The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Binder on July 19, 2014, 08:06:49 PM

Title: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: Binder on July 19, 2014, 08:06:49 PM
From what I ca understand from the wiki and some threads here it appears to me there is some optical illusion that happens when you see a ship or light house sink below the horizon. The Rowbotham effect as it might be called.

This seems to fly in the face of many personal experiences. I've been sailing different ships for over two decades. The Gulf of Mexico mostly and the south east coast of the US. In my small adventures I've used lighthouses, oil rigs and very tall radio towers as navigation points. Two friends and I taught an offshore sailing class (ASA 108 class, offshore. About 10 years ago). We did celestial navigation, which I would guess you believe is not correct, and other types of "how to get there" navigation.

I can tell you first hand you can sail past a very tall structure and sink all but the very tip below the horizon using only your eyes and then look with binoculars and see the exact same thing.

Now, this Rowbotham theory seems to be incredibly debunkable because of my experiences. Is there something I'm not understanding about his "Vanishing Point" idea?
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: Socratic Amusement on July 19, 2014, 08:28:49 PM
No, you get it completely. Unfortunately, these so called Zetetics can't seem to do this very simple experiment, and take it on faith that a sinking object can be restored with a vision magnifier.

Y'know, despite the fact that they have eyes.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: Macpie on July 20, 2014, 01:29:57 AM
That is one of the funnier things about them, in my opinion - they claim that distant objects can be "recovered" with some magnification, like through binoculars or a telescope. Has any of them actually "recovered" an object hidden behind the horizon? I don't think so... It should be hilariously easy to prove if possible, but for some reason it seems like no one has ever done it... Weird, isn't it?
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: ausGeoff on July 20, 2014, 01:38:56 AM
Quote from: Socratic Amusement on July 19, 2014, 08:28:49 PM
Unfortunately, these so called Zetetics can't seem to do this very simple experiment, and take it on faith that a sinking object can be restored with a vision magnifier.

This is a notion of the flat earthers I've never been able to comprehend.  That is, something that cannot be seen with the human eye can magically be seen by using a telescope.  This simplified diagram may clarify this for them:



(http://www.benvr.net/technology/historyofoptics/history-of-optics-ben-vision-research-12.gif)


The enlargement relies on the convex objective lens, and the concave eyepiece lens—which also produces a non-inverted image.  It's obvious from this diagram that the observer can't see "more" of the building by using the telescope.  And there's no refraction external to the telescope that changes the image in any way (or "bendy" light as it's often called by the flat earthers LOL).

Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 20, 2014, 03:25:20 AM
ausGeoff, this is FE Q&A and is for flat Earth questions and answers.  If you want to explain RET or debate FET, please do it in the proper forum.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: ausGeoff on July 20, 2014, 03:32:22 AM
Quote from: jroa on July 20, 2014, 03:25:20 AM
ausGeoff, this is FE Q&A and is for flat Earth questions and answers.  If you want to explain RET or debate FET, please do it in the proper forum.  Thanks.

No probs jroa.  Read and noted.  Sorry.

Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: robintex on July 21, 2014, 07:31:15 PM
Quote from: jroa on July 20, 2014, 03:25:20 AM
ausGeoff, this is FE Q&A and is for flat Earth questions and answers.  If you want to explain RET or debate FET, please do it in the proper forum.  Thanks.

Would it be possible for the moderator to remove this topic to the debate section of the forum for continuation ?
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: tappet on July 21, 2014, 08:55:00 PM
Quote from: Macpie on July 20, 2014, 01:29:57 AM
That is one of the funnier things about them, in my opinion - they claim that distant objects can be "recovered" with some magnification, like through binoculars or a telescope. Has any of them actually "recovered" an object hidden behind the horizon? I don't think so... It should be hilariously easy to prove if possible, but for some reason it seems like no one has ever done it... Weird, isn't it?
I am a FEer and I have never claimed you can bring back sinking ship with a telescope.
So don't make out you are superior and group everybody as "them" thanks.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: Binder on July 22, 2014, 06:08:03 AM
Taper, do you have another theory why ships at sea disappear below the horizon?
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 22, 2014, 10:07:16 AM
Quote from: Googleotomy on July 21, 2014, 07:31:15 PM
Quote from: jroa on July 20, 2014, 03:25:20 AM
ausGeoff, this is FE Q&A and is for flat Earth questions and answers.  If you want to explain RET or debate FET, please do it in the proper forum.  Thanks.

