The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: HornPiper on October 26, 2010, 04:33:12 PM
-
Imagine this hypothetical situation: there are two ships in the middle of the pacific ocean. One of the ships begins to sail east, while the other remains stationary. Why is it that, after it has traveled about 12 miles, the traveling ship disappears from the sight of the stationary ship? Even with binoculars or a telescope, it is impossible to see the traveling ship from the stationary ship. Can you flat earthers explain this phenomena? To me, the only logical explanation seems to be the curvature of the earth.
-
Imagine this hypothetical situation: there are two ships in the middle of the pacific ocean. One of the ships begins to sail east, while the other remains stationary. Why is it that, after it has traveled about 12 miles, the traveling ship disappears from the sight of the stationary ship? Even with binoculars or a telescope, it is impossible to see the traveling ship from the stationary ship. Can you flat earthers explain this phenomena? To me, the only logical explanation seems to be the curvature of the earth.
It is actually quite simple. The further something is away, the smaller it is going to appear. If something is going to be 12 miles away, it is going to appear extremely small. Like, really small.
Because of this, it is really quite easy for something closer to you to be blocking it since it appears bigger. Something like a wave.
-
Imagine this hypothetical situation: there are two ships in the middle of the pacific ocean. One of the ships begins to sail east, while the other remains stationary. Why is it that, after it has traveled about 12 miles, the traveling ship disappears from the sight of the stationary ship? Even with binoculars or a telescope, it is impossible to see the traveling ship from the stationary ship. Can you flat earthers explain this phenomena? To me, the only logical explanation seems to be the curvature of the earth.
It is actually quite simple. The further something is away, the smaller it is going to appear. If something is going to be 12 miles away, it is going to appear extremely small. Like, really small.
Because of this, it is really quite easy for something closer to you to be blocking it since it appears bigger. Something like a wave.
Do draw us an accurate diagram this time. Of course, you'll find you can't. FEers, still trying old and dis-proven tactics after all of these years.
-
Imagine this hypothetical situation: there are two ships in the middle of the pacific ocean. One of the ships begins to sail east, while the other remains stationary. Why is it that, after it has traveled about 12 miles, the traveling ship disappears from the sight of the stationary ship? Even with binoculars or a telescope, it is impossible to see the traveling ship from the stationary ship. Can you flat earthers explain this phenomena? To me, the only logical explanation seems to be the curvature of the earth.
It is actually quite simple. The further something is away, the smaller it is going to appear. If something is going to be 12 miles away, it is going to appear extremely small. Like, really small.
Because of this, it is really quite easy for something closer to you to be blocking it since it appears bigger. Something like a wave.
Answer under the assumption he has binoculars or a telescope. ::)
-
Imagine this hypothetical situation: there are two ships in the middle of the pacific ocean. One of the ships begins to sail east, while the other remains stationary. Why is it that, after it has traveled about 12 miles, the traveling ship disappears from the sight of the stationary ship? Even with binoculars or a telescope, it is impossible to see the traveling ship from the stationary ship. Can you flat earthers explain this phenomena? To me, the only logical explanation seems to be the curvature of the earth.
It is actually quite simple. The further something is away, the smaller it is going to appear. If something is going to be 12 miles away, it is going to appear extremely small. Like, really small.
Because of this, it is really quite easy for something closer to you to be blocking it since it appears bigger. Something like a wave.
But as long as your line of sight is above the wave crest height, waves will also get visually smaller so will not be blocking the target object.
Berny
Been there done that
-
The Universal Accelerator and bendy light answers this quite readily.
-
pray tell how bendy light explains this
-
Bendy light gives the appearance of curvature, so when something, in this case your ship moves beyond a certain point, the generated optical illusion causes it to appear as if it has sunken below the horizon.
Your binoculars or telescope don't magically make the light straighter, so it wouldn't make the ship suddenly appear.
-
Bendy light gives the appearance of curvature, so when something, in this case your ship moves beyond a certain point, the generated optical illusion causes it to appear as if it has sunken below the horizon.
