The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: dyno on August 16, 2008, 08:37:03 PM

Title: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on August 16, 2008, 08:37:03 PM
Time of day ~10am Western Australia Time (GMT+8)?
Temp ~ 19celcius
Ground height ~ 1.5 metres including the beach and scope.
Elevation ~ I guess around 4m maybe 6
edit: Target is Rottnest Island from Scarborough Beach. Closest point ~18000m
Ships are unknown

Equipment setup
(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8417/dsc9343002smallhm9.th.jpg) (http://img167.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9343002smallhm9.jpg)

(http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/9329/dsc9346003smallwr1.th.jpg) (http://img411.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9346003smallwr1.jpg)

(http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/4701/dsc9405025smallyd9.th.jpg) (http://img104.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9405025smallyd9.jpg)
Showing the elevated roadway
(http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/2150/dsc9400022smallgt3.th.jpg) (http://img364.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9400022smallgt3.jpg)

Tanker at ground
(http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/9349/dsc9393020smallhg9.th.jpg) (http://img501.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9393020smallhg9.jpg)

Tanker at elevation
(http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/6605/dsc9410028smallkj9.th.jpg) (http://img503.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9410028smallkj9.jpg)

Lighthouse at ground
(http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/8885/dsc9370011smallip4.th.jpg) (http://img242.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9370011smallip4.jpg)

Lighthouse at elevation
(http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/8692/dsc9437038smallkm7.th.jpg) (http://img359.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9437038smallkm7.jpg)

Wind generator at ground
(http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/3346/dsc9377015smallfp3.th.jpg) (http://img296.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9377015smallfp3.jpg)

Wind generator at elevation
(http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9264/dsc9434036smallmk7.th.jpg) (http://img242.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9434036smallmk7.jpg)

Yacht
(http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9896/dsc9395021smallxl1.th.jpg) (http://img515.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9395021smallxl1.jpg)

Comms tower at ground
(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6840/dsc9376014smalljd8.th.jpg) (http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9376014smalljd8.jpg)

Comms tower at elevation
(http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7933/dsc9432035smallib4.th.jpg) (http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9432035smallib4.jpg)

Ship 2 at ground
(http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/1151/dsc9358005smallpc3.th.jpg) (http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg)

Ship 2 at elevation
(http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/892/dsc9409027smalldb7.th.jpg) (http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9409027smalldb7.jpg)


Please discuss. I'd be interested in people's opinions.

Ski, I'd like to hear from you in particular.

I have some more shots of the same things as well. I took enough images to make a stitched mosaic of the island as well i think.
Oh and all the images are available in 3008x2000 pixel RAW format as well if you want them. I don't know where I can upload them though.

EDIT:
cropped image of ships taken with the D70s at 70mm. I didn't have my 300mm lens so it was this then up to the telescope
(http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2606/shipsgk3.th.jpg) (http://img162.imageshack.us/my.php?image=shipsgk3.jpg)

cropped image of the island
(http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/1075/rottnestcropql6.th.jpg) (http://img179.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rottnestcropql6.jpg)
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: narcberry on August 16, 2008, 08:43:56 PM
Another victory for FE!!!
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: oka nieba on August 16, 2008, 08:50:10 PM
A victory for FE?
it just showed that the world is curved due to having to go to an elevation to see the whole thing. . . the ground pics showed that it disappears behind the horizon
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 16, 2008, 08:50:45 PM
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 16, 2008, 09:04:25 PM
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.
The only beding light does is over the curvature of the earth
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 16, 2008, 09:05:56 PM
Time of day ~10am Western Australia Time (GMT+8)?
Temp ~ 19celcius
Ground height ~ 1.5 metres including the beach and scope.
Elevation ~ I guess around 4m maybe 6

Equipment setup
(http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/8417/dsc9343002smallhm9.th.jpg) (http://img167.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9343002smallhm9.jpg)

(http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/9329/dsc9346003smallwr1.th.jpg) (http://img411.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9346003smallwr1.jpg)

(http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/4701/dsc9405025smallyd9.th.jpg) (http://img104.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9405025smallyd9.jpg)
Showing the elevated roadway
(http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/2150/dsc9400022smallgt3.th.jpg) (http://img364.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9400022smallgt3.jpg)

Tanker at ground
(http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/9349/dsc9393020smallhg9.th.jpg) (http://img501.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9393020smallhg9.jpg)

Tanker at elevation
(http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/6605/dsc9410028smallkj9.th.jpg) (http://img503.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9410028smallkj9.jpg)