Would it be possible for the moderator to remove this topic to the debate section of the forum for continuation ?

Yes, it is possible, but it would be a whole lot easier if people just made threads in the debate section for themselves. 
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: robintex on July 22, 2014, 11:40:55 AM
Quote from: tappet on July 21, 2014, 08:55:00 PM
Quote from: Macpie on July 20, 2014, 01:29:57 AM
That is one of the funnier things about them, in my opinion - they claim that distant objects can be "recovered" with some magnification, like through binoculars or a telescope. Has any of them actually "recovered" an object hidden behind the horizon? I don't think so... It should be hilariously easy to prove if possible, but for some reason it seems like no one has ever done it... Weird, isn't it?
I am a FEer and I have never claimed you can bring back sinking ship with a telescope.
So don't make out you are superior and group everybody as "them" thanks.

I served in the Navy and have observed many times that you can't bring back a ship that has sailed over the horizon....Either with binoculars or a telescope.So I have often wondered how that idea originated. Probably from Rowbotham ?
Tom Bishop has said "It works on land, too."
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: tappet on July 22, 2014, 01:12:29 PM
Quote from: Binder on July 22, 2014, 06:08:03 AM
Taper, do you have another theory why ships at sea disappear below the horizon?
Sometimes sinking ship is closer sometimes its out further, sometimes they fly.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: Goth on July 23, 2014, 01:24:21 AM
Taper, do you have another theory why ships at sea disappear below the horizon?


Here some, flying ships on a'flat world......

(http://talesofmi.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ghostship3.jpg)


(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mqpvbThOMdE/T5CDRTQq9RI/AAAAAAAABQ8/olcaT2s9rAc/s1600/fata+morgana.jpg)
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: ausGeoff on July 23, 2014, 01:38:23 AM

A Fata Morgana is an unusual and complex form of superior mirage that is seen in a narrow band right above the horizon...


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Fada_morgana_graphnn.JPG)


—You're welcome.


Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: Goth on July 23, 2014, 01:53:38 AM
Thank you,, Aussie, 'Could that also be the reason, for RE's optical illusionary curving of the earth..
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: sceptimatic on July 23, 2014, 02:31:11 AM
Quote from: ausGeoff on July 23, 2014, 01:38:23 AM

A Fata Morgana is an unusual and complex form of superior mirage that is seen in a narrow band right above the horizon...


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Fada_morgana_graphnn.JPG)


—You're welcome.
You have just killed of any global Earth argument about the sinking ship effect.

 You're welcome.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 23, 2014, 02:53:48 AM
Quote from: Goth on July 23, 2014, 01:53:38 AM
Thank you,, Aussie, 'Could that also be the reason, for RE's optical illusionary curving of the earth..
No, because it is exactly the opposite effect of what would be required.  It makes objects on the horizon appear to "float" and not "sink".
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 23, 2014, 02:54:20 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on July 23, 2014, 02:31:11 AM
]You have just killed of any global Earth argument about the sinking ship effect.


Do keep up scepti.... ::)
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: Binder on July 23, 2014, 03:59:59 AM
Yea... Mirage effect could explain why a ship floats. What does the ship sink?

When I sail with the shoreline at my right I can sail away and make a very tall radio antennae sink below the horizon with just its blinking light visible. Naked eye, binoculars see the exact same thing. This navigation tool we used to determine our position. It works every time.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: guv on July 23, 2014, 05:40:36 AM
That is how Rowyourboat got his everdance from his expeyment that he used to start the Flat Brainless sussyotty.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 05:49:57 AM
The precise language and world of mathematics can be used to investigate this question.


A few formulas of interest.


CURVATURE

C = R(1 - cos[s/(2R)]) - angle measured in radians


R = 6378,164 km

s = distance


VISUAL OBSTACLE

(http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3350/figuratangentaew0.gif)

BD = (R + h)/{RAD[2Rh + h^2](sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R

RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF THE EXPRESSION IN THE [ ] PARENTHESES


TERRESTRIAL REFRACTION

http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm (http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm) (Calculating the effects of refraction on apparent altitude section)


LOOMING (THERMAL INVERSION)

http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/altitudes.html (http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/altitudes.html)



Let us apply this mass of knowledge to a famous photograph taken by Mrs. Kerry Ann Lecky Hepburn in Grimsby.