Your binoculars or telescope don't magically make the light straighter, so it wouldn't make the ship suddenly appear.
Can it be recreated experimentally?
Berny
Watching the Tudors
-
It could, but its not like you'd believe me.
-
Bendy light gives the appearance of curvature, so when something, in this case your ship moves beyond a certain point, the generated optical illusion causes it to appear as if it has sunken below the horizon.
Your binoculars or telescope don't magically make the light straighter, so it wouldn't make the ship suddenly appear.
Prove bendy light exists with peer reviewed data.
-
Bendy light gives the appearance of curvature, so when something, in this case your ship moves beyond a certain point, the generated optical illusion causes it to appear as if it has sunken below the horizon.
Your binoculars or telescope don't magically make the light straighter, so it wouldn't make the ship suddenly appear.
Prove bendy light exists with peer reviewed data.
Because without peer review data bendy light would cease to exist? ::)
-
Bendy light gives the appearance of curvature, so when something, in this case your ship moves beyond a certain point, the generated optical illusion causes it to appear as if it has sunken below the horizon.
Your binoculars or telescope don't magically make the light straighter, so it wouldn't make the ship suddenly appear.
Prove bendy light exists with peer reviewed data.
If you actually read around the forum, there are plenty instances in which bendy light is shown in peer review to exist. Do you have peer reviewed experiments that show beyong a shadow of a doubt that it cannot exist in response to those?
-
Bendy light gives the appearance of curvature, so when something, in this case your ship moves beyond a certain point, the generated optical illusion causes it to appear as if it has sunken below the horizon.
Your binoculars or telescope don't magically make the light straighter, so it wouldn't make the ship suddenly appear.
Prove bendy light exists with peer reviewed data.
Because without peer review data bendy light would cease to exist? ::)
How can you cease something existence which don't yet exist? You have at first show that it exist which no one have done yet. You all only talk about it but to actually show some bent light ray... no, never.
-
Bendy light gives the appearance of curvature, so when something, in this case your ship moves beyond a certain point, the generated optical illusion causes it to appear as if it has sunken below the horizon.
Your binoculars or telescope don't magically make the light straighter, so it wouldn't make the ship suddenly appear.
Prove bendy light exists with peer reviewed data.
Because without peer review data bendy light would cease to exist? ::)
How can you cease something existence which don't yet exist? You have at first show that it exist which no one have done yet. You all only talk about it but to actually show some bent light ray... no, never.
Things do not suddenly pop into existence when you find them. Are you suggesting that the majority of stars in the visible universe (the light from them anyway) popped into existence once we got the telescopes powerful enough to see them? To think so is asinine.
-
Things do not suddenly pop into existence when you find them. Are you suggesting that the majority of stars in the visible universe (the light from them anyway) popped into existence once we got the telescopes powerful enough to see them? To think so is asinine.
And things don't start existing just because you say so. There is no use to start philosophizing over the existence of things if they exist when we see them or not. Thing is, the bendy light as the FE theorizes doesn't exist. It's still just theory without anything to back it up.
-
Things do not suddenly pop into existence when you find them. Are you suggesting that the majority of stars in the visible universe (the light from them anyway) popped into existence once we got the telescopes powerful enough to see them? To think so is asinine.
And things don't start existing just because you say so. There is no use to start philosophizing over the existence of things if they exist when we see them or not. Thing is, the bendy light as the FE theorizes doesn't exist. It's still just theory without anything to back it up.
Germs must not had existed when germ theory was in it's infancy too, eh?
-
This is a fairly basic query rather than a detailed critique of FET, so I'm moving it to Q&A.
-
Of course, the conclusion that our ancestors (correctly, may I add) reached using the evidence available to them was that we live on a spherical planet. Assuming a weird light effect is merely conjecture.
-
Germs must not had existed when germ theory was in it's infancy too, eh?
