my evidence

  • 242 Replies
  • 58763 Views
Re: my evidence
« Reply #90 on: December 19, 2007, 02:33:24 PM »
So as we can see, bthimes' own images prove that the perspective effect can be reversed through the use of optical zoom.

They do not prove that the alleged perspective effect of half-sunken things can be reversed through the use of opitcal zoom. So they do not provide any support at all to the Flat Earth theory.

?

Chacotay

Re: my evidence
« Reply #91 on: December 19, 2007, 02:35:25 PM »
Quote
the needs of an astronomer are surely different to the needs of someone viewing an island a couple of dozen miles across the water.  The fact is that it was a fair test, because he used the same equipment at different hights and saw substantially different results. You don't accept it because you don't want to accept it.

The Flat Earth Literature very specifically says that a telescope is required to see past the perspective effect. Does a device which magnifies a scene with a 1:6.1 ratio sound like a telescope to you?

No. A camera lens is not a telescope. Go ahead and ask your nearest priest if a camera lens is a telescope.

An average amature astronomer's telescope might provide a 1:400 ratio magnification. Therefore there is no comparison. Therefore the images are not representative of a scene as seen out of a telescope.
Where are these alleged photos of yours?

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: my evidence
« Reply #92 on: December 19, 2007, 02:38:44 PM »
An average amature astronomer's telescope might provide a 1:400 ratio magnification.

That is undoubtedly true of modern telescopes.  However, I am highly skeptical of the claim that such magnification could be accomplished by a handheld spyglass in the 1800's.  Could you please provide a source?


EDIT:  I am, of course, assuming that the telescope used by Rowbotham was the kind which appears in tENaG diagrams.  A hand held refractor.  I am assuming that Rowbotham did not write the astronomer royal and obtain a temporary lease on a 20-inch refractor.  I take it this is a valid assumption?

A point I was just getting ready to make. I actually have a spyglass from 1889 - used to be an ancestor of ours that made the traderoutes still while they were still sailed a bit.

I can tell you flat out that it does not magnify nearly as well as those images showed. It does a fair job, but nothing like that. Who knows if it was the same quality or not? It's still in great shape and works well. Not proof since I can't verify it's the same make / type, however it lends credence to the camera lens being more than sufficient. I'll see what I can dig up for you Tom. ;)
Dyslexics are teople poo!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: my evidence
« Reply #93 on: December 19, 2007, 02:39:06 PM »
Even Newton's very first telescope is more powerful than that lens:

From http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/tools/tools-early-reflectors.htm

"Newton presented his design to England's Royal Society in January 1672, where it aroused great interest. He had succeeded in making a mirror with a spherical curvature, slightly less than 1½ inches in diameter. The mirror was made of a copper-tin alloy, to which Newton had added a bit of arsenic to make it easier to polish. It had a magnification of about 40. Above this primary mirror Newton placed a small flat secondary mirror at a 45-degree angle, to reflect the light into an eyepiece mounted in the side of the telescope tube."

The 1800's were the golden age of telescopes. Since then, no real advances in telescopes have been made. Once glass makers perfected their technique in the 1800's, the telescope was perfected.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 02:53:44 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: my evidence
« Reply #94 on: December 19, 2007, 02:54:57 PM »
bishop, i know you are a hybrid fe believer / troll.  and to maintain that for months, surely requires some degree of intelligence.  which is why i once thought you had some intelligence, and where worthy of debate.  but seriously, genuinely, i have slowly come full circle and now feel sorry for you.  i actually feel bad for having made so much fun of you and threatening to kick your ass.  you really are just a simpleton idiot, unable *and* unwilling to get your brain out of it's deep single-track groove it has worn for itself.

you have repeatedly made the most egregious errors in just the most basic of principles of logic, have repeatedly and directly contradicted yourself again and again, so badly so, it seems on purpose.  you actually set your own traps.  and you are completely oblivious of the most thinly disguised logic traps sprung from external sources.  you just stumble blindly into them, all puffery and false bravado and making grand assertions made in absolute terms.  (anyone even modestly aware of the principles of debate knows you never, ever use impossible terms of absolute, because reality is never absolute and you will be called on it.)