The RE called her some years ago, they were informed that the elevation was 170 meters above sea level.

Since lake Ontario is itself some 75-80 meters above sea level, the following photograph was taken from 90 meters in height.

We will add 20 MORE METERS, to reach an elevation of 110 meters (highest point in Beamer Falls Conservation Area).


GRIMSBY - OSHAWA 97 KILOMETERS

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/osh2_zps8b8c1b8f.jpg)

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/osh1_zps407350bc.jpg)


VISUAL OBSTACLE: 278 METERS


Tallest building in Oshawa: Summit Place, 64.5 meters

Elevation of Oshawa above sea level: 106 meters

Substracting 80 meters (elevation of lake Ontario itself) from 106 and adding 64.5 meters we get: 90.5 meters


Using the refraction formula we see immediately that nothing from Oshawa could be seen/observed from a 97 km distance.


Let us now use the LOOMING formula.


http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/altitudes.html (http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/altitudes.html)


THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN ON JUNE 10, 2004

http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html?timeframe=2&Prov=ONT&StationID=4996&dlyRange=1840-01-01%7C2014-7-22&Year=2004&Month=6&cmdB1=Go# (http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html?timeframe=2&Prov=ONT&StationID=4996&dlyRange=1840-01-01%7C2014-7-22&Year=2004&Month=6&cmdB1=Go#)

OSHAWA: TEMP MAX 16.5 C - TEMP MIN 13.5 C

GRIMSBY: TEMP MAX 16.5 C - TEMP MIN 10 C

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/historical-weather/caon0281 (http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/historical-weather/caon0281)


We introduce the data:

EYE OBSERVER: 13.5 - 14.5 - 15.5 C (temperature)
HEIGHT 110 METERS


EYE TARGET: 13.5 C (temperature)
HEIGHT 90 METERS

DISTANCE 97 KM


Nothing, absolutely nothing could be seen from a distance of 97 km; moreover, as can be seen clearly, there are many buildings/lights observed in Oshawa, not necessarily the Summit Place building, therefore the elevation for those buildings can be reduced further.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: ausGeoff on July 23, 2014, 05:53:43 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on July 23, 2014, 02:31:11 AM
You have just killed of any global Earth argument about the sinking ship effect.

Unfortunately for you sceptimatic, you've just killed off any misguided perception that you may know what you're talking about.  A Fata Morgana illusion has nothing to do with the "sinking ship" conundrum or the curvature of the earth's surface.

Please look again at my diagram and try and understand what it's showing.  The "duct" is actually a layer of air whose density varies continuously from top to bottom, and acts similarly to a refracting lens.  It's also necessary for there to be a phenomenon known as a temperature inversion, wherein the upper air layer is warmer and the lower air layer is cooler (or inverted from the normal scenario).

The "sinking ship" has nothing to do with a Fata Morgana.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: rottingroom on July 23, 2014, 06:00:55 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on July 23, 2014, 02:31:11 AM
Quote from: ausGeoff on July 23, 2014, 01:38:23 AM

A Fata Morgana is an unusual and complex form of superior mirage that is seen in a narrow band right above the horizon...


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Fada_morgana_graphnn.JPG)


—You're welcome.
You have just killed of any global Earth argument about the sinking ship effect.

 You're welcome.

It's baffling that FE'rs still don't get this. Refraction near the surface, and especially over the water causes object to appear HIGHER than they actually are. I went into detail about this in this thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61771.0#.U8-xc7FjWmw). With the facts there in mind, it is possible for an object to appear to float above the horizon and it is never possible for an object to appear below the horizon unless it ACTUALLY IS below the horizon.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: ausGeoff on July 23, 2014, 06:06:33 AM
Quote from: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 05:49:57 AM

Nothing, absolutely nothing could be seen from a distance of 97 km; moreover, as can be seen clearly, there are many buildings/lights observed in Oshawa, not necessarily the Summit Place building, therefore the elevation for those buildings can be reduced further.

Sorry, but that image looks—to my photographer's eye—to be totally inconclusive.  It shows nothing more than a line of fuzzy coloured dots on a black background.  Obviously this could be explained easily by any one of a dozen scenarios.  You've relied solely on the unevidenced word of Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn, which is unacceptable on any scientific-style forum.