And all kind of mystical creatures and things which people just thought up must surely exist because no one just have ever seen them, eh? It's not about the possibility of the existence but if it really exist or not. If you are so sure that it exist then don't bring all kind of analogies up but show something that can convince others that the light really bends as the EA theorizes. If it is only talk then it just doesn't have very much value.
-
Imagine this hypothetical situation: there are two ships in the middle of the pacific ocean. One of the ships begins to sail east, while the other remains stationary. Why is it that, after it has traveled about 12 miles, the traveling ship disappears from the sight of the stationary ship? Even with binoculars or a telescope, it is impossible to see the traveling ship from the stationary ship. Can you flat earthers explain this phenomena? To me, the only logical explanation seems to be the curvature of the earth.
It is actually quite simple. The further something is away, the smaller it is going to appear. If something is going to be 12 miles away, it is going to appear extremely small. Like, really small.
Because of this, it is really quite easy for something closer to you to be blocking it since it appears bigger. Something like a wave.
Answer under the assumption he has binoculars or a telescope. ::)
A very good point! Yet sadly, trolls don't make assumptions, unless they fit perfectly into their troll like schemes.
EG! Come out come out, where ever you are.
You know we're gonna catch ya, no matter how hard you try hiding...
-
I think it's relatively easy to prove Bendy Light exists.
You get some phenomena not explained by a Round earth, and then you explain it with the benly light thing.
-
I think it's relatively easy to prove Bendy Light exists.
You get some phenomena not explained by a Round earth, and then you explain it with the benly light thing.
It's not proving. It's assuming without any actual evidence.
-
I think it's relatively easy to prove Bendy Light exists.
You get some phenomena not explained by a Round earth, and then you explain it with the benly light thing.
Examples of "phenomena not explained by a Round earth" would be nice, if you'd like to be taken seriously...
-
Bendy light gives the appearance of curvature, so when something, in this case your ship moves beyond a certain point, the generated optical illusion causes it to appear as if it has sunken below the horizon.
Your binoculars or telescope don't magically make the light straighter, so it wouldn't make the ship suddenly appear.
Prove bendy light exists with peer reviewed data.
Because without peer review data bendy light would cease to exist? ::)
Because with peer reviewed data, the fantasy of EAT would be disproved.
-
Imagine this hypothetical situation: there are two ships in the middle of the pacific ocean. One of the ships begins to sail east, while the other remains stationary. Why is it that, after it has traveled about 12 miles, the traveling ship disappears from the sight of the stationary ship? Even with binoculars or a telescope, it is impossible to see the traveling ship from the stationary ship. Can you flat earthers explain this phenomena? To me, the only logical explanation seems to be the curvature of the earth.
It is actually quite simple. The further something is away, the smaller it is going to appear. If something is going to be 12 miles away, it is going to appear extremely small. Like, really small.
Because of this, it is really quite easy for something closer to you to be blocking it since it appears bigger. Something like a wave.
So this theory depends on conveniently rogue waves? That's just wild speculation.
-
Imagine this hypothetical situation: there are two ships in the middle of the pacific ocean. One of the ships begins to sail east, while the other remains stationary. Why is it that, after it has traveled about 12 miles, the traveling ship disappears from the sight of the stationary ship? Even with binoculars or a telescope, it is impossible to see the traveling ship from the stationary ship. Can you flat earthers explain this phenomena? To me, the only logical explanation seems to be the curvature of the earth.
It is actually quite simple. The further something is away, the smaller it is going to appear. If something is going to be 12 miles away, it is going to appear extremely small. Like, really small.
Because of this, it is really quite easy for something closer to you to be blocking it since it appears bigger. Something like a wave.
So this theory depends on conveniently rogue waves? That's just wild speculation.
Oh and the rogue wave just happens to be the right size that any of many observers look at the ship. Right, what's next bendy light?
-
I would like to see the OP's proof that ships which appear to sink in this manner are not actually sinking.
-
I would like to see the OP's proof that ships which appear to sink in this manner are not actually sinking.
I'd like to see you stop this type of trolling.