you make assertions that, due to your ignorance of the subjects on which you feign expertise, cry out without your own awareness: that you are a compulsive liar and make up any story to suit your point.  and you (quite clearly) purposely twist the meaning of third and second-party arguments.  you make assertions that betray profound ignorance of the very thing you are trying to sound so assured about (such as optics).  we constantly spank you with your own words.  don't you see how unfulfilling this is for us?  there is scarcely any reason to do anything ourselves, other than just point out the bishop v bishop debates. 

another way you debase these debates, is that you do not read the arguments and evidence provided.  clearly, you read a few words, and auto-spew the same old shit.  how do i know this?  because you repeatedly make assertions that have already been addressed in a way that makes your "profound observations" profoundly irrelevant, sometimes in your own camp's favor.  it is not honest debate.  it is not even moral debate.  it is a fucking time-waster for everyone.

debate is not supposed to be about performing simple keyword queries on the poster's [your] previous comments.  it is supposed to be about building some basic level of mutual trust, goodwill however token, and even grudging respect so that we can debate the topics, not the demonstrated compulsive liars making the preposterous, unsupported, and irrelevant assertions.  it is a grave disservice to the people here, and to the fe cause.  you are a liability to all of us.

to top it all that off, you have somehow talked yourself into believing this is about you.  it *is not about you*  i do not care about you, bishop.  i don't care about your sad, incessant drivel.  most of us (even some fe'ers) care about reasoned, honest debate; about evidence.  not preposterous thought experiments that defy observation and experiment.  not about sketches in "the literature".  not about impossible and laughable misunderstandings and redefinitions of "perspective" and refraction (which you always love to sound fancy with by referring to it as "snell's law").

i could give two shits about what a fucking moron talked himself into seeing through a crappy, dim, distorted, blurry 19th century era telescope.  the guy had his friends write glowing reviews about himself, for christ's sake.  he was a joke then bishop, just as he is a joke now.  sketches from an idiot are not evidence.  direct, first-hand photographic evidence of verifiable provenance, using documented and repeateable methodology, is.  and before you assert otherwise because it's convenient, pause for a moment and remember i will spank you with your own words if you even try. 

my evidence is vastly more robust than rowbotham's "experiment" and sketches, which have been debunked for quite some time with superior methodology and technology.  my optics are superior to 19th-century optics - using the exact same principles of lenses and recfraction as refractor telescopes - with comparable or superior zoom (google for yourself), more light-gathering capability, and with a larger objective lens and far more precisely ground optics and mechanisms.  i have repeatedly stated that i do not care about what your, or your great great grandpa consider as "requirements".  a shitty spotting scope and sketches are really poor requirements.  are we *clear*?  *are we fucking clear!?*  good.  it is incumbent upon you to provide better evidence.  repeatedly referring to "the literature" (a pamphlet of sketches) is not evidence.

if you don't like that, then piss off.  in this thread, we use the scientific method.  not bishop fantasy sketch method.  no one here will mind when you leave.

again i must insist: put up or shut up.  where is your first-hand, verifiable, repeatable, documented, rigorous evidence to back up your flimsly assertions?  quit your tiresome wining and do something.

so...with that out of the way:

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: my evidence
« Reply #95 on: December 19, 2007, 02:58:55 PM »
The majority of your blabbering is not worth reading, and provides no further content to this thread. Please answer the following point:

If your lens cannot even beat out Newton's original telescope from the 1600's, what makes you think that it beats Rowbotham's telescope which was built in the Golden age of telescopes? See the links above.

Since you are unable to provide a coherent argument, I guess that means we can throw your "evidence" right out the window.

Quote
put up or shut up.  where is your first-hand, verifiable, repeatable, documented, rigorous evidence to back up your flimsly assertions?  quit your tiresome wining and do something.

The first-hand accounts and documented evidence is all in the Flat Earth Literature linked in my signature. Please read through it sometime.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 03:09:48 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: my evidence
« Reply #96 on: December 19, 2007, 03:20:54 PM »
Use photoshop to enlarge the following images to 900%:
...
And here's the same enlargement with an adjusted contrast to better make out the distant island. I have outlined the area of the island which has suddenly become visible compared o image one through the optical zoom of the camera's lens:
...

jesus bishop.  think before you post.  and read.  as you probably don't recall, i stated that flikr severely downsamples the images.  which, you would be wise in interpreting from: i have the originals at full resolution.  that shows your "analyses" for the foolishness it is.  damn, you are a bonehead.

you didn't even bother to notice that larger versions are available for every shot right there on flikr.  try your analyses on those.

better yet, just quit wasting our time with your ignorance and lack of reading ability.

