be clear, these are not experiments that Rowbotham performed. He never says he did. He simply states:

"The above may be called the law of perspective. It may be given in more formal language, as the following:. when any object or any part thereof is so far removed that its greatest diameter subtends at the eye of the observer, an angle of one minute or less of a degree, it is no longer visible.
From the above it follows:--
1.--That the larger the object the further will it require to go from the observer before it becomes invisible.
2.--The further any two bodies, or any two parts of the same body, are asunder, the further must they recede before they appear to converge to the same point.
3.--Any distinctive part of a receding body will be-come invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body."

Followed by the diagrams of the disks with dots. Which, as spherical pointed out, SBR's diagrams and notion of this "law of perspective" he made up is incorrect. The dot would shrink and blur as it got farther away from the observer. It wouldn't be a crisp dot and then just vanish. As well, in the second diagram, SBR cleverly uses the bottom painted white as an example, almost like a ships hull vanishing as it got further away. Again, the white would blur and shrink. And the same would happen if just the top, instead of the bottom, of the disk were painted white. It would blur and shrink.

Rowbotham does perform the experiments discussed.

I've performed the experiment as well. I printed out a ship that had a hull 1/8th of an inch tall and the hull disappeared once I got far enough away.

The angular resolution of the eye is 1/60th of a degree. An object will disappear at about a little over 3000 times its own diameter.

Angular resolution is common knowledge and part of  high school science curriculum.

Nowhere in the chapter does SBR say he performed the experiment.

Did your paper boat sink? I hardly think you walking away from something very small and finding it hard to see at a distance constitutes an even remote explanation of ships going over a horizon disappearing hull up. Both yours and SBR’s explanations explain zero.

[Tumeni]

The angular resolution of the eye is 1/60th of a degree. An object will disappear at about a little over 3000 times its own diameter.

Angular resolution is common knowledge and part of  high school science curriculum.

Again, this is not applicable when looking at a zoomed-in photo of the scene, as opposed to being there in person, nor when looking at the scene with binoculars or telescope.

[Bikini Polaris]

The zoomed in view seems a bit more hazy at the edges, in my opinion.

Yes, there's some amount of hazyness, but maybe this video better shows what I don't see (but I expected to):



Someone on the beach zooms on a boat and a buoy. The zoom works pretty well, showing details that are invisible to the naked eye. However I was expecting to see some amount of water behind the buoy (and the boat), and I mean, of course, a thin slice of water in view behind them, fading towards a slightly higher horizon line. But apparently both are clear shapes against the sky, as if we are looking at them slightly from below, rather than slightly from above.

[spherical]

I've performed the experiment as well. I printed out a ship that had a hull 1/8th of an inch tall and the hull disappeared once I got far enough away.

I just performed such experiment, printed a whole ship on a letter size paper.
Taped it to a card and nailed to the middle of a tree trunk.
Walk away until I barely could see the paper (80m+) - binoculars show the whole page and ship, perfectly visible, no missing hull.
Walk towards the tree until I could see the image on paper but could not identify (30m+) - binoculars show perfect image.
Walk towards the tree until I could recognize the ship on paper (10m+), could see it entirely, no missing hull.

Repeated the experience with the card and paper touching the ground.
The views and results exactly as above.
No missing hull at anytime.

Just remember that ships on ocean sink completely under the horizon based on distance, not only hull, and the visible part has great visibility.
Also, after part or the whole ship disappears, the use of binoculars or telescopes doesn't bring it back, what eliminates any relation to the human eye acuity or optical resolution.

I don't know how familiar are you with telescopes and binoculars, I am very much. Using a telescope I can see a small Moon's crater or the beautiful Jupiter's red spot and its natural satellites, impossible at naked eye, what means, it didn't "disappear", it still there and optical apparatus could be used to still it yet, not the case of the ship's hull or the entire ship disappearing under the horizon, because in that case the curved horizon just hid the object.

I already wrote about that, the problem to use ships below the horizon, is that the reference is always a complete bad video, fuzzy, lots of mist and moisture in the middle, stabilization, etc.  Those videos are the horror in full extend for anyone involved with expensive optics.   When I see those videos I wonder what a heck this people are using? holding the camera by hand? no steady tripod? solar filter oil all over the lens? no image filters? no post-processing software to clean up the mist?   Even my first home made telescope decades ago could produce a crisp and better image.  The chosen video is on purpose, to create more discussion than answers.