Lighthouse at ground
(http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/8885/dsc9370011smallip4.th.jpg) (http://img242.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9370011smallip4.jpg)

Lighthouse at elevation
(http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/8692/dsc9437038smallkm7.th.jpg) (http://img359.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9437038smallkm7.jpg)

Wind generator at ground
(http://img296.imageshack.us/img296/3346/dsc9377015smallfp3.th.jpg) (http://img296.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9377015smallfp3.jpg)

Wind generator at elevation
(http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/9264/dsc9434036smallmk7.th.jpg) (http://img242.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9434036smallmk7.jpg)

Yacht
(http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/9896/dsc9395021smallxl1.th.jpg) (http://img515.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9395021smallxl1.jpg)

Comms tower at ground
(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/6840/dsc9376014smalljd8.th.jpg) (http://img232.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9376014smalljd8.jpg)

Comms tower at elevation
(http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7933/dsc9432035smallib4.th.jpg) (http://img526.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9432035smallib4.jpg)

Ship 2 at ground
(http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/1151/dsc9358005smallpc3.th.jpg) (http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg)

Ship 2 at elevation
(http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/892/dsc9409027smalldb7.th.jpg) (http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9409027smalldb7.jpg)


Please discuss. I'd be interested in peoples opinions.

Ski, I'd like to hear from you in particular.


Using your ETX-125 near a ocans beach isnt a good idea. Salt particles can get on your corrector plate and eat away at the coatings on the lens.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 09:07:21 PM
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.
Now I thought You had performed this experiment yourself and got different results, so how can you say that light bends upwards?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 09:09:15 PM
And Dyno, Bravo on completing the experiment.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on August 16, 2008, 09:13:34 PM
I believe light would have significant issues bending that far at an elevation of 20-50metres above sea level.

How do these results compare with Rowbotham?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: oka nieba on August 16, 2008, 09:16:48 PM
Light doesnt bend. it is against the laws of physics which were basically written before anyone would even have the right mind to make a "conspiracy"

actually it was known before people even grasped the idea that the earth was round. . .

light can only turn after reflecting, even then its not turning, it is changing angles
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 16, 2008, 09:22:38 PM
Why do people quoe Rowbotham as a god when his experiments have been dsproven. and light DOES ben Oka Nieba, it bends over the curve of the Earth. Also  light from other stars is bent by gravity of other stars as it travels to Earth, as  discovered by Einstein. light does bend, light easily bends as it has no mass.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: oka nieba on August 16, 2008, 09:31:29 PM
Sorry for that. slip up, there are circumstances where it does bend. but it bends with the curve not upwards
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 16, 2008, 09:45:53 PM
yep. the Only way to bend light straight up or down is with a prism.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 16, 2008, 09:47:31 PM
Sorry for that. slip up, there are circumstances where it does bend. but it bends with the curve not upwards
It can curve up, light will always look for the path of least resistance and since it is a hight pressure closer to ground light will tend to curve up
but it will curve in a very predictable manner so I doubt that that is the case here. and also if Rowbotham did indeed do these experiments then it would stand to show that he must have falsified the results either because the earth is round, or the light bent.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: oka nieba on August 16, 2008, 09:47:43 PM
yep. the Only way to bend light straight up or down is with a prism.

thank you...

its like chess... i know their next move so ill answer for them

No particles in the atmosphere dont bend light up, it destorts it barely but in all random directions which is why it is blurry on the horizon
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 09:49:41 PM
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.

GIVE IT UP.  You have no proof for bending light. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 16, 2008, 09:51:29 PM
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.

GIVE IT UP.  You have no proof for bending light. 

Light bends, just now how FE'ers say it does. EInstein and others showed that light bends long ago.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Logic hopeful on August 16, 2008, 10:25:24 PM
Nicely taken photographs there.  You took them all zoomed in as far as possible I am assuming.

The only thing that would make this experiment a little more complete would be if you included the zoomed-out shots as well, something to use as a control you know?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 16, 2008, 10:26:48 PM
Quote
GIVE IT UP.  You have no proof for bending light.

We can clearly wee more of the ship's hull when we increase our altitude. This is evidence that light bends upwards.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 16, 2008, 10:27:48 PM
Quote
GIVE IT UP.  You have no proof for bending light.

We can clearly wee more of the ship's hull when we increase our altitude. This is evidence that light bends upwards.
Or real physics. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: oka nieba on August 16, 2008, 10:33:35 PM
The bending light light theory  (Bedford Levels Experiment) purportedly shows that in practice light curves upward from the ground at about 6 inches per mile traveled. Normally you would not notice this effect. Over long distances, light rays passing through the atmosphere bend gradually away from the earth and up into the sky, giving the appearance of a "horizon" beyond which objects are no longer visible.