to anyone (but bishop): i will upload severely cropped but greatly "magnified" 1:1 unresampled versions of whatever area of whatever shot anyone would like to see, within time constraints and remaining flikr upload bandwidth.  or if someone wants to donate an ftp server or directory that i can just bulk upload to, i'll do that the moment it's provided.

this also goes to demonstrate a specific type of hysteria of a particularly paranoid type of conspriacy theory nut: they see whatever they want to see in image and video noise.  whether vaguely "face-like" features in analog noise, and/or any number of things in digital sharpening and compression.  (like islands.)  clearly, you are accustomed to performing these kinds of pseudo-scientific types of "analyses" on images that nobody had access to the freakin' originals to.  (including the raw sensor dumps.) 

news flash: just go away.

Re: my evidence
« Reply #97 on: December 19, 2007, 03:22:09 PM »
Tom, I am still waiting for you to explain why you lied and contradicted yourself earlier. 

How long must you keep me waiting?

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: my evidence
« Reply #98 on: December 19, 2007, 03:44:04 PM »
bishop, i know you are a hybrid fe believer / troll.  and to maintain that for months, surely requires some degree of intelligence.  which is why i once thought you had some intelligence, and where worthy of debate.  but seriously, genuinely, i have slowly come full circle and now feel sorry for you.  i actually feel bad for having made so much fun of you and threatening to kick your ass.  you really are just a simpleton idiot, unable *and* unwilling to get your brain out of it's deep single-track groove it has worn for itself.

you have repeatedly made the most egregious errors in just the most basic of principles of logic, have repeatedly and directly contradicted yourself again and again, so badly so, it seems on purpose.  you actually set your own traps.  and you are completely oblivious of the most thinly disguised logic traps sprung from external sources.  you just stumble blindly into them, all puffery and false bravado and making grand assertions made in absolute terms.  (anyone even modestly aware of the principles of debate knows you never, ever use impossible terms of absolute, because reality is never absolute and you will be called on it.)

you make assertions that, due to your ignorance of the subjects on which you feign expertise, cry out without your own awareness: that you are a compulsive liar and make up any story to suit your point.  and you (quite clearly) purposely twist the meaning of third and second-party arguments.  you make assertions that betray profound ignorance of the very thing you are trying to sound so assured about (such as optics).  we constantly spank you with your own words.  don't you see how unfulfilling this is for us?  there is scarcely any reason to do anything ourselves, other than just point out the bishop v bishop debates. 

another way you debase these debates, is that you do not read the arguments and evidence provided.  clearly, you read a few words, and auto-spew the same old shit.  how do i know this?  because you repeatedly make assertions that have already been addressed in a way that makes your "profound observations" profoundly irrelevant, sometimes in your own camp's favor.  it is not honest debate.  it is not even moral debate.  it is a fucking time-waster for everyone.

debate is not supposed to be about performing simple keyword queries on the poster's [your] previous comments.  it is supposed to be about building some basic level of mutual trust, goodwill however token, and even grudging respect so that we can debate the topics, not the demonstrated compulsive liars making the preposterous, unsupported, and irrelevant assertions.  it is a grave disservice to the people here, and to the fe cause.  you are a liability to all of us.

to top it all that off, you have somehow talked yourself into believing this is about you.  it *is not about you*  i do not care about you, bishop.  i don't care about your sad, incessant drivel.  most of us (even some fe'ers) care about reasoned, honest debate; about evidence.  not preposterous thought experiments that defy observation and experiment.  not about sketches in "the literature".  not about impossible and laughable misunderstandings and redefinitions of "perspective" and refraction (which you always love to sound fancy with by referring to it as "snell's law").

i could give two shits about what a fucking moron talked himself into seeing through a crappy, dim, distorted, blurry 19th century era telescope.  the guy had his friends write glowing reviews about himself, for christ's sake.  he was a joke then bishop, just as he is a joke now.  sketches from an idiot are not evidence.  direct, first-hand photographic evidence of verifiable provenance, using documented and repeateable methodology, is.  and before you assert otherwise because it's convenient, pause for a moment and remember i will spank you with your own words if you even try. 