-
I would like to see the OP's proof that ships which appear to sink in this manner are not actually sinking.
Because there is no SOS signal from these ships? And usually ships don't think so uniformly. The stern or stem goes up.
-
Extrapolate Rowbotham's studies. Problem solved.
-
Extrapolate Rowbotham. Problem solved.
Demonstrate. I find Rowbotham repeatedly wrong and even untruthful. For example the Wiki calculates the distance to the Sun to be 3,000 miles while Rowbotham provides a smaller figure. How could we trust extrapolating someone who wrong on such an important measurement?
-
Extrapolate Rowbotham. Problem solved.
Demonstrate. I find Rowbotham repeatedly wrong and even untruthful. For example the Wiki calculates the distance to the Sun to be 3,000 miles while Rowbotham provides a smaller figure. How could we trust extrapolating someone who wrong on such an important measurement?
I leave it to you to read and learn. The link to Rowbotham has been posted many times if you search quickly for it. It would be better for your educational process if you absorb the data yourself. There are experiments in the text that will assist you.
-
Extrapolate Rowbotham. Problem solved.
Demonstrate. I find Rowbotham repeatedly wrong and even untruthful. For example the Wiki calculates the distance to the Sun to be 3,000 miles while Rowbotham provides a smaller figure. How could we trust extrapolating someone who wrong on such an important measurement?
I leave it to you to read and learn. The link to Rowbotham has been posted many times if you search quickly for it. It would be better for your educational process if you absorb the data yourself. There are experiments in the text that will assist you.
So you got nothing... again. The typical FEer, nothing to substantiate your claims. I guess we know that you'll never have anything to contribute.
-
Because there is no SOS signal from these ships?
Perhaps their radios are broken.
And usually ships don't think so uniformly. The stern or stem goes up.
The people who observe ships sinking in this way daily might disagree with you.
-
Because there is no SOS signal from these ships?
Perhaps their radios are broken.
Groundless assumption. And the people have cellphones these days. Maybe you are this kind of person who calmly watches the water to rise to the neck and let himself calmly drown but most of the people don't. If there is no SOS signal or other help calls from the ship with many people on it this close to the shore then it doesn't sink.
And usually ships don't think so uniformly. The stern or stem goes up.
The people who observe ships sinking in this way daily might disagree with you.
Wrong. There is no such people. Your way of sinking assumes that the hull is empty and water fills it uniformly which is hardly a case.
-
Extrapolate Rowbotham. Problem solved.
Demonstrate. I find Rowbotham repeatedly wrong and even untruthful. For example the Wiki calculates the distance to the Sun to be 3,000 miles while Rowbotham provides a smaller figure. How could we trust extrapolating someone who wrong on such an important measurement?
I leave it to you to read and learn. The link to Rowbotham has been posted many times if you search quickly for it. It would be better for your educational process if you absorb the data yourself. There are experiments in the text that will assist you.
No, there are not and you know it itself very well and because of this you are so vague and can't show some specific experiment or chapter from Rowbotham's book. Or can't extrapolate it itself.
-
Groundless assumption. And the people have cellphones these days. Maybe you are this kind of person who calmly watches the water to rise to the neck and let himself calmly drown but most of the people don't. If there is no SOS signal or other help calls from the ship with many people on it this close to the shore then it doesn't sink.
I made no assumption. It is entirely possible that all communications devices on board fail to work before the ship sinks.
Wrong. There is no such people.
So ships aren't observed to sink as they reach the horizon? Well, I guess we can close this thread then.
Your way of sinking assumes that the hull is empty and water fills it uniformly which is hardly a case.
Again, I'm not assuming anything, I'm just drawing a rational conclusion from directly visible evidence. If you disagree with that evidence, it is up to you to refute it.
-
Groundless assumption. And the people have cellphones these days. Maybe you are this kind of person who calmly watches the water to rise to the neck and let himself calmly drown but most of the people don't. If there is no SOS signal or other help calls from the ship with many people on it this close to the shore then it doesn't sink.
