Ships disappearing bottom first

I posted this in the debate section, yet you ignored it.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
Why then do the bottoms of the ships reappear when you move to a higher altitude? I mean, then their visual angle is even smaller because you are even farther away from them.

I posted this in the debate section, yet you ignored it.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
Why then do the bottoms of the ships reappear when you move to a higher altitude? I mean, then their visual angle is even smaller because you are even farther away from them.

Quote from: FlatEarthDenial on April 18, 2016, 10:13:50 AM

I posted this in the debate section, yet you ignored it.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
Why then do the bottoms of the ships reappear when you move to a higher altitude? I mean, then their visual angle is even smaller because you are even farther away from them.

I don't know for sure, but wouldn't you think that you would be seeing over the wave better. Oceans do have waves you know.

Quote from: Yendor on April 18, 2016, 10:52:24 AM

Quote from: FlatEarthDenial on April 18, 2016, 10:13:50 AM

I posted this in the debate section, yet you ignored it.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
Why then do the bottoms of the ships reappear when you move to a higher altitude? I mean, then their visual angle is even smaller because you are even farther away from them.

I don't know for sure, but wouldn't you think that you would be seeing over the wave better. Oceans do have waves you know.

If you don't know for sure, have you ever been to sea ?  There are days when the sea is "as smooth as glass" and the only waves are in the wake that the ship makes.

Quote from: Googleotomy on April 18, 2016, 12:17:08 PM

Quote from: Yendor on April 18, 2016, 10:52:24 AM

Quote from: FlatEarthDenial on April 18, 2016, 10:13:50 AM

I posted this in the debate section, yet you ignored it.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
Why then do the bottoms of the ships reappear when you move to a higher altitude? I mean, then their visual angle is even smaller because you are even farther away from them.

I don't know for sure, but wouldn't you think that you would be seeing over the wave better. Oceans do have waves you know.

If you don't know for sure, have you ever been to sea ?  There are days when the sea is "as smooth as glass" and the only waves are in the wake that the ship makes.

Yes I've been to sea, I lived on a destroyer for five years and I made two med cruises, one north Atlantic cruise and a few southern cruises. I've watched ships go out of sight and bring them back in full view with binoculars. I never had to go higher to see that. I've never seen the Atlantic ocean as smooth as glass, only the Mediterranean sea.  As far as the Navy manuals are concerned, I'm sure they are based on the so called curvature. Not everyone who was or is in the Navy knows the earth is round. I've seen fire control radar find surface targets that should be completely hidden below the curvature by many feet. If you go by the Navy manuals, that should not be possible.

Quote from: Googleotomy on April 18, 2016, 12:17:08 PM

Quote from: Yendor on April 18, 2016, 10:52:24 AM

Quote from: FlatEarthDenial on April 18, 2016, 10:13:50 AM

I posted this in the debate section, yet you ignored it.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
Why then do the bottoms of the ships reappear when you move to a higher altitude? I mean, then their visual angle is even smaller because you are even farther away from them.

I don't know for sure, but wouldn't you think that you would be seeing over the wave better. Oceans do have waves you know.

If you don't know for sure, have you ever been to sea ?  There are days when the sea is "as smooth as glass" and the only waves are in the wake that the ship makes.

Yes I've been to sea, I lived on a destroyer for five years and I made two med cruises, one north Atlantic cruise and a few southern cruises. I've watched ships go out of sight and bring them back in full view with binoculars. I never had to go higher to see that. I've never seen the Atlantic ocean as smooth as glass, only the Mediterranean sea.  As far as the Navy manuals are concerned, I'm sure they are based on the so called curvature. Not everyone who was or is in the Navy knows the earth is round. I've seen fire control radar find surface targets that should be completely hidden below the curvature by many feet. If you go by the Navy manuals, that should not be possible.