Unless you captured this image yourself—which you admit to not doing—I suspect it's Photoshopped anyway.  Posting somebody else's images carries no weight on any flat earth forum—according to numerous flat earthers here.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 06:15:25 AM
It is not photoshopped in any way.

Mrs. Kerry Ann Lecky Hepburn is a world famous photographer, who had not one, but several webpages on professional photography.

The photograph, showing the lights from Oshawa, a distance of 97 km, is true, you can call Mrs. Lecky Hepburn yourself!

Here is another photograph taken by Mrs. Lecky Hepburn:

(http://web.archive.org/web/20120322012615/http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)

No 59 meter curvature whatsoever.


TWO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN IN HAMILTON, RIGHT ON THE BEACH:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream)


(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/198/487755017_a114c05e50.jpg)

(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/232/487726854_181aa457da.jpg)

The visual obstacle between Hamilton and Lakeshore Blvd. West measures over 200 meters, no curvature whatsoever.

Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: ausGeoff on July 23, 2014, 06:15:39 AM
Quote from: rottingroom on July 23, 2014, 06:00:55 AM

It's baffling that FE'rs still don't get this. Refraction near the surface, and especially over the water causes object to appear HIGHER than they actually are. I went into detail about this in this thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61771.0#.U8-xc7FjWmw). With the facts there in mind, it is possible for an object to appear to float above the horizon and it is never possible for an object to appear below the horizon unless it ACTUALLY IS below the horizon.
LOL.  You've really tied yourself up in knots here sceptimatic.  And you still don't get it do you?  Fata Morgana and "sinking ships" have NO connection.  Two totally different optical theories apply for each.  I'll say it again; ZERO connection.

Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: rottingroom on July 23, 2014, 06:20:43 AM
Quote from: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 06:15:25 AM
It is not photoshopped in any way.

Mrs. Kerry Ann Lecky Hepburn is a world famous photographer, who had not one, but several webpages on professional photography.

The photograph, showing the lights from Oshawa, a distance of 97 km, is true, you can call Mrs. Lecky Hepburn yourself!

Here is another photograph taken by Mrs. Lecky Hepburn:

(http://web.archive.org/web/20120322012615/http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)

No 59 meter curvature whatsoever.


TWO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN IN HAMILTON, RIGHT ON THE BEACH:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream)


(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/198/487755017_a114c05e50.jpg)

(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/232/487726854_181aa457da.jpg)

The visual obstacle between Hamilton and Lakeshore Blvd. West measures over 200 meters, no curvature whatsoever.

Um, yes. An object that is usually obstructed by the sea can be unobstructed because of refraction. Thanks for pointing that out.

Also, needless to say, it is obvious that these photos are not taken from the surface.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: ausGeoff on July 23, 2014, 06:22:09 AM
Quote from: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 06:15:25 AM
It is not photoshopped in any way.


Whether or not that image is Photoshopped or not is ultimately immaterial to your argument.  The simple fact is that the coloured orbs could be any one of a dozen things.  Think of a woman's necklace of gemstones laid on black velvet, illuminated from the side, and captured with a macro camera lens.  A bit of blur in Photoshop, and bingo!

The image proves nothing.  Sorry.



Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 06:30:15 AM
The photograph taken at night shows the skyline of Oshawa; no orbs.


The photographs in Hamilton WERE TAKEN RIGHT ON THE BEACH ITSELF.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream)


READ THE CAPTION:

Looking from the beach in Hamilton across Lake Ontario towards Toronto

Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: rottingroom on July 23, 2014, 06:37:01 AM
Quote from: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 06:30:15 AM
Looking from the beach in Hamilton across Lake Ontario towards Toronto

Does this caption do anything to reveal the elevation of the shot? Beaches typically slope. I hope you are aware of this.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: Rama Set on July 23, 2014, 06:45:27 AM
Quote from: rottingroom on July 23, 2014, 06:37:01 AM
Quote from: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 06:30:15 AM
Looking from the beach in Hamilton across Lake Ontario towards Toronto

Does this caption do anything to reveal the elevation of the shot? Beaches typically slope. I hope you are aware of this.

The photo may even have been taken from purposefully from an elevation to eliminate obstructions.  Is any of this information available?  It is crucial.  Elevation information crushed Sandokhan's photos taken from the Escarpment.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: ausGeoff on July 23, 2014, 06:45:44 AM
Quote from: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 06:30:15 AM
The Lights of Oshawa
I've noted the caption accompanying this image, but that's only a handful of words.  It certainly doesn't prove that the subject of the photo is what it claims to be.  It could easily be an image of something entirely different (as I suggested above as an example).

