electro*** ce esti, te faci iarasi de ras (pentru a cata oara). Incerci din nou
metoda ***, pentru ca de atat esti in stare atunci cand esti invins si facut b u c a t i in direct; inceteaza sa te mai comporti ca un ***, ca un ***. Ai deja la dispozitie (vezi mai sus) pozele care iti arata ca nu exista nici un fel de curbura intre Grimsby si Toronto.
Ti s-a explicat deja cum stau lucrurile:
Si acum, sa-ti arat cum toate acestea sunt demonstrate clar chiar pe lacul Ontario, citez din nou din sandokhan:
Motivul pentru care partea inferioara a cladirilor nu se pot vedea este faptul ca distanta sau lungimea focala a obiectivului aparatului de fotografiat este limitata, si nicidecum vreunei curburi; aceasta curbura este absolut inexistenta in celelalte poze, deci logic, explicatia oferita aici este cea corecta.
Daca aparatul de fotografiat ar fi fost mai performant, am fi vazut toate detaliile, asa cum se pot observa, de exemplu, in cele doua fotografii facute pe plaja Cap Gris Nez.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83866081/ ne arata clar limita unui aparat de fotografiat mai putin performant; nu exista vreo curbura de 300 de metri intre St. Catharines si Toronto, pur si simplu vedem exemplificata clar teoria clasica explicata de Parallax:The erroneous application of perspective already referred to is the following:--It is well known that on looking along a row of buildings of considerable length, every object below the eye appears to ascend towards the eye-line; and every thing above the eye appears to descend towards the same eye-line; and an artist, wishing to represent such a view on paper, generally adopts the following rule:--draw a line across the paper or canvas at the altitude of the eye. To this line, as a vanishing point, draw all other lines above and below it, irrespective of their distance, as in the diagram 75:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig75.jpg.
Let A, B, and C, D, represent two lines parallel but not equi-distant from the eye-line E, H. To an observer at E, the vanishing point of C, D, would be at H, because the lines C, D, and E, H, would come together at H, at an angle of one minute of a degree. But it is evident from a single glance at the diagram that H cannot be the vanishing point of A, B, because the distance E, A, being greater than E, C, the angle A, H, E, is also greater than C, H, E--is, in fact, considerably more than one minute of a degree. Therefore the line A, B, cannot possibly have its vanishing point on the line E, H, unless it is carried forward towards W. Hence the line A, W, is the true perspective line of A, B, forming an angle of one minute at W, which is the true vanishing point of A, B, as H is the vanishing point of C, D, and G, H, because these two lines are equidistant from the eye-line.
Iata acum acest principiu, usor de inteles chiar si pentru un *** ca dumneata, exemplificat:
The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point. Whereas it is demonstrable that lines most distant from an eye-line must of necessity converge less rapidly, and must be carried further over the eye-line before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the vanishing point.
Acum, poza deja cunoscuta, realizata cu un aparat mai bun, deci acum se pot vedea mai multe detalii, unele din ele imposibil de vizionat pe un pamant de forma sferica, cu o curbura de 55 de metri intre acest orasel si Toronto:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/Aceeasi poza, 150% zoom:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/5/v/000e97gt_5vn6mais.jpgIata si poza la 800% zoom:
http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/pictures/4/e/000e97gt_4e1vm60a.jpg (TOATE detaliile necesare, nu fi smecher cu declaratii de genul "de ce nu se vad bazele cladirilor" sandokhan ti-a explicat ca se pot observa portiunile din cladiri de peste 30-40 de metri, in acest 800% zoom, aceleasi cladiri care se vizioneaza, top to bottom in fotografiile alaturate; daca am avea la dispozitie tehnica de gen SRI/CIA de
image enhancing, am vedea si detalii care nu se pot observa aici, si anume ceea ce putem vedea in celelalte poze - VEZI SI CELE DOUA LINKURI DE MAI JOS CU TORONTO SKYLINE - pentru a vedea ca nu exista curbura de 55 de metri intre St. Catharines si Toronto, aceeasi distanta ca intre Grimsby si Toronto)
Cateva din celelata poze care infatiseaza Toronto:
http://www.vignetted.com/images/200705/20070510_sm.jpghttp://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/images/wallpapers/Toronto-Skyline.jpgSi pozele care indica clar faptul ca nu exista nici un fel de curbura peste lacul Ontario intre Grimsby/Niagara si Toronto:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55976115@N00/1390160710/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/katiefriesen/228366551/
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/May2006/IMG_1477.JPG
Iata si o NOUA poza care ne arata iarasi ZERO CURBURA INTRE GRIMSBY SI TORONTO, DISTANTA DE 53 DE KM (curbura vizuala, in cazul unui pamant de forma rotunda fiind de 55 de metri, inaltimea unui imobil de 18 etaje):
http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1381663635053310592jdpoIuAcum ai inteles despre ce e vorba? Nici urma de vreun pamant sferic sau de vreo convexitate la suprafata, doar exemplificarea clasica a teoriei expuse de Parallax...
Bai ***, nu e vorba ca invata cineva sa posteze imagini...nu au fost postate ca atare pana acum pentru ca nu a fost nevoie...
<M1: inlaturat injurii>