So the theory goes that when looking down at the flat Earth we see what appears to be a round Earth because the light is being bent to make it appear that way.

This may actually be true. It doesn't matter because it has a negligible difference when you're looking at the earth from a satellite in geostationary orbit. GEOS satellites are around 22,000 to 25,000 miles above the Earth. The Earth's atmosphere is only about 25 miles thick. If light bends 6 inches for every mile that means the light passing from the earth to my eye will bend about 12.5 feet. I don't care which way the light is bending, 12.5 feet of offset on a 22,000 mile line of sight is going to do nothing.

Sure they say, but that is assuming you are looking straight down onto the Earth. At the edges, you are looking through more atmosphere.

Fine. So let's assume the atmosphere was 8,000 miles thick. That's the equivalent of the entire planet being made of atmosphere and this would still only calculate out to just under a mile (4,000 feet) of offset.
 
The wheels of science grind slow, but they grind exceeding fine.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: oka nieba on August 16, 2008, 10:53:58 PM
hmm... why is it that every time i reply with solid evedence the earth is a sphere all the FE folks STFU???
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Stabler12 on August 17, 2008, 12:14:50 AM
That's what I'd like to know....
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Stabler12 on August 17, 2008, 01:06:33 AM
still waiting...
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 01:30:30 AM
Nice experiment. But you should have taken some pics on ships even further away. All the ships where at horizon when at the beach.. It would be nice with pics of ships beyond the horizon, just the very tops showing at first. I know how it looks, Ive seen it many times myself, but I havent got the equipment for good photos.

The pics on islands, lighthouses etc gets the point across though.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 01:36:43 AM
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.

This quote seems to be further evidence that Tom rather invents his own theories to fit his believes, than believing his own senses.

The signs of a lunatic.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Stabler12 on August 17, 2008, 01:39:00 AM
Yup.  If anyone ever goes to Southern California, visit Huntington Beach.  Catalina can be seen..about 28 miles away.  No matter how powerful the gear is that you use, you can't see Avalon Harbor.  Because it is below the horizon.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 17, 2008, 01:43:13 AM
...Tanker at ground
(http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/9349/dsc9393020smallhg9.th.jpg) (http://img501.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9393020smallhg9.jpg)

I think the interesting part of this picture is the sail boat to the right of the bulker Progress II's bow.  According to ENaG, and other FE literature, the hull of the sail boat should have been brought back into view.  I can clearly see the sails and the magnification is great enough that I can make out the mast.  Since a structure as small as the mast is visible, I should be able to make out the hull since it is larger.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Stabler12 on August 17, 2008, 01:46:27 AM
I agree...and given the clarity of the picture, atmospheric haze has to be ruled out.  Gotta be a curve..
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 02:16:57 AM
Yup.  If anyone ever goes to Southern California, visit Huntington Beach.  Catalina can be seen..about 28 miles away.  No matter how powerful the gear is that you use, you can't see Avalon Harbor.  Because it is below the horizon.

Yes, because the light coming from it bends upwards.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 17, 2008, 02:18:40 AM
Yup.  If anyone ever goes to Southern California, visit Huntington Beach.  Catalina can be seen..about 28 miles away.  No matter how powerful the gear is that you use, you can't see Avalon Harbor.  Because it is below the horizon.

Yes, because the light coming from it bends upwards.

If he earth was flat there would be no need for light to bend. It would just be a straight shot.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Stabler12 on August 17, 2008, 02:21:27 AM
The bending light light theory  (Bedford Levels Experiment) purportedly shows that in practice light curves upward from the ground at about 6 inches per mile traveled. Normally you would not notice this effect. Over long distances, light rays passing through the atmosphere bend gradually away from the earth and up into the sky, giving the appearance of a "horizon" beyond which objects are no longer visible.

So the theory goes that when looking down at the flat Earth we see what appears to be a round Earth because the light is being bent to make it appear that way.

This may actually be true. It doesn't matter because it has a negligible difference when you're looking at the earth from a satellite in geostationary orbit. GEOS satellites are around 22,000 to 25,000 miles above the Earth. The Earth's atmosphere is only about 25 miles thick. If light bends 6 inches for every mile that means the light passing from the earth to my eye will bend about 12.5 feet. I don't care which way the light is bending, 12.5 feet of offset on a 22,000 mile line of sight is going to do nothing.

Sure they say, but that is assuming you are looking straight down onto the Earth. At the edges, you are looking through more atmosphere.