Below some videos with better visibility, but lacking knowledge of "controlled experience", no "mirage", "refraction" or "optical resolution", we can still see the very narrow masts and tops all the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNGorPyX9OQ

The following is a little bit better, using calculation and flashing lights from the target, what makes it easier for the geometry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrihjP5tTTM

A little more good technology used in the next one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVa2UmgdTM4

The following uses a control reference setup (over the hill recording), great video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX2m_NfrJD4

Another great experiment, you can see the bottom of the building didn't just vanish due optical resolution, mirage, refraction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk

[Bikini Polaris]

I've performed the experiment as well. I printed out a ship that had a hull 1/8th of an inch tall and the hull disappeared once I got far enough away.

Another great experiment, you can see the bottom of the building didn't just vanish due optical resolution, mirage, refraction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk

Nice reply! In ENAG terms, point H of figure 83:



is the actual horizon line (as stated by Rowbotham), and as such everything in view after that is "unresolved" by naked eye. Now I'm not sure how am I supposed to see something unseeable, but since in that line the whole rest of the planet is compressed, I would think it as more jammed than the defined line I think I see.

Than, when zooming, the hull and details are back, and we should find ourselves as we're looking at point E, but there, and here's the mystery, we should see new water under the hull and a "new" point H in the background, constituting the new horizon line. This happens in the wiki's video, but not in many others, as yours.

So, summing up, with zooming toward point H (just any point on the horizon line), I would expect it to became a new point E and to see the appearence of a new point H.

[reer]

Lake Pontchartrain transmission line, 15 miles, at 8" /mile² is 1800" (45.72m) down the horizon curvature.

I love the way you can see the transmission line bend with the curvature of the earth. On the second photo you can clearly see that lines connecting the tops or bottoms of the poles start bending right from the beginning. Nowhere is it straight. There is nothing in FE "perspective" that can cause that bend. You must have PhotoShop'ed the photo ;-)

[Bikini Polaris]

When we magnify the view, it's like moving toward it, so effectively moving forward the vanishing point H of figure 71:



This means that our next view will bring new details and only moisture will block the farthest details. But since moisture will block us slowly (unless it's a bank fog over the sea, but usually it's not the case), I believe that magnifying the horizon line should show more sea, details and move toward us those waves that appear at the very top, where the sea meet the sky.

Regarding the clear cut horizon, also Rowbotham in Experiment 10 states: "the horizon will be reflected as a well defined mark or line across the centre". So he also acknowledged that the horizon looks like a defined line, not a blurred one. Secondly, he noticed that some occlusion in the far distance is due to high waves in the sea, blocking the view. So we should consider only a relatively calm sea here (not difficult).

A further clarification: I'm not trying to showcase curvature here, but optical magnification as in plain perspective theory. Maybe someone more expert than me in optics can clarify even better how magnifying flat earth should work, I have never seen this critic against FE around.

[EDIT]: just found this video where the zooming on the horizon line is not showing more of the objects that are on its line.

[Tom Bishop]

There are multiple causes for the sinking effect. Pick one: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

[Bikini Polaris]

There are multiple causes for the sinking effect. Pick one: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

Yes, I see the many causes, but here I'm not really interested in hulls, rather on the top parts of objects. A couple of facts in FE that I hope everyone would agree upon:

- if the atmosphere were perfectly clear and I knew the height of an object and the its distance, I could *just* point my (infinitely powerful) telescope with a known angle, and zoom until I will certainly see the top of that object
- if my elevation increased, I could see farther and farther (this would happens much less in RE)
- obviously, I cannot see very far in FE, the horizon line merges all the tops parts of objects.

My doubts are:

- this effect looks really, really, "sudden". Pictures of big lakes show how the mountains behind are all compressed in that line. Stated in another way,
- I cannot really see evidence of a "slow disappearance" into the horizon, which my (possibly wrong) intuition would expect from optical resolution and moisture in air.
- in some pictures, the top of some objects appear again when zooming, however I'd expect to see much more.
- when zooming I'd expect a fractal effect, where more details appear and a new horizon line unrolls behind the "current" one
- for example, I could see the whole Moon again if I zoom just after it disappeard into the horizon
- last but not least, objects that looks like being on the horizon line, looks to be at a distance that can be computed with RE stuff. I.e., it seems that the "vanishing point" perspective distance has a geometrical component equal to the diameter of Earth in RE. I'm not sure what this could mean though.

[Tumeni]

There are multiple causes for the sinking effect. Pick one: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

Two of which can be disregarded by simply making suitable observations over a large river valley, where the water is a small part of the centre of the valley, and the greater part of the observation is made over land.

No?

All that's left then is the Optical Resolution angle, and if you can plainly see, either in person or on photo/video, objects either in the centre or on the far side of the valley, then that can be disregarded too.