my evidence is vastly more robust than rowbotham's "experiment" and sketches, which have been debunked for quite some time with superior methodology and technology.  my optics are superior to 19th-century optics - using the exact same principles of lenses and recfraction as refractor telescopes - with comparable or superior zoom (google for yourself), more light-gathering capability, and with a larger objective lens and far more precisely ground optics and mechanisms.  i have repeatedly stated that i do not care about what your, or your great great grandpa consider as "requirements".  a shitty spotting scope and sketches are really poor requirements.  are we *clear*?  *are we fucking clear!?*  good.  it is incumbent upon you to provide better evidence.  repeatedly referring to "the literature" (a pamphlet of sketches) is not evidence.

if you don't like that, then piss off.  in this thread, we use the scientific method.  not bishop fantasy sketch method.  no one here will mind when you leave.

again i must insist: put up or shut up.  where is your first-hand, verifiable, repeatable, documented, rigorous evidence to back up your flimsly assertions?  quit your tiresome wining and do something.

so...with that out of the way:
I nominate you for god. You win.

Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: my evidence
« Reply #99 on: December 19, 2007, 03:45:37 PM »
news flash: rowbotham didn't use newton's scope.  nor does it seem from his "documentation" that he used the finest scope of his day.  nor did technology evolve much during the time between newton and rowbotham.  rowbotham used at best a small refractor, and at worst a spotting scope.  and the optical precision was shitty.  400x of shitty zoom, is 400x of shitty zoom.

furthermore, just because telescopes could (and can) be jacked up to 400x with different eyepeices - (the exact optical equivalent of optical lens doublers on cameras, one of which i own), doesn't mean that they were, or that that was or is useful for a particular task  as i've described before, most amateur telescopes are set up for viewing / imaging large objects in the sky.  the orion nebula for example, is huge.  m31, our nearest galactic neighbor and one of the most photographed astronomical objects ever, is the angular width in the sky of a full moon.  astronomical telescopes are designed first and foremost to be fast.  most people do not have the quality "seeing" conditions to make use of more resolution than my camera lens has. 

in fact, i have imaged m31, orion, with my lens.  as well as jupiter's moons.  and wide swaths of our milky way with with a wide angle lens.  good, useful, and fun amateur astronomy.  with a camera.

furthermore, a scope's zoom power is not the only factor, not by a long shot.  i know bishop has never considered this.  other important factors include the quality and precision of the optics.  another is the resolution on the viewing end.  as many people have probably seen, old scopes have really small viewing areas.  the effective resolution on the eye nowhere approaches the potential of the zoom itself.  my camera, however, has vastly more resolving power at any given zoom, than the human eye can discern through the dslr's viewfinder, which is already vastly more crisp and clear than the warpy, imprecise optics of old telescopes.  usually more so than my 50x stabilized binoculars, on a subjective basis (once downloaded and viewed at 1:1 screen:image pixels.)

bishop is also conveniently ignoring the limits of atmospheric haze and resolution.  i have already stated that my optical doubler is effectively useless for distant objects through dense atmosphere.  (great for wildlife.)  it just makes things bigger, more opaque, and more shimmery and distored via various temperature-related artifacts.  so much so that just upsampling/bicubic filtering the pixels is just as effective in "resolving" extra detail (that isn't there).  it doesn't make ships unsink.

but this is really testing my patience.  i don't care what rowbotham used.  none of us should.  we all need to stop taking bishiop's distracting bait.  it only provides him enjoyment, like a troubled child tears shit up just for the attention of a beating.

let's just allow bishop to shut bishop up, and then move on:

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: my evidence
« Reply #100 on: December 19, 2007, 03:54:53 PM »
finally, bishop debunking bishop (my highlighting):

...As a rebuttal, lets check this image against other sea-level images of Toronto from across Lake Ontario taken on days with different weather and wave conditions:

[misrepresented photo of toronto debunked here.]

This image was taken from http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Mirages.html, where the photographer describes it as a "View of Toronto Skyline (53km across the lake) through Canon Rebel digital camera 28 to 400mm zoom."

You should note that Toronto is not broken by the horizon line. How does Round Earth Theory explain this?

This particular image is devastating to the globe theory, because at 30 miles across Lake Ontario the earth should drop nearly 600 feet (60 stories). Quite clearly, we can see objects at the bottom of the Toronto skyline that are not 600 feet in hight....

end - of - story.  period. 

this "devastating" proof of rowobotham's "magnification restoring sunken city" effect, as submitted by bishop, was done with practically the exact same equipment i have.  (slightly better actually.  as a side-note, this was a purposeful misrepresentation of the original author's data - see links above for proof of bishop's fraud.)

bishop, you are a fraud, a troll, a liar, and a chronic self-contradictor.  get lost.