Quote from: Googleotomy on April 18, 2016, 12:17:08 PM

Quote from: Yendor on April 18, 2016, 10:52:24 AM

Quote from: FlatEarthDenial on April 18, 2016, 10:13:50 AM

I posted this in the debate section, yet you ignored it.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
Why then do the bottoms of the ships reappear when you move to a higher altitude? I mean, then their visual angle is even smaller because you are even farther away from them.

I don't know for sure, but wouldn't you think that you would be seeing over the wave better. Oceans do have waves you know.

If you don't know for sure, have you ever been to sea ?  There are days when the sea is "as smooth as glass" and the only waves are in the wake that the ship makes.

Yes I've been to sea, I lived on a destroyer for five years and I made two med cruises, one north Atlantic cruise and a few southern cruises. I've watched ships go out of sight and bring them back in full view with binoculars. I never had to go higher to see that. I've never seen the Atlantic ocean as smooth as glass, only the Mediterranean sea.  As far as the Navy manuals are concerned, I'm sure they are based on the so called curvature. Not everyone who was or is in the Navy knows the earth is round. I've seen fire control radar find surface targets that should be completely hidden below the curvature by many feet. If you go by the Navy manuals, that should not be possible.

Quote from: sandokhan on March 16, 2016, 02:12:51 AM

This thread is over. Here is some basic FLAT EARTH REALITY for all of you.

And we can't see the bottom of the buildings because?

RANGE ESTIMATION
Question CIC concerning the radar ranges to visual contacts and compare them with your estimated range. 

The only readily available reference point you can use when estimating ranges is the horizon.  Knowing your height above the waterline will help you estimate ranges because the distance to the horizon varies with the height of the eye (Figure 5-5).

HEIGHT OF EYE	RANGE TO	HORIZON
FEET	YARDS	MILES
20	10,200	5.1
40	14,400	7.2
60	17,800	8.9
80	20,600	10.3

Figure 5-5: Range – Height Table

At a height of 50 feet, for example, the distance to the horizon is about 16,000 yards (8 miles); at a height of 100 feet, the distance is about 23,000 yards (11-1/2 miles).  Practice estimating ranges to other vessels in company whose distances are known or can be easily determined. 
 

Do you think those poor sailors got confused when they found that the Navy had lied to them? 

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves. 

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves.

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves. 

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 03:00:23 AM

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves. 

The wave theory has been disproved over and over again. Your ridiculous adherence to it proves you don't believe in FET. Anyone who did would seek an alternative explanation.

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 03:00:23 AM

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves. 

I suppose you are the authority on this?  They must have a lot of 90' waves!   

I just wonder why lookouts have for centuries been instructed to estimate range from their height and how much of the target is showing above the horizon. I suppose NASA indoctrinated them, or paid them to lie, so what if it was way before NASA's time! 

Quote from: rabinoz on April 22, 2016, 04:22:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 03:00:23 AM

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves. 

I suppose you are the authority on this?  They must have a lot of 90' waves!   

I just wonder why lookouts have for centuries been instructed to estimate range from their height and how much of the target is showing above the horizon. I suppose NASA indoctrinated them, or paid them to lie, so what if it was way before NASA's time! 

I trained as a Forward Observer in the US military and I was taught how to estimate ranges, distances, and sizes using several different methods, none of which had anything to do with the horizon.

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 05:38:34 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on April 22, 2016, 04:22:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 03:00:23 AM

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves. 

I suppose you are the authority on this?  They must have a lot of 90' waves!   

I just wonder why lookouts have for centuries been instructed to estimate range from their height and how much of the target is showing above the horizon. I suppose NASA indoctrinated them, or paid them to lie, so what if it was way before NASA's time! 

I trained as a Forward Observer in the US military and I was taught how to estimate ranges, distances, and sizes using several different methods, none of which had anything to do with the horizon.

That is because you were not in the Navy.  Using the horizon is a reliable way to range targets when you do not have terrain blocking your view.

Using the horizon to get ranges has been used by sailors for a very long time.  I have used it successfully and verified my results with GPS, radar and charts.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 22, 2016, 04:22:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 03:00:23 AM

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves. 