If I posted a really blurry image of Donald Duck, and captioned it "Mickey Mouse" would you simply take my word for it?  Of course not.

Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 07:02:10 AM
Somebody wrote:  Elevation information crushed Sandokhan's photos taken from the Escarpment.

No such thing ever happened.


To remove all doubts, let us ascend to 110 meters (in Hamilton).

Let us reduce the distance to 52.8 km.

Then, the visual obstacle would measure 18.5 meters.


But we can see clearly all the details from the opposing shoreline, with no 59 meter curvature whatsoever.

(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/232/487726854_181aa457da.jpg)


The caption reads clearly: taken on the Hamilton beach (the other photographs from the same collection show the author right on the beach itself).


Question: HOW would the water of lake Ontario stay curved, according to your theory?
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: rottingroom on July 23, 2014, 07:16:33 AM
Quote from: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 07:02:10 AM
Somebody wrote:  Elevation information crushed Sandokhan's photos taken from the Escarpment.

No such thing ever happened.


To remove all doubts, let us ascend to 110 meters (in Hamilton).

Let us reduce the distance to 52.8 km.

Then, the visual obstacle would measure 18.5 meters.


But we can see clearly all the details from the opposing shoreline, with no 59 meter curvature whatsoever.

(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/232/487726854_181aa457da.jpg)


The caption reads clearly: taken on the Hamilton beach (the other photographs from the same collection show the author right on the beach itself).


Question: HOW would the water of lake Ontario stay curved, according to your theory?

I don't know how you get 18.4 meters. With the numbers you just put forth, I'm getting .73 meters.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 07:24:27 AM
There is a very precise formula in my first message here: use it.

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3350/figuratangentaew0.gif (http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3350/figuratangentaew0.gif)


BD = (R + h)/{RAD[2Rh + h^2](sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R

RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF THE EXPRESSION IN THE [ ] PARENTHESES

R = 6378.164 km
s = 52.8 km
h = 0.11 km (that is, 110 meters)

Then, BD = 18.5 meters
Here are two more photographs taken by Mrs. Lecky Hepburn:

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/lakeontario53_zps743773f9.jpg)

No 59 meter curvature whatsoever.


Using a reflector telescope (from the very same spot as here: http://web.archive.org/web/20120322012615/http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg (http://web.archive.org/web/20120322012615/http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg) ):

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/thor2h_zpsc4f7927e.jpg)

Each and every detail from the other shoreline, distance of 55 km, no 59 meter curvature whatsoever.


Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: Pongo on July 23, 2014, 07:29:34 AM
This is a good example of a Q&A thread turning into a debate.   I'm moving it to the Debate forum.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61846.0#.U8_GYONdWGc (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61846.0#.U8_GYONdWGc)
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 07:32:11 AM
No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:

Barbarians - The End of The World (http://#)

38:28 to 38:35


From the same spot, a splendid photograph:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/55/130948289_44854d63fa_b.jpg)


http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289# (http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289#)

No curvature whatsoever, just like the image in the video itself.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: Rama Set on July 23, 2014, 07:39:47 AM
Quote from: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 07:24:27 AM
There is a very precise formula in my first message here: use it.

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3350/figuratangentaew0.gif (http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3350/figuratangentaew0.gif)


BD = (R + h)/{RAD[2Rh + h^2](sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R

RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF THE EXPRESSION IN THE [ ] PARENTHESES

R = 6378.164 km
s = 52.8 km
h = 0.11 km (that is, 110 meters)

Then, BD = 18.5 meters
Here are two more photographs taken by Mrs. Lecky Hepburn:

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/lakeontario53_zps743773f9.jpg)

No 59 meter curvature whatsoever.


Using a reflector telescope (from the very same spot as here: http://web.archive.org/web/20120322012615/http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg (http://web.archive.org/web/20120322012615/http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg) ):

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/thor2h_zpsc4f7927e.jpg)

Each and every detail from the other shoreline, distance of 55 km, no 59 meter curvature whatsoever.

You only calculate the amount of drop from the arc beginning at the horizon point to the subject. Nothing is obscured until the horizon.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: rottingroom on July 23, 2014, 08:21:28 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on July 23, 2014, 07:39:47 AM
Quote from: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 07:24:27 AM
There is a very precise formula in my first message here: use it.