Re: my evidence
« Reply #101 on: December 19, 2007, 04:05:47 PM »
The 1800's were the golden age of telescopes. Since then, no real advances in telescopes have been made. Once glass makers perfected their technique in the 1800's, the telescope was perfected.

You are wrong.  As just a few examples, the 1900's has seen the invention of the Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope, which allows for a much more compacted system without sacrificing angular resolution of light gathering power.  It also saw the further refinement of the Maksutov design, which fixed  some of the minor problems in Newtons original telescope.  We have also seen the development of adaptive optics and segmented mirrors.

It is no more fair to say that glass makers perfected the telescope in the 1800's then it is fair to say boat-writes perfected the steam engine in the 1800's.  

"Newton presented his design to England's Royal Society in January 1672, where it aroused great interest. He had succeeded in making a mirror with a spherical curvature, slightly less than 1½ inches in diameter. The mirror was made of a copper-tin alloy, to which Newton had added a bit of arsenic to make it easier to polish. It had a magnification of about 40. Above this primary mirror Newton placed a small flat secondary mirror at a 45-degree angle, to reflect the light into an eyepiece mounted in the side of the telescope tube."

Newtons design is that of a reflecting telescope.  Reflectors do achieve superior magnification when compared to a refractor, but they are generally to cumbersome to be hand held.   What little evidence you have presented us seems to indicate that Rowbotham was using a refracting telescope, which is incapable of achieving the attributes mentioned in your link.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 04:26:27 PM by Max Fagin »
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

Re: my evidence
« Reply #102 on: December 19, 2007, 04:06:05 PM »
cpt_bthimes is a RE GOD!!!!
Quote from: jack
I'm special.

Re: my evidence
« Reply #103 on: December 19, 2007, 04:13:03 PM »
Your lense did the job just fine. It doesn't matter how powerful the telescope is, it would not make the image of the island at 42 ft rise back up to how it looked at 700 ft.  We all know this, case closed. good job

?

Tristan Lachman

  • 39
  • Flat Earther
Re: my evidence
« Reply #104 on: December 19, 2007, 05:12:06 PM »
Be a good loser and admit that Tom Bishop won this debate.

Does a device which magnifies a scene with a 1:6.1 ratio sound like a telescope to you?

"Newton presented his design to England's Royal Society in January 1672, where it aroused great interest. He had succeeded in making a mirror with a spherical curvature, slightly less than 1½ inches in diameter. The mirror was made of a copper-tin alloy, to which Newton had added a bit of arsenic to make it easier to polish. It had a magnification of about 40.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 05:15:13 PM by Tristan Lachman »

Re: my evidence
« Reply #105 on: December 19, 2007, 05:24:35 PM »
Except that, based on the limited material that Bishop has given us, it seems like Rowbotham was not using a Newtonian reflector telescope, but a much less powerful and more portable refractor.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: my evidence
« Reply #106 on: December 19, 2007, 05:26:25 PM »
Be a good loser and admit that Tom Bishop won this debate.

Does a device which magnifies a scene with a 1:6.1 ratio sound like a telescope to you?

"Newton presented his design to England's Royal Society in January 1672, where it aroused great interest. He had succeeded in making a mirror with a spherical curvature, slightly less than 1½ inches in diameter. The mirror was made of a copper-tin alloy, to which Newton had added a bit of arsenic to make it easier to polish. It had a magnification of about 40.


Part 1) 1:6.1 ratio - does this sound like a telescope? Yes it does in the strictest sense. Since we love to nitpick here, that is a perfectly useful ratio on a standard spyglass / telescope.

Part2) Agreed that the information is correct, but what the heck does it have to do with this? Other than provide information regarding the first telescope?
Dyslexics are teople poo!

Re: my evidence
« Reply #107 on: December 19, 2007, 05:42:10 PM »
Be a good loser and admit that Tom Bishop won this debate.

Well, Tom, you haven't yet addressed most of the points that have been made here.

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: my evidence
« Reply #108 on: December 19, 2007, 05:55:52 PM »
Quote
the needs of an astronomer are surely different to the needs of someone viewing an island a couple of dozen miles across the water.  The fact is that it was a fair test, because he used the same equipment at different hights and saw substantially different results. You don't accept it because you don't want to accept it.