Fine. So let's assume the atmosphere was 8,000 miles thick. That's the equivalent of the entire planet being made of atmosphere and this would still only calculate out to just under a mile (4,000 feet) of offset.
 
The wheels of science grind slow, but they grind exceeding fine.
 

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 02:40:20 AM
If he earth was flat there would be no need for light to bend. It would just be a straight shot.

Except that the observations tell us otherwise.

My hypothesis regarding the Electromagnetic Accelerator (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21912.0) is that light bends upwards in a parabolic arc, which over short distances for horizontal light will very closely resemble the expected secant curve in RET.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 02:42:05 AM
If he earth was flat there would be no need for light to bend. It would just be a straight shot.

Except that the observations tell us otherwise.

My hypothesis regarding the Electromagnetic Accelerator (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21912.0) is that light bends upwards in a parabolic arc, which over short distances for horizontal light will very closely resemble the expected secant curve in RET.
the only problem here is that there is no observational evidence to support this
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Stabler12 on August 17, 2008, 02:48:04 AM
Verticle light does a 180?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 02:50:29 AM
the only problem here is that there is no observational evidence to support this

Yes there is. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg453220#msg453220)

Verticle light does a 180?

Vertical light is unaffected by the EA. Any light coming downwards that is almost, but not quite vertical, will indeed turn around and go back the other way.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 02:55:27 AM
the only problem here is that there is no observational evidence to support this

Yes there is. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.msg453220#msg453220)

Verticle light does a 180?

Vertical light is unaffected by the EA. Any light coming downwards that is almost, but not quite vertical, will indeed turn around and go back the other way.
Why is it seamless? if there are area that we can not see should they not be black areas? of an empty gap with sky in it or even water from a different part of the ocean
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 02:56:33 AM
Why is it seamless? if there are area that we can not see should they not be black areas? of an empty gap with sky in it or even water from a different part of the ocean

That is like asking why a Round Earth is seamless since we can't see the other side of it.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 02:57:46 AM
Why is it seamless? if there are area that we can not see should they not be black areas? of an empty gap with sky in it or even water from a different part of the ocean

That is like asking why a Round Earth is seamless since we can't see the other side of it.
???

It is seamless beacause the rest of the ship is below the horizon. there was not a chunk of light taken out of it
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Stabler12 on August 17, 2008, 03:03:52 AM
I'm confused..possibly in syntax.  As far as I am able to tell, an EA is a construct.  where did it come from before we built it?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 03:10:15 AM
That is like asking why a Round Earth is seamless since we can't see the other side of it.
???

It is seamless beacause the rest of the ship is below the horizon. there was not a chunk of light taken out of it

Chunks of light are not being taken out of anything in either model.

I'm confused..possibly in syntax.  As far as I am able to tell, an EA is a construct.  where did it come from before we built it?

It was created to explain observations such as those documented in this thread.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 03:19:22 AM
For the ones having FE arguing as hobby, the more complicated far-fetched explanations are preffered before the simpler one.

If the closer simpler answer would be chosen, it wouldn't be fun or time consuming.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Stabler12 on August 17, 2008, 03:27:19 AM
By the way, I've read your post about EA...have you had it checked out by a nuteral party yet, or is it still a work in progress?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 04:07:51 AM
By the way, I've read your post about EA...have you had it checked out by a nuteral party yet, or is it still a work in progress?

It's still very much a work in progress.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 17, 2008, 04:34:11 AM
By the way, I've read your post about EA...have you had it checked out by a nuteral party yet, or is it still a work in progress?

There have been numerous experiments that rely on the ability for light to move in a straight line (no deflection by this concept of EA), that have failed to detect this effect.

Here is a link to just one of them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO)

The shortest arm of this detector is 2.5 km (over one mile), so this effect should have been noticeable.  As the article points out, a beam of light is split, makes 75 trips through the 4 km of the apparatus and then are recombined.

Since this effect is supposed to be measurable over a much shorter distance than the 300 km that each segment of this beam of light travels, I would say that this "EA effect" does not exist.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 04:39:09 AM
There have been numerous experiments that rely on the ability for light to move in a straight line (no deflection by this concept of EA), that have failed to detect this effect.

Here is a link to just one of them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO)

The shortest arm of this detector is 2.5 km (over one mile), so this effect should have been noticeable.  As the article points out, a beam of light is split, makes 75 trips through the 4 km of the apparatus and then are recombined.

Since this effect is supposed to be measurable over a much shorter distance than the 300 km that each segment of this beam of light travels, I would say that this "EA effect" does not exist.