I suppose you are the authority on this?  They must have a lot of 90' waves!   

I just wonder why lookouts have for centuries been instructed to estimate range from their height and how much of the target is showing above the horizon. I suppose NASA indoctrinated them, or paid them to lie, so what if it was way before NASA's time! 

I trained as a Forward Observer in the US military and I was taught how to estimate ranges, distances, and sizes using several different methods, none of which had anything to do with the horizon.

Quote from: Woody on April 22, 2016, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 05:38:34 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on April 22, 2016, 04:22:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 03:00:23 AM

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves. 

I suppose you are the authority on this?  They must have a lot of 90' waves!   

I just wonder why lookouts have for centuries been instructed to estimate range from their height and how much of the target is showing above the horizon. I suppose NASA indoctrinated them, or paid them to lie, so what if it was way before NASA's time! 

I trained as a Forward Observer in the US military and I was taught how to estimate ranges, distances, and sizes using several different methods, none of which had anything to do with the horizon.

That is because you were not in the Navy.  Using the horizon is a reliable way to range targets when you do not have terrain blocking your view.

Using the horizon to get ranges has been used by sailors for a very long time.  I have used it successfully and verified my results with GPS, radar and charts.

I was in the Marine Corps, not the Navy, this is true.  However, the distance to the horizon changes day to day and by location.  How accurate could the estimations be if the distance to the horizon is so unreliable?

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 05:59:20 PM

Quote from: Woody on April 22, 2016, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 05:38:34 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on April 22, 2016, 04:22:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 03:00:23 AM

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves. 

I suppose you are the authority on this?  They must have a lot of 90' waves!   

I just wonder why lookouts have for centuries been instructed to estimate range from their height and how much of the target is showing above the horizon. I suppose NASA indoctrinated them, or paid them to lie, so what if it was way before NASA's time! 

I trained as a Forward Observer in the US military and I was taught how to estimate ranges, distances, and sizes using several different methods, none of which had anything to do with the horizon.

That is because you were not in the Navy.  Using the horizon is a reliable way to range targets when you do not have terrain blocking your view.

Using the horizon to get ranges has been used by sailors for a very long time.  I have used it successfully and verified my results with GPS, radar and charts.

I was in the Marine Corps, not the Navy, this is true.  However, the distance to the horizon changes day to day and by location.  How accurate could the estimations be if the distance to the horizon is so unreliable?

If you are talking about weather conditions effecting the distances people can see then yes you are right.

If you are talking about the distance to the horizon changing at the same height day to day you are wrong. 

That is why my radar mounted 30 feet above the water line has a very predictable range.  It is also detects taller things at longer ranges.

Ranging using the horizon is taught in navies around the world because it is accurate.  Do you think they would teach it, even in war time, to target enemies if it did not work?  Seems like they would want to give an edge to their sailors to help defeat foes and not teach them a flawed method.

Unfortunately, the refraction varies considerably from day to day, and from one place to another. It is particularly variable over water: because of the high heat capacity of water, the air is nearly always at a different temperature from that of the water, so there is a thermal boundary layer, in which the temperature gradient is far from uniform.

Worse yet, these temperature contrasts are particularly marked near shore, where the large diurnal temperature swings over the land can produce really large thermal effects over the water, if there is an offshore breeze. This is particularly bad news for anyone standing on the shore and wondering how far out to sea a ship or island might be visible.

It gets worse. While the dip of the horizon depends only on an average temperature gradient, and so can be found from just the temperatures at the sea surface and at the eye, the distance to the horizon depends on the reciprocal of the mean reciprocal of the temperature gradient. But the structure of thermal boundary layers guarantees that there will be large variations in the gradient, even in height intervals of a few meters. This means that on two different days with the same temperatures at the eye and the water surface (and, consequently, the same dip), the distance to the horizon can be very different.Unfortunately, the refraction varies considerably from day to day, and from one place to another. It is particularly variable over water: because of the high heat capacity of water, the air is nearly always at a different temperature from that of the water, so there is a thermal boundary layer, in which the temperature gradient is far from uniform.