I made no assumption. It is entirely possible that all communications devices on board fail to work before the ship sinks.
What is it when you assume that the devices aren't working? You certainly make a assumption that communications devices on board don't work. And it is not possible in daily basis. If you claim that then you surely have a good explanation why all communication devices stop working every day in every ship.
Wrong. There is no such people.
So ships aren't observed to sink as they reach the horizon? Well, I guess we can close this thread then.
I didn't say that. I said that your claim that there are people who observe ships sink this way daily is wrong. And it surely is.
Your way of sinking assumes that the hull is empty and water fills it uniformly which is hardly a case.
Again, I'm not assuming anything, I'm just drawing a rational conclusion from directly visible evidence. If you disagree with that evidence, it is up to you to refute it.
Again, I didn't say that you assume, I said that the way you say the ships sink assumes that the hull is empty and water fills it uniformly. So, if you have a rational explanation for the ships actually sinking this way then you are welcome to back up your claims. If not then the ships don't actually sink because there is no help calls and ship don't behave in the way it would when it actually sinks.
You realize that the talk is about ships sinking in reality not some sinking illusion? In reality ships don't sink such way and
-
Extrapolate Rowbotham. Problem solved.
Extrapolate a person? How would I do that (especially considering that he's dead)?
And Parsifal did this in my first topic here, stop feeding him.
-
Extrapolate Rowbotham's studies. Problem solved.
Extrapolate a person? howe would I do that (especially considering that he's dead)?
And Parsifal did this in my first topic here, stop feeding him.
I see my error. It has been fixed.
-
Parsifal: "All ships that go below the horizont in any part of the world, from whoever's viewpoint, is sinking".
Come oooooooon Zork, do not feed him, you are better user than that.
-
I just want to make point that he has no evidence that the ships are sinking. Visual observation is only observation and is not the part of the sinking process and it's not implying sinking. And not one person stays calm and without notifying authorities if the ship really sinks.
-
Besides, sinking ships do not diminish in size, they are normally stopped in the water, and then they start going down. But the size remains the same.
In the horizon, ships not only "sink", also get smaller.
-
What is it when you assume that the devices aren't working? You certainly make a assumption that communications devices on board don't work. And it is not possible in daily basis. If you claim that then you surely have a good explanation why all communication devices stop working every day in every ship.
Can you read? I didn't claim that the devices aren't working; I only claimed that it was possible for them to stop working.
I didn't say that. I said that your claim that there are people who observe ships sink this way daily is wrong. And it surely is.
That is what the OP is asking about. If you don't feel that this phenomenon happens, then you have no place in this thread.
Again, I didn't say that you assume, I said that the way you say the ships sink assumes that the hull is empty and water fills it uniformly. So, if you have a rational explanation for the ships actually sinking this way then you are welcome to back up your claims. If not then the ships don't actually sink because there is no help calls and ship don't behave in the way it would when it actually sinks.
So because you can't explain it, the evidence must be wrong? That's not how science works.
I just want to make point that he has no evidence that the ships are sinking.
You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. I'm not arguing that the ships are sinking, I want to know what evidence you have for ruling out that possibility and claiming that the sinking is an illusion.
-
Can you read? I didn't claim that the devices aren't working; I only claimed that it was possible for them to stop working.
Answer is same, it's not possible that communication devices stop working every day in every ship. If you even claim that it is possible in every day and every ship then please, try to explain how.
I didn't say that. I said that your claim that there are people who observe ships sink this way daily is wrong. And it surely is.
That is what the OP is asking about.
OP isn't about people who observe "sinking" ships daily. And your claim about that is still wrong.
Again, I didn't say that you assume, I said that the way you say the ships sink assumes that the hull is empty and water fills it uniformly. So, if you have a rational explanation for the ships actually sinking this way then you are welcome to back up your claims. If not then the ships don't actually sink because there is no help calls and ship don't behave in the way it would when it actually sinks.
So because you can't explain it, the evidence must be wrong? That's not how science works.