Of course, that structure would have been built assuming the surface on which it stands is curved.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 17, 2008, 04:45:05 AM
Its funny how the FE'ers now quote Steves EA theory as if its fact when its something he literally thought of of a few days ago and no science or experimentation has been done to verify it.
yet so many FE'ers use it as a refrence/
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 04:48:12 AM
Its funny how the FE'ers now quote Steves EA theory as if its fact when its something he literally thought of of a few days ago and no science or experimentation has been done to verify it.
yet so many FE'ers use it as a refrence/

And you say you know for a fact that the Earth is round. I think we're even.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: interstellarsphere on August 17, 2008, 04:51:44 AM
Its funny how the FE'ers now quote Steves EA theory as if its fact when its something he literally thought of of a few days ago and no science or experimentation has been done to verify it.
yet so many FE'ers use it as a refrence/

And you say you know for a fact that the Earth is round. I think we're even.

Earth's spherical shape has been proven but when ever you FE'ers see evidence of a round Earth you just dismiss it all as a conspiracy without any proof what so ever of a conpiracy.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 04:55:59 AM
Earth's spherical shape has been proven

Repeating it won't make it true.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 17, 2008, 04:57:59 AM
Of course, that structure would have been built assuming the surface on which it stands is curved.

The structure being built to account for the curved shape of the surface of the Earth is easy.  That is simple engineering.

How do you make the experiment compensate for "bendy" light?

How do you make light being continually deflected in a constant direction repeatedly bounce between two fixed points?  The amount of deflection would be in the order of thousands of feet over the path of 300 km travel.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 04:59:47 AM
The structure being built to account for the curved shape of the surface of the Earth is easy.  That is simple engineering.

How do you make the experiment compensate for "bendy" light?

How do you make light being continually deflected in a constant direction repeatedly bounce between two fixed points?  The amount of deflection would be in the order of thousands of feet over the path of 300 km travel.

If the Earth's curvature has been accounted for and the Earth is really flat, then the structure itself will be in the shape of a secant curve with upwards concavity. The parabolic path the light takes will be such a close approximation to this curve that any discrepancy will be immeasurable.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 05:57:00 AM
Its funny how the FE'ers now quote Steves EA theory as if its fact when its something he literally thought of of a few days ago and no science or experimentation has been done to verify it.
yet so many FE'ers use it as a refrence/

There is another theory to explain the phenomena: the earth is spherical.

But that one is more boring...
;)
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 17, 2008, 06:11:46 AM
If the Earth's curvature has been accounted for and the Earth is really flat, then the structure itself will be in the shape of a secant curve with upwards concavity. The parabolic path the light takes will be such a close approximation to this curve that any discrepancy will be immeasurable.

But this doesn't account for being able to recombine two curved light sources into a single coherent light source.  Because the two apparatus are offset by 90, you would see a phase difference.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 06:19:27 AM
But this doesn't account for being able to recombine two curved light sources into a single coherent light source.  Because the two apparatus are offset by 90, you would see a phase difference.

Not if the curvature is only vertical.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 06:34:18 AM
Have we come to the conclusion that the FE explanation to the outcome of this experiment is that light is being bent?

Can someone explain in very simple terms how?

Add to FAQ even?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 06:50:17 AM
Have we come to the conclusion that the FE explanation to the outcome of this experiment is that light is being bent?

Can someone explain in very simple terms how?

Add to FAQ even?

Dark energy. It affects light in a different way to ordinary matter, accelerating it faster. In addition, light is not shielded from it by the Earth in the same way that matter is.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 17, 2008, 06:58:04 AM
Have we come to the conclusion that the FE explanation to the outcome of this experiment is that light is being bent?

That is their assertion, but it is wrong.

Even a simple set-up, something that will fit on a table, would demonstrate the presence of "bendy" light.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Michelson-Morley_experiment_%28en%29.svg/400px-Michelson-Morley_experiment_%28en%29.svg.png)

As you rotated the experiment in the vertical axis, the interference pattern would be changed by the "bend" of the light waves.  Since this is not observed, there is no bend in light waves.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 06:58:56 AM
Have we come to the conclusion that the FE explanation to the outcome of this experiment is that light is being bent?

Can someone explain in very simple terms how?

Add to FAQ even?

Dark energy. It affects light in a different way to ordinary matter, accelerating it faster. In addition, light is not shielded from it by the Earth in the same way that matter is.

Ok. Got it.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 08:25:36 AM
To end that stupid bending light theory I made a crappy ms paint.