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3350/figuratangentaew0.gif (http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3350/figuratangentaew0.gif)


BD = (R + h)/{RAD[2Rh + h^2](sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R

RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF THE EXPRESSION IN THE [ ] PARENTHESES

R = 6378.164 km
s = 52.8 km
h = 0.11 km (that is, 110 meters)

Then, BD = 18.5 meters
Here are two more photographs taken by Mrs. Lecky Hepburn:

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/lakeontario53_zps743773f9.jpg)

No 59 meter curvature whatsoever.


Using a reflector telescope (from the very same spot as here: http://web.archive.org/web/20120322012615/http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg (http://web.archive.org/web/20120322012615/http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg) ):

(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/thor2h_zpsc4f7927e.jpg)

Each and every detail from the other shoreline, distance of 55 km, no 59 meter curvature whatsoever.

You only calculate the amount of drop from the arc beginning at the horizon point to the subject. Nothing is obscured until the horizon.

Exactly.

The horizon in this case is 47.6 km away. Meaning that we only calculate for a distance of 5.2 km to get the drop.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: 29silhouette on July 23, 2014, 02:42:22 PM
Quote from: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 06:15:25 AM
Here is another photograph taken by Mrs. Lecky Hepburn:
(http://web.archive.org/web/20120322012615/http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)
Taken from a high elevation.

Quote from: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 06:15:25 AM
TWO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN IN HAMILTON, RIGHT ON THE BEACH:
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/198/487755017_a114c05e50.jpg)
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/232/487726854_181aa457da.jpg)
What part of Toronto?  Where are some of Toronto's recognizable buildings?  There are plenty of locations along the shore much closer that those could be.

Quote from: sandokhan on July 23, 2014, 07:24:27 AM
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/lakeontario53_zps743773f9.jpg)
Another taken from a high elevation.

Viewing distant objects from any sort of elevation greatly reduces the amount of obstruction Earth's curvature will have.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 23, 2014, 02:52:47 PM
The photos are seemingly from her ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENA (http://www.weatherandsky.com/p142649993) page.  The last one, at least, is apparently showing a mirage.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: sokarul on July 23, 2014, 03:05:29 PM
Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 23, 2014, 02:52:47 PM
The photos are seemingly from her ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENA (http://www.weatherandsky.com/p142649993) page.  The last one, at least, is apparently showing a mirage.
Fe'ers like to post pictures of mirages to claim great distances can be seen.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: 29silhouette on July 23, 2014, 06:33:43 PM
I'd still love to see actual imagery or video of restoration that some claim.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: tappet on July 23, 2014, 11:08:16 PM
Quote from: ausGeoff on July 23, 2014, 01:38:23 AM

A Fata Morgana is an unusual and complex form of superior mirage that is seen in a narrow band right above the horizon...


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Fada_morgana_graphnn.JPG)


—You're welcome.
If certain air conditions can make a boat fly, then maybe different ones can make a boat sink. ;)
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on July 24, 2014, 12:25:55 AM
Quote from: tappet on July 23, 2014, 11:08:16 PM
If certain air conditions can make a boat fly, then maybe different ones can make a boat sink. ;)
Innuendo is not an argument.  What conditions do you think will cause the boat to appear to sink?
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: tappet on July 24, 2014, 02:02:09 AM
Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 24, 2014, 12:25:55 AM
Quote from: tappet on July 23, 2014, 11:08:16 PM
If certain air conditions can make a boat fly, then maybe different ones can make a boat sink. ;)
  What conditions do you think will cause the boat to appear to sink?
I don't know.
How about you explain to me why you are happy to believe certain air conditions can make a boat rise, but you do not believe certain air conditions can make a boat appear to sink.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: Goth on July 24, 2014, 02:21:33 AM
Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 24, 2014, 12:25:55 AM
Quote from: tappet on July 23, 2014, 11:08:16 PM
If certain air conditions can make a boat fly, then maybe different ones can make a boat sink. ;)
Innuendo is not an argument.  What conditions do you think will cause the boat to appear to sink?