Worse yet, these temperature contrasts are particularly marked near shore, where the large diurnal temperature swings over the land can produce really large thermal effects over the water, if there is an offshore breeze. This is particularly bad news for anyone standing on the shore and wondering how far out to sea a ship or island might be visible.

It gets worse. While the dip of the horizon depends only on an average temperature gradient, and so can be found from just the temperatures at the sea surface and at the eye, the distance to the horizon depends on the reciprocal of the mean reciprocal of the temperature gradient. But the structure of thermal boundary layers guarantees that there will be large variations in the gradient, even in height intervals of a few meters. This means that on two different days with the same temperatures at the eye and the water surface (and, consequently, the same dip), the distance to the horizon can be very different.

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 05:59:20 PM

Quote from: Woody on April 22, 2016, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 05:38:34 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on April 22, 2016, 04:22:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 03:00:23 AM

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves. 

I suppose you are the authority on this?  They must have a lot of 90' waves!   

I just wonder why lookouts have for centuries been instructed to estimate range from their height and how much of the target is showing above the horizon. I suppose NASA indoctrinated them, or paid them to lie, so what if it was way before NASA's time! 

I trained as a Forward Observer in the US military and I was taught how to estimate ranges, distances, and sizes using several different methods, none of which had anything to do with the horizon.

That is because you were not in the Navy.  Using the horizon is a reliable way to range targets when you do not have terrain blocking your view.

Using the horizon to get ranges has been used by sailors for a very long time.  I have used it successfully and verified my results with GPS, radar and charts.

I was in the Marine Corps, not the Navy, this is true.  However, the distance to the horizon changes day to day and by location.  How accurate could the estimations be if the distance to the horizon is so unreliable?

Quote from: Googleotomy on April 22, 2016, 06:58:07 PM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 05:59:20 PM

Quote from: Woody on April 22, 2016, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 05:38:34 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on April 22, 2016, 04:22:04 AM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 03:00:23 AM

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves. 

I suppose you are the authority on this?  They must have a lot of 90' waves!   

I just wonder why lookouts have for centuries been instructed to estimate range from their height and how much of the target is showing above the horizon. I suppose NASA indoctrinated them, or paid them to lie, so what if it was way before NASA's time! 

I trained as a Forward Observer in the US military and I was taught how to estimate ranges, distances, and sizes using several different methods, none of which had anything to do with the horizon.

That is because you were not in the Navy.  Using the horizon is a reliable way to range targets when you do not have terrain blocking your view.

Using the horizon to get ranges has been used by sailors for a very long time.  I have used it successfully and verified my results with GPS, radar and charts.

I was in the Marine Corps, not the Navy, this is true.  However, the distance to the horizon changes day to day and by location.  How accurate could the estimations be if the distance to the horizon is so unreliable?

Once again this subject is about ships at sea .The estimations as explained have always been reliable. Of course abnormal conditions could cause otherwise but these explanations are reliable for normal conditons.

Of course if you are land, it's not quite so simple. You may be in a valley one day and on top of a mountain the next day and you may not even be able to see clearly to the horizon in either case.

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 03:00:23 AM

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves. 

I suppose you are the authority on this?  They must have a lot of 90' waves!   

I just wonder why lookouts have for centuries been instructed to estimate range from their height and how much of the target is showing above the horizon. I suppose NASA indoctrinated them, or paid them to lie, so what if it was way before NASA's time!

Quote from: Yendor on April 18, 2016, 01:08:28 PM

Quote from: Googleotomy on April 18, 2016, 12:17:08 PM

Quote from: Yendor on April 18, 2016, 10:52:24 AM

Quote from: FlatEarthDenial on April 18, 2016, 10:13:50 AM

I posted this in the debate section, yet you ignored it.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
Why then do the bottoms of the ships reappear when you move to a higher altitude? I mean, then their visual angle is even smaller because you are even farther away from them.