(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/feslight.jpg)
As you can see, panel 3 would disappear followed by 2 and then 1.  This would lead a boat to disappear sail first. This is not observed in the pictures. 
So give up on the stupid bending light theory already. 

Thank you dyno for taking it upon yourself to do an experiment.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 09:04:34 AM
If light is bent, shouldn't it only effect the distance to the horizon? Not if a ship/lighthouse/sun is going below/beyond the horizon?
Surely, if the light from the ships hull is bent, the water adjacent to it should also?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 17, 2008, 09:06:07 AM
To end that stupid bending light theory I made a crappy ms paint.

(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/feslight.jpg)
As you can see, panel 3 would disappear followed by 2 and then 1.  This would lead a boat to disappear sail first. This is not observed in the pictures. 
So give up on the stupid bending light theory already. 

Thank you dyno for taking it upon yourself to do an experiment.

hmm, afraid you are not quite right there...  
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 09:08:17 AM
Feel free to edit it. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 17, 2008, 09:19:09 AM
(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5475/liteul6.jpg)
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 09:33:33 AM
(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5475/liteul6.jpg)

So light can:
Go through the ground
Be effected by this magical light bending force unequally

My picture may of been drawn wrong, but bending light still leads to the top disappearing first. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: divito the truthist on August 17, 2008, 09:39:40 AM
It doesn't go through the ground lol. I think what he was showcasing is the light's path, thus at a certain point, the bottom would disappear first.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 09:42:17 AM
It doesn't go through the ground lol. I think what he was showcasing is the light's path, thus at a certain point, the bottom would disappear first.

Doesn't matter, the pic is still wrong. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 17, 2008, 09:52:01 AM
This bending light model would require the sun to be 3963 miles away from the closet point (at equinox this would be noon at the equator), and 25215.3 miles from the furthest point where is is visible, that means the area of light would have to be a huge perfect circle with a diameter of 12451 miles.  At equinox, this would be centred on the equator, and so it would look like this:  
(http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/2337/bendlightmapjw7.jpg)

However if you were to actually map night and day at equinox, it would have to look like this to account for real sunset/rise times:
(http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/8805/equiuw3.jpg)


Can FEers explain this difference?  



If you want to know How I did my calculations, I simply rearanged calculations of hte earths size for a curved earth and straight light to the opposite, then you see the measurement for the radius of hte earth becomes the distance to the sun and it's all simple from there on.  

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: FELUNATIC on August 17, 2008, 09:54:58 AM
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.

Upward? The light would have to bend downward to achieve the same effect.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 17, 2008, 09:56:06 AM
(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5475/liteul6.jpg)

So light can:
Go through the ground
Be effected by this magical light bending force unequally

My picture may of been drawn wrong, but bending light still leads to the top disappearing first. 

The light transecting the ground, is so you can see where the light would be blocked, and all those curves are Identical, notice they are the same curve pasted on each time, your pic was wrong because it shows the light coming out at a line horizontal to the ground only, you need to draw the line from whatever angle leads to the eye.  Remember light leaves the object at every angle.  

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 17, 2008, 09:56:57 AM
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.

Upward? The light would have to bend downward to achieve the same effect.

No, to make a curved earth look flat it would bend downwards. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 10:09:53 AM
Doesn't matter, the pic is still wrong. 

A lack of comprehension on your part is not the same thing as objective inaccuracy.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 10:13:14 AM
Doesn't matter, the pic is still wrong. 

A lack of comprehension on your part is not the same thing as objective inaccuracy.
lol

If that pic is right, then climbing a hill will not allow for more of the object to be seen. 

Think before you speak, tool. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 10:24:11 AM
lol

If that pic is right, then climbing a hill will not allow for more of the object to be seen. 

Think before you speak, tool. 

Why not?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 10:35:12 AM
lol

If that pic is right, then climbing a hill will not allow for more of the object to be seen. 

Think before you speak, tool. 

Why not?

wow, and you claim my comprehension sucks.

In the pic, the light hits the earth.  Thus it cannot be seen, by anyone.  My pic accounts for more of the object to be seen as one climes a hill. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 10:38:02 AM
wow, and you claim my comprehension sucks.

In the pic, the light hits the earth.  Thus it cannot be seen, by anyone.  My pic accounts for more of the object to be seen as one climes a hill. 

If you are looking at a laser, then yes. Ships and other objects that one would commonly observe in this context tend to reflect light in more than one direction, however.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: FELUNATIC on August 17, 2008, 10:48:56 AM
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.

Upward? The light would have to bend downward to achieve the same effect.

No, to make a curved earth look flat it would bend downwards. 
Round earth follows a downward curve, it would be more then normal that you would need downward bending light to achieve the same effect on a flat earth.


Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 10:55:30 AM
Round earth follows a downward curve, it would be more then normal that you would need downward bending light to achieve the same effect on a flat earth.

You are dumb and post dumb things.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 17, 2008, 10:55:38 AM
If you are looking at a laser, then yes. Ships and other objects that one would commonly observe in this context tend to reflect light in more than one direction, however.

What does it matter whether it is a laser or reflected light?  Shouldn't all light be equally effected?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 11:00:41 AM
What does it matter whether it is a laser or reflected light?

It matters because lasers are unidirectional.

Shouldn't all light be equally effected?

Yes.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 17, 2008, 11:02:19 AM
Doesn't matter, the pic is still wrong. 

A lack of comprehension on your part is not the same thing as objective inaccuracy.
lol

If that pic is right, then climbing a hill will not allow for more of the object to be seen. 

Think before you speak, tool. 

It is you who are the tool:

Same lines, same curve.  

(http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/4583/liteonboxbl8.jpg)

Seriously, the curved light on a flat earth model produces the exact same horizon effects as straight light on a curved earth.  the problem with it is the experiment someone posted further up, and the daylight map I posted further up.  

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 11:02:47 AM
(http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5475/liteul6.jpg)

That is some awesome bending power!
It moves around with every individual viewer and object?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 11:03:54 AM
That is some awesome bending power!
It moves around with every individual viewer and object?

No, it is constant. You just don't have the brain power to understand it.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 17, 2008, 11:11:59 AM
At what altitude would the light rays be moving vertically?  It seems like at that point, I could see the light emitted, or reflected, off the side of the object by looking straight down.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 11:13:23 AM
Doesn't matter, the pic is still wrong. 

A lack of comprehension on your part is not the same thing as objective inaccuracy.
lol

If that pic is right, then climbing a hill will not allow for more of the object to be seen. 

Think before you speak, tool. 

It is you who are the tool:

Same lines, same curve.  

(http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/4583/liteonboxbl8.jpg)

Seriously, the curved light on a flat earth model produces the exact same horizon effects as straight light on a curved earth.  the problem with it is the experiment someone posted further up, and the daylight map I posted further up.  



Light doesn't travel straight on a curved earth.  

Also you still haven't addressed the issue with your light bending not uniformly.  
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 11:14:11 AM
At what altitude would the light rays be moving vertically?  It seems like at that point, I could see the light emitted, or reflected, off the side of the object by looking straight down.

Never. The force on the light ray perpendicular to the direction of its velocity approaches zero as does the acute angle between its velocity vector and the direction in which dark energy acts.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 17, 2008, 11:14:26 AM
That is some awesome bending power!
It moves around with every individual viewer and object?

OMG STRAIGHT LIGHT MOVES ABOUT WITH EVERY INDIVIDUAL VIEWER AND OBJECT!!!!!!
(http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/8394/lollitedk8.jpg)
Think b4 you open ur mouth!
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 11:14:47 AM
Also you still haven't addressed the issue with your light bending not uniformly.  

It does bend uniformly.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 11:15:52 AM
That is some awesome bending power!
It moves around with every individual viewer and object?

No, it is constant. You just don't have the brain power to understand it.

Probably not. Can you please explain?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 17, 2008, 11:17:06 AM


Light doesn't travel straight on a curved earth.  

Also you still haven't addressed the issue with your light bending not uniformly.  


Look at the image.  The line is the EXACT SAME LINE, I cut n pasted into different positions, the lines are identical. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 11:18:03 AM
Probably not. Can you please explain?

The light will be bent in the same way regardless of whether there is an observer there or not. It just so happens that you don't observe it unless you are observing it, needless to say.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 11:19:17 AM
"The bend" does (according to wikipedia) "move" around in RE. It is where the horizon is.
Thats the difference.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 11:21:00 AM
In the picture, the light from block one starts higher and ends lower, while the light from block three starts lower and ends higher, this is no uniform.   
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 11:22:01 AM
Jesus Christ. I'm leaving this thread before I lose any more IQ points.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 11:24:28 AM
Probably not. Can you please explain?

The light will be bent in the same way regardless of whether there is an observer there or not. It just so happens that you don't observe it unless you are observing it, needless to say.

I get that it bends even when not observed.
What I dont get is that it bends in an arc, the bottom of the arc is halfway between observer and object.
On RE the light bends at horizon. The horizon on FE doesnt work the same way, since it isnt curved. Its a diminishing of perspective lines. Sort of.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 11:26:16 AM
What I dont get is that it bends in an arc, the bottom of the arc is halfway between observer and object.