What evidence? You don't have any. And the sinking of the ships is quite well explained and the thing is they don't seem that way that they are actually sinking. You better explain your reasoning behind the ships sinking. Because if you see the ship disappearing doesn't mean that it is sinking. That's not how science works.
You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick. I'm not arguing that the ships are sinking, I want to know what evidence you have for ruling out that possibility and claiming that the sinking is an illusion.
Why, have all these ships in daily basis actually disappeared? The greatest evidence is that all these ships still exist.
-
The greatest evidence is that all these ships still exist.
That would be some pretty great evidence. Where is it?
-
The greatest evidence is that all these ships still exist.
That would be some pretty great evidence. Where is it?
In the harbor.
-
Answer is same, it's not possible that communication devices stop working every day in every ship. If you even claim that it is possible in every day and every ship then please, try to explain how.
Simple. Communication devices are known to fail from time to time; all that would be needed is for all the devices on board the ship to fail between leaving port and sinking.
OP isn't about people who observe "sinking" ships daily.
The OP is talking about the phenomenon of ships appearing to disappear below the surface of the water. That sounds like sinking to me.
And your claim about that is still wrong.
Please justify this statement.
What evidence?
The people that observe ships to sink in this way daily.
And the sinking of the ships is quite well explained and the thing is they don't seem that way that they are actually sinking. You better explain your reasoning behind the ships sinking. Because if you see the ship disappearing doesn't mean that it is sinking. That's not how science works.
Please don't try to pin the blame of jumping to conclusions on me; I'm only pointing out that this is a possibility that needs to be considered. You are the one jumping to the conclusion that the Earth must be round -- what is more likely, that the entire Earth is warped just to suit your expectations, or that ships observed to sink are really sinking?
Why, have all these ships in daily basis actually disappeared? The greatest evidence is that all these ships still exist.
I see no evidence that any of those ships still exist.
-
OP isn't about people who observe "sinking" ships daily.
The OP is talking about the phenomenon of ships appearing to disappear below the surface of the water. That sounds like sinking to me.
Okay as someone who has sailed a far amount in my youth - I can state that the phenomenon of a sinking ships is quite common. The reverse also occurs when a ship catches up, it appears to "rise", and then it sails past where upon it "sinks" again. As the ship is later seen in the harbour I can assure you it did not sink.
Also - think of the insurance claims and danger of sailing.
[/quote]
-
I'm a first timer so go easy on me. But from what I understand reading materials available on this web site, it is simply an illusion.
OP isn't about people who observe "sinking" ships daily.
The OP is talking about the phenomenon of ships appearing to disappear below the surface of the water. That sounds like sinking to me.
Okay as someone who has sailed a far amount in my youth - I can state that the phenomenon of a sinking ships is quite common. The reverse also occurs when a ship catches up, it appears to "rise", and then it sails past where upon it "sinks" again. As the ship is later seen in the harbour I can assure you it did not sink.
Also - think of the insurance claims and danger of sailing.
[/quote]
-
I'm a first timer so go easy on me. But from what I understand reading materials available on this web site, it is simply an illusion.
That would be Bendy Light. About all I know is that it works whenever it is needed to solve a problem.
Berny
Forgot to add a quip on last post - blames work.
-
I'm a first timer so go easy on me. But from what I understand reading materials available on this web site, it is simply an illusion.
That would be Bendy Light. About all I know is that it works whenever it is needed to solve a problem.
Berny
Forgot to add a quip on last post - blames work.
I'm just reading about bendy light (though I don't think that is the technically accurate term) and it is eye opening
-
The reverse also occurs when a ship catches up, it appears to "rise"
Fish like to swim underneath sinking vessels. The combined force of a lot of fish trying to rise from beneath a sinking ship causes it to float back up to the surface.
As the ship is later seen in the harbour I can assure you it did not sink.
Do you have any evidence that it is the same ship, and not merely a very similar one?
Also - think of the insurance claims and danger of sailing.
Given the common misconception that this is an illusion created by the Earth being round, nobody would even consider it until it's too late.