I don't know for sure, but wouldn't you think that you would be seeing over the wave better. Oceans do have waves you know.

If you don't know for sure, have you ever been to sea ?  There are days when the sea is "as smooth as glass" and the only waves are in the wake that the ship makes.

Yes I've been to sea, I lived on a destroyer for five years and I made two med cruises, one north Atlantic cruise and a few southern cruises. I've watched ships go out of sight and bring them back in full view with binoculars. I never had to go higher to see that. I've never seen the Atlantic ocean as smooth as glass, only the Mediterranean sea.  As far as the Navy manuals are concerned, I'm sure they are based on the so called curvature. Not everyone who was or is in the Navy knows the earth is round. I've seen fire control radar find surface targets that should be completely hidden below the curvature by many feet. If you go by the Navy manuals, that should not be possible.

Funny how when I use the radar on my boat most times the distance it can detect things is what is expected.  Occasionally it will detect things a little further out or not detect things a little closer then it says it can on the tin.

I wonder why?  Could it be that something like a navy manual about how far a radar should be able to detect stuff assumes average conditions.

I have witnessed many cargo ships approaching and going away from my boat.  Seems I always see the highest parts first or watch the lower parts disappear. 

I have been able to see things higher when I was on the mast that people on deck could not see. I even brought a ship back into view by climbing the mast after I could not see it on the deck.

I suspect you bringing ships back into view after going over the horizon is similar to the videos I have seen claiming the same thing.  Yet the horizon is clearly visible and the boat has not gone over it.  Funny how all the videos I have seen claiming this it has been something like a 20 foot speed boat.  I have yet to seen a video of something like a large container ship.

I would be more inclined to take these claims more seriously if they could produce a video similar to this and bring the ship back into view.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on April 22, 2016, 04:39:41 PM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 03:00:23 AM

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves. 

The wave theory has been disproved over and over again. Your ridiculous adherence to it proves you don't believe in FET. Anyone who did would seek an alternative explanation.

You claiming that a statement has been disproved does not make it disproved.

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 05:22:46 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on April 22, 2016, 04:39:41 PM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 03:00:23 AM

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves. 

The wave theory has been disproved over and over again. Your ridiculous adherence to it proves you don't believe in FET. Anyone who did would seek an alternative explanation.

You claiming that a statement has been disproved does not make it disproved.

Absolutely correct, which is why you should look carefully at other threads on this subject, in which you will find disproofs via geometry and disproofs via observation. Perhaps a lesson in how to use the search function might benefit you?

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on April 23, 2016, 06:30:32 AM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 05:22:46 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on April 22, 2016, 04:39:41 PM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 03:00:23 AM

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves. 

The wave theory has been disproved over and over again. Your ridiculous adherence to it proves you don't believe in FET. Anyone who did would seek an alternative explanation.

You claiming that a statement has been disproved does not make it disproved.

Absolutely correct, which is why you should look carefully at other threads on this subject, in which you will find disproofs via geometry and disproofs via observation. Perhaps a lesson in how to use the search function might benefit you?

And yet, I seem to be the only one here who understands perspective. 

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on April 23, 2016, 06:30:32 AM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 05:22:46 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on April 22, 2016, 04:39:41 PM

Quote from: jroa on April 22, 2016, 03:00:23 AM

The look outs are higher so they can see over more waves. 

The wave theory has been disproved over and over again. Your ridiculous adherence to it proves you don't believe in FET. Anyone who did would seek an alternative explanation.

You claiming that a statement has been disproved does not make it disproved.

Absolutely correct, which is why you should look carefully at other threads on this subject, in which you will find disproofs via geometry and disproofs via observation. Perhaps a lesson in how to use the search function might benefit you?

And yet, I seem to be the only one here who understands perspective.