The Flat Earth Literature very specifically says that a telescope is required to see past the perspective effect. Does a device which magnifies a scene with a 1:6.1 ratio sound like a telescope to you?

No. A camera lens is not a telescope. Go ahead and ask your nearest priest if a camera lens is a telescope.

An average amature astronomer's telescope might provide a 1:400 ratio magnification. Therefore there is no comparison. Therefore the images are not representative of a scene as seen out of a telescope.

How can you compare a modern 1:400 telescope with Rowbotham's spyglass? That doesn't even make sense. I did call the local astronomy store here (yes it's cool and it's dedicated souly to astronomy) and asked what the zoom ratio was for a standard spyglass... I was told that in the 1800's the dual lense standard spyglass was around 1.8 to 2.4, however there were in fact tri-lense models just coming on the market that would have increased it to a smidge over 3 to possibly 4 depending on the maker.

Also, just for some fun reading material...

"Rowbotham repeated his experiments several times over the years but his discoveries received little attention until, in 1870, a supporter by the name of John Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham’s experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted explorer and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace, by virtue of his surveyor’s training, avoided the errors of the preceding experiments and he won the bet.[2][3] Hampden, however, published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for libel.[4]"
Dyslexics are teople poo!

Re: my evidence
« Reply #109 on: December 19, 2007, 06:11:43 PM »
Haha I hope Tom Bishop rots in prison.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: my evidence
« Reply #110 on: December 19, 2007, 06:32:17 PM »
Quote
How can you compare a modern 1:400 telescope with Rowbotham's spyglass? That doesn't even make sense. I did call the local astronomy store here (yes it's cool and it's dedicated souly to astronomy) and asked what the zoom ratio was for a standard spyglass... I was told that in the 1800's the dual lense standard spyglass was around 1.8 to 2.4, however there were in fact tri-lense models just coming on the market that would have increased it to a smidge over 3 to possibly 4 depending on the maker.

Rowbotham didn't use a spyglass. Rowbotham used a telescope. Read the literature.

Quote
Newtons design is that of a reflecting telescope.  Reflectors do achieve superior magnification when compared to a refractor, but they are generally to cumbersome to be hand held.   What little evidence you have presented us seems to indicate that Rowbotham was using a refracting telescope, which is incapable of achieving the attributes mentioned in your link.

This replica of Newton's original telescope looks pretty portable to me:

http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/image72190-.html
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 06:38:59 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: my evidence
« Reply #111 on: December 19, 2007, 06:37:06 PM »
Quote
How can you compare a modern 1:400 telescope with Rowbotham's spyglass? That doesn't even make sense. I did call the local astronomy store here (yes it's cool and it's dedicated souly to astronomy) and asked what the zoom ratio was for a standard spyglass... I was told that in the 1800's the dual lense standard spyglass was around 1.8 to 2.4, however there were in fact tri-lense models just coming on the market that would have increased it to a smidge over 3 to possibly 4 depending on the maker.

Rowbotham didn't use a spyglass. Rowbotham used a telescope. Read the literature.
A spyglass is a telescope. The only difference is a telescope zooms far more than a spyglass.
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: my evidence
« Reply #112 on: December 19, 2007, 06:48:12 PM »
Quote
Except that, based on the limited material that Bishop has given us, it seems like Rowbotham was not using a Newtonian reflector telescope, but a much less powerful and more portable refractor.

Earth Not a Globe does not specify whether Robotham was using a reflector or a refractor. You're making things up.

However, Rowbotham does say that he was able to make his observations using a telescope of considerable power. Therefore we must assume that he was using a refractor.

?

Chacotay

Re: my evidence
« Reply #113 on: December 19, 2007, 06:51:27 PM »
Quote
How can you compare a modern 1:400 telescope with Rowbotham's spyglass? That doesn't even make sense. I did call the local astronomy store here (yes it's cool and it's dedicated souly to astronomy) and asked what the zoom ratio was for a standard spyglass... I was told that in the 1800's the dual lense standard spyglass was around 1.8 to 2.4, however there were in fact tri-lense models just coming on the market that would have increased it to a smidge over 3 to possibly 4 depending on the maker.

Rowbotham didn't use a spyglass. Rowbotham used a telescope. Read the literature.

Quote
Newtons design is that of a reflecting telescope.  Reflectors do achieve superior magnification when compared to a refractor, but they are generally to cumbersome to be hand held.   What little evidence you have presented us seems to indicate that Rowbotham was using a refracting telescope, which is incapable of achieving the attributes mentioned in your link.