-
As the ship is later seen in the harbour I can assure you it did not sink.
Do you have any evidence that it is the same ship, and not merely a very similar one?
Yeah it was the biggest damn Russian cargo vessel I had ever seen. We got a tour of it in Nairobi. It had RoRo capability for HUGE mining equipment. Man - imagine being on a cargo ship with a swimming pool. And yeah - when you are a sail boat in the red sea every cargo ship passes you. Makes you feel really small sometimes.
Berny
Breaking up a catfight
-
Yeah it was the biggest damn Russian cargo vessel I had ever seen. We got a tour of it in Nairobi. It had RoRo capability for HUGE mining equipment. Man - imagine being on a cargo ship with a swimming pool. And yeah - when you are a sail boat in the red sea every cargo ship passes you. Makes you feel really small sometimes.
How is this evidence at all? How do you know there weren't two of them?
-
Given the common misconception that this is an illusion created by the Earth being round, nobody would even consider it until it's too late.
So why hasn't every police station and newspaper in the world been flooded with missing persons reports?
-
Given the common misconception that this is an illusion created by the Earth being round, nobody would even consider it until it's too late.
So why hasn't every police station and newspaper in the world been flooded with missing persons reports?
Please don't feed the troll. Obviously he's just playing a game. Parsifal claims for example to have photographic evidence that Australia does not exist.
-
Given the common misconception that this is an illusion created by the Earth being round, nobody would even consider it until it's too late.
So why hasn't every police station and newspaper in the world been flooded with missing persons reports?
Please don't feed the troll. Obviously he's just playing a game. Parsifal claims for example to have photographic evidence that Australia does not exist.
I won't be surprised if every FE'er on this forum is a troll.
-
So why hasn't every police station and newspaper in the world been flooded with missing persons reports?
The people were leaving on a ship anyway, weren't they? Why would anyone complain that they're missing?
-
So why hasn't every police station and newspaper in the world been flooded with missing persons reports?
The people were leaving on a ship anyway, weren't they? Why would anyone complain that they're missing?
Let's explain it like RE'ers and blame the higgs boson
-
So why hasn't every police station and newspaper in the world been flooded with missing persons reports?
The people were leaving on a ship anyway, weren't they? Why would anyone complain that they're missing?
Have you ever even considered that those who disappeared might have, oh I don't know, maybe FRIENDS AND FAMILY?
-
Have you ever even considered that those who disappeared might have, oh I don't know, maybe FRIENDS AND FAMILY?
Their friends and family would presumably have known that they were departing on a ship, and their absence would be expected. Why would it be reported?
-
Have you ever even considered that those who disappeared might have, oh I don't know, maybe FRIENDS AND FAMILY?
Their friends and family would presumably have known that they were departing on a ship, and their absence would be expected. Why would it be reported?
I've lost track of what we're arguing.
I thought this thread was asking why ships disappear in the open ocean, a phenomenon easily explained by the UA and bendy light.
Although I have to admit, the conversation over whether or not the ships actually disappear is quite funny.
-
Have you ever even considered that those who disappeared might have, oh I don't know, maybe FRIENDS AND FAMILY?
Their friends and family would presumably have known that they were departing on a ship, and their absence would be expected. Why would it be reported?
I go on a holiday cruise and I don't come back. Don't tell me your family wouldn't be worried? If your so called "conspiracy" has been going on for decades, people would have disappeared long enough for relatives to notice.
Anyway, this has deviated enough from the OP. Going back.
-
Anyway, this has deviated enough from the OP. Going back.
Fantastic. Let's see if anyone can provide any evidence to support the OP's dismissal of the possibility that ships which are observed to sink are actually sinking.
-
So every rising ships ever seen by any person in the Earth, is a bunch of fishes pushing them up?
You know, Parsifal, when you were just trolling with science and some crazy possibilities, it was sometimes fun, other times one felt like answering... But this thing you are doing in this thread, is not fun, is not trolling, is just pathetic and boring, and uninteresting.