(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/45251477.jpg)
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: rottingroom on July 24, 2014, 06:16:40 AM
Quote from: tappet on July 24, 2014, 02:02:09 AM
Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 24, 2014, 12:25:55 AM
Quote from: tappet on July 23, 2014, 11:08:16 PM
If certain air conditions can make a boat fly, then maybe different ones can make a boat sink. ;)
  What conditions do you think will cause the boat to appear to sink?
I don't know.
How about you explain to me why you are happy to believe certain air conditions can make a boat rise, but you do not believe certain air conditions can make a boat appear to sink.

From this thread, I already linked to my thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61771.0#.U9EDS7FjWmw) where this was demonstrated.

Refraction occurs when a subject, such as light, goes from one type of medium into a lighter or denser medium. If it goes from a lighter medium to a denser medium, the light refracts toward the normal (in the atmosphere's case this would be downward), which in turn makes the object we are viewing appear to be higher. On the other hand, if it goes from a denser medium to a lighter medium, the light refract refracts away from the normal (in this atmosphere's case this would be upward), which in turn makes the object we are viewing appear to be lower.

Nevermind the fact that a sinking ship will happen every single time but the earths atmosphere is always denser the lower you go. There are times, on the earths surface, where there can be subrefraction over land because land can heat up and cool down very quickly but this is NOT the case with water. Over water there is ALWAYS a dense duct directly over the waters surface which causes trapping and typically above that exists a super refractive layer of air.

I have empirical proof of this. I launch weather balloons all the time. The air gets less dense the higher you go. I graph these findings and determine just how much refraction occurs and how that refraction will affect the propagation of a radar. In the Navy, surface search radars absolutely depend on utilizing the fact that radars will always perform better there than above the surface. We can see a target that is further away because the target is actually appearing to be higher than it really is, every single time.

The funny thing is, that in all these sinking ship pictures, the ship we are viewing is most likely behind the water obstruction and should not be viewable whatsoever, but because of the properties of water and how water affects the air directly above it, we can see some of the object we intend to view. Thanks to refraction, which again, does work both ways and sometimes can work the opposite way that I've explained here over land, but over water? NEVER.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: ausGeoff on July 24, 2014, 09:10:28 AM
Quote from: tappet on July 24, 2014, 02:02:09 AM

I don't know.
How about you explain to me why you are happy to believe certain air conditions can make a boat rise, but you do not believe certain air conditions can make a boat appear to sink.

There's a lot you "don't know" isn't there?

To address your question:  Whilst it's solely the atmospheric conditions that cause the boat appear to "rise", the state of the atmosphere has nothing to do with the boat "sinking" and/or disappearing into the distance.  That's caused solely by the curved geometry of the earth's surface.

The boat will eventually disappear over the horizon regardless of the humidity, the ground level temperature, upper atmospheric temperature, or with a temperature inversion or the absence of one.

Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: tappet on July 24, 2014, 01:35:27 PM
Quote from: ausGeoff on July 24, 2014, 09:10:28 AM


There's a lot you "don't know" isn't there?

I agree, there is a lot I "don't know"
I put it down to my round earth indoctrination.
Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: ausGeoff on July 25, 2014, 03:46:37 PM
Quote from: tappet on July 24, 2014, 01:35:27 PM

I agree, there is a lot I "don't know"
I put it down to my round earth indoctrination.

To be honest, I'd have to agree that there's a lot I don't know either.  Particularly about astrophysics and quantum mechanics and stuff like that.

Which is why I'm more than happy to accept—at first viewing—the research papers and theories of the scientists who have the intellectual prowess, and the academic qualifications, and the on-job experience who do know about this sort of stuff.  Things like "string theory" are way above my levels of comprehension;  my field was civil and structural engineering, so I know a lot about Newtonian physics, surveying, mechanics, hydraulics, structures etc.

I know a lot of flat earthers use the term "indoctrination" when talking about astrophysics and geophysics and the wider population.  The way you're using the word means to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief, theory or viewpoint.  Are you now going to tell me that every high school science teacher and every university lecturer is teaching from some as-yet undefined partisan or biassed perspective, all over the planet, in thousands of learning institutions?  Seriously?

Can you tell me why that'd be the case?  What particular advantages would you suggest this would give these teachers of the sciences?  Or are you maybe claiming that they'd be earning less money if they taught flat earth "theory", or are being paid more by some secret organisation to only teach round earth theory?

Title: Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
Post by: Rama Set on July 26, 2014, 04:41:58 AM
Our education in science is biased, but it is reasonably biased.