This replica of Newton's original telescope looks pretty portable to me:

http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/image72190-.html

And look at him go! He completely ignored the allegations of contradiction again on his part. Plus the quote by Optimus that says Rothbowam's telescope would have had a zoom of 3, maybe 4.

Also, Tom. This is for you. This is a crash course in optics... I sense you could use it.

Zoom: Simply making a displayed object bigger. Unless the gathering telescope/lens collected enough light, zoom doesn't improve quality.

Resolution: Is the ability to distinguish one object from another (as opposed to seeing it as the one object) at a given distance. This really is the deciding factor, as it determines the quality of the image presented. Zoom doesn't do shit.


Please don't use words you don't know the meaning to. Or, at least, google them beforehand.

Re: my evidence
« Reply #114 on: December 19, 2007, 06:52:53 PM »
Quote
Except that, based on the limited material that Bishop has given us, it seems like Rowbotham was not using a Newtonian reflector telescope, but a much less powerful and more portable refractor.

Earth Not a Globe does not specify whether Robotham was using a reflector or a refractor. You're making things up.

However, Rowbotham does say that he was able to make his observations using a telescope of considerable power. Therefore we must assume that he was using a refractor.
Maybe it was of considerable power to HIM. I'd say minimum for a powerful telescope is 750x optical zoom.

?

Chacotay

Re: my evidence
« Reply #115 on: December 19, 2007, 06:54:29 PM »
Quote
Except that, based on the limited material that Bishop has given us, it seems like Rowbotham was not using a Newtonian reflector telescope, but a much less powerful and more portable refractor.

Earth Not a Globe does not specify whether Robotham was using a reflector or a refractor. You're making things up.

However, Rowbotham does say that he was able to make his observations using a telescope of considerable power. Therefore we must assume that he was using a refractor.

I'm curious. If you were in the 1800's, what would you consider to be powerful? Electricity was in it's infancy. Flight was reserved for birds. Most diseases were fatal. How exactly would Rothbowam be able to tell us 21st century folk what a good lens is?

Also, even if his "telescope" had plenty of zoom, the resolution on it would have been incredibly poor by today's standards.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: my evidence
« Reply #116 on: December 19, 2007, 07:01:02 PM »
Quote
Please don't use words you don't know the meaning to. Or, at least, google them beforehand.

Google tells me that Newton's first telescope in the 1600's had a magnification power of 40. Therefore I'm setting that figure as the minimum power of Rowbothams quality telescope of the 1800's.

Quote
I'm curious. If you were in the 1800's, what would you consider to be powerful? Electricity was in it's infancy. Flight was reserved for birds. Most diseases were fatal. How exactly would Rothbowam be able to tell us 21st century folk what a good lens is?

By looking at the listed power of the telescopes of his time, or prior. That's how.

P.s. The manned hot air balloon was invented in the 1700's and most diseases are not fatal.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 07:11:03 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: my evidence
« Reply #117 on: December 19, 2007, 07:02:46 PM »
Quote
Please don't use words you don't know the meaning to. Or, at least, google them beforehand.

Google tells me that Newton's first telescope in the 1600's had a magnification power of 40. Therefore I'm setting that figure as the minimum power of Rowbothams quality telescope of the 1800's. Isn't that reasonable?
No, I already stated that powerful was 750, so reasonable has to be at least 500.

Re: my evidence
« Reply #118 on: December 19, 2007, 07:09:57 PM »
Quote
Please don't use words you don't know the meaning to. Or, at least, google them beforehand.

Google tells me that Newton's first telescope in the 1600's had a magnification power of 40. Therefore I'm setting that figure as the minimum power of Rowbothams quality telescope of the 1800's. Isn't that reasonable?


If somebody posted pictures using a device with a magnification power of 40, which showed that half-sunken ships were not being restored, would that convince you of a curvature to the earth?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17328
Re: my evidence
« Reply #119 on: December 19, 2007, 07:12:45 PM »
Quote
If somebody posted pictures using a device with a magnification power of 40, which showed that half-sunken ships were not being restored, would that convince you of a curvature to the earth?

Yes. If someone could actually follow the simple, basic, and straightforward instructions in the Flat Earth Literature for restoring half-sunken ships I would be convinced of the results.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2007, 07:17:11 PM by Tom Bishop »