I understand that you have always been like this, but you are crossing a line that puts you into the "indiference" category, and besides, you are making the forum look stupid for newcomers. I don't know why mods allow you to be here, but if any of them read me here... they should reconsider. On my part I am thinking on abandoning the forum, I can deal with some craziness, originality, and theorising, but this... this ain't worth the time it takes reading.
-
Answer is same, it's not possible that communication devices stop working every day in every ship. If you even claim that it is possible in every day and every ship then please, try to explain how.
Simple. Communication devices are known to fail from time to time; all that would be needed is for all the devices on board the ship to fail between leaving port and sinking.
From time to time isn't every time the ships is leaving from harbor. Situation you describe isn't possible. So, if you don't have any explanation why the all communication devices fail all the time(that means hundreds of time ever day) then I guess we can drop that point out of debate because it just doesn't hold water.
What evidence?
The people that observe ships to sink in this way daily.
There isn't such people who observe every year every day(365 days at year) this phenomenon. So your claim about that is wrong. But as for people who most of time observe it they don't observe the ship actually sinking.
And the sinking of the ships is quite well explained and the thing is they don't seem that way that they are actually sinking. You better explain your reasoning behind the ships sinking. Because if you see the ship disappearing doesn't mean that it is sinking. That's not how science works.
Please don't try to pin the blame of jumping to conclusions on me; I'm only pointing out that this is a possibility that needs to be considered. You are the one jumping to the conclusion that the Earth must be round -- what is more likely, that the entire Earth is warped just to suit your expectations, or that ships observed to sink are really sinking?
Where did I conclude that the Earth is round? Quote please? And I am pointing out that the ships really sinking isn't even possibility because there isn't absolutely any evidence for sinking. Because it is everyday phenomenon and people know the difference between the sinking illusion and act of ship actually sinking. If you want to make your point about the possibility of actual sinking then back it up some actual evidence or reasoning. Like why the people don't make the difference between real sinking and sinking illusion. And why the ships and people on the ships arrive at their destination. Right now it isn't even the possibility that all the ships actually sink after leaving the harbor.
Why, have all these ships in daily basis actually disappeared? The greatest evidence is that all these ships still exist.
I see no evidence that any of those ships still exist.
Evidence is the harbor full of ships. If all the sips would sink after leaving the harbor then the harbors would be empty. And you can go to the harbor, mark some leaving ship with the permanent pencil and check for the mark after it arrives again.
Fantastic. Let's see if anyone can provide any evidence to support the OP's dismissal of the possibility that ships which are observed to sink are actually sinking.
Actually, you are the one that must provide the evidence that this is even the possibility. This is your claim that it needs to be considered(your quote - I'm only pointing out that this is a possibility that needs to be considered.) and you must back it up. Visual observation isn't evidence and it isn't also something which even gives the reason to consider this possibility.
-
So why hasn't every police station and newspaper in the world been flooded with missing persons reports?
The people were leaving on a ship anyway, weren't they? Why would anyone complain that they're missing?
They weren't leaving on the ship. They were traveling with the ship from point A to point B. And if they don't reach to the point B then there would be complaints about the missing persons. I guess you don't have girlfriend but if you would have then do you follow same kind of logic when she leaves through your door? She leaves anyway so why she must ever again return. Leaving isn't the same thing as dying.
-
Parsifal did this in my first topic here, stop feeding him.
-
As I saw that the dictionary gives to the verb "sink" following meaning - "to disappear from view" then I can agree that ships actually sink.
-
As I saw that the dictionary gives to the verb "sink" following meaning - "to disappear from view" then I can agree that ships actually sink.
Nicely done. +1
-
As I saw that the dictionary gives to the verb "sink" following meaning - "to disappear from view" then I can agree that ships actually sink.
Nicely done. +1
is that what the dictionary gave? really? wow
if only school dictionaries were that simple
but how does somehitng getting smaller explain the obsevation that the boat sinks at a dirrerent rate than the decrease in size?