Talk:Globe effect

@Jpceulemans: Thanks for advancing this subject. I would not go so far calling Walter E. Schön's explanation on the Juelich Forum a 'competing theory', since he only sketches a set of ideas but so far doesn't offer any complete or consistent formalism. Schön has announced to keep the details of his idea under wraps before they are unveiled in an upcoming book - we have to wait and see what exactly he is going to show there before being able to judge about the validity of this 'cylinder-hypothesis'. Merlitz (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not consider that a globe effect is not observed, contrary to the historical sources cited, by the majority of users in a largely distorsion-free optics. Before the alleged effect of its own dictionary entry is approved, it should first be cleared (possibly by own research with a sufficiently large number of volunteers that represent a meaningful cross-section of the population), whether the described phenomenon can also be detected perceptual. Until a final match of evidence, I propose to delete this item. optikus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.166.239.252 (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@optikus: Please provide the references supporting your claim "that a globe effect is not observed, contrary to the historical sources cited, by the majority of users in a largely distorsion-free optics", and, if available, add them to the article. Definitely, additional research efforts would help — yet, in any case, the globe effect is discussed in recent textbooks (e.g. Paul R. Yoder, Daniel Vukobratovich, "Binoculars and Scopes", SPIE PRESS, Bellingham, Washington USA, 2011) as well as in scientific publications (e.g. reference [3] in the article) and hence of relevance. --Merlitz (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]