Only in the special case where they are at the same altitude.

On RE the light bends at horizon. The horizon on FE doesnt work the same way, since it isnt curved. Its a diminishing of perspective lines. Sort of.

That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 11:27:43 AM
Jesus Christ. I'm leaving this thread before I lose any more IQ points.
We get it, the bending light theory cannot explain anything. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 11:29:43 AM
We get it, the bending light theory cannot explain anything. 

It can, if you understand what a parabola looks like.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 11:39:03 AM
We get it, the bending light theory cannot explain anything. 

It can, if you understand what a parabola looks like.

I know what they look like.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 17, 2008, 11:39:32 AM
Jesus Christ. I'm leaving this thread before I lose any more IQ points.
We get it, the bending light theory cannot explain anything. 

Pls draw a diagram of what you think happens to light on a round earth, draw it really round and show the same 123 tower going beneath the horizon.  

I will draw a diagram of hte same thing and we will compare.  Ok?

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 11:40:16 AM
I know what they look like.

Then we are in agreement that the EA explains the Sinking Ship effect?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 11:40:48 AM
Jesus Christ. I'm leaving this thread before I lose any more IQ points.
We get it, the bending light theory cannot explain anything. 

Pls draw a diagram of what you think happens to light on a round earth, draw it really round and show the same 123 tower going beneath the horizon.  

I will draw a diagram of hte same thing and we will compare.  Ok?



Ok, would you like it in a vacuum or in the atmosphere? 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 17, 2008, 11:42:24 AM
Jesus Christ. I'm leaving this thread before I lose any more IQ points.
We get it, the bending light theory cannot explain anything. 

Pls draw a diagram of what you think happens to light on a round earth, draw it really round and show the same 123 tower going beneath the horizon.  

I will draw a diagram of hte same thing and we will compare.  Ok?



Ok, would you like it in a vacuum or in the atmosphere? 

Just draw what I see when I look at hte horizon. 

Atmospheric effects should be insignificant. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: FELUNATIC on August 17, 2008, 11:48:45 AM
Round earth follows a downward curve, it would be more then normal that you would need downward bending light to achieve the same effect on a flat earth.

You are dumb and post dumb things.

this forum is dumb, for starters the figure you agree with is both upward and downward.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 11:54:19 AM
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/bend.jpg)

The light is bent downwards ever so slightly.  The atmosphere helps to "bend" the light more.  I will draw another pic with the earth actually being round. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 11:55:13 AM
this forum is dumb, for starters the figure you agree with is both upward and downward.

No. Light bends upwards only.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: FELUNATIC on August 17, 2008, 12:01:40 PM
this forum is dumb, for starters the figure you agree with is both upward and downward.

No. Light bends upwards only.
Sigh, so basically it represents  1/x according to you. Or you don't get it.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 12:04:53 PM
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/anotherpic.jpg)

The light from the lowest block cannot be seen because it hits the earth.   The red line is the light that can be seen from the lowest block.  The guy will have to clime up to be able to see the light.  He cannot see it from his current location because the light can only curve so much. 


Obviously this is not drawn to scale.  The curvature of light is due to the atmosphere mostly.  The light bent from gravitation would not be noticeable.  Also, if you loomed in on the bent light, its actually made up of stright lines. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 17, 2008, 12:09:40 PM
so the guy has an eye in his knee to see the 2nd bock?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 12:11:01 PM
so the guy has an eye in his knee to see the 2nd bock?
No, but he could still see the second block.  Where is your pic?  I don't want you cheating off mine. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 12:19:49 PM
Sigh, so basically it represents  1/x according to you. Or you don't get it.

No, I believe it is you who does not get it.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 12:26:45 PM
On RE the light bends at horizon. The horizon on FE doesnt work the same way, since it isnt curved. Its a diminishing of perspective lines. Sort of.
That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Note that Im NOT saying that you dont understand because you are stupid. Instead Im being more mature and will try to explain what I mean.

On RE, light is being bent due to refraction in atmosphere at the horizon. And that is possible because the horizon is not a fixed place.

Your light on the other hand bends because of dark matter. I can understand that fex in space, if light goes near dark matter, it will bend and alter course. Thats how black holes have been "seen" right?

So, where is that dark matter? It must be strictly above us, right? Or, it is many sources which together have a centre of balance that is straight above us.

Where is that centre of balance of the dark matter? I bet theres a real word for that.. Centre of gravitation?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 12:31:36 PM
Note that Im NOT saying that you dont understand because you are stupid. Instead Im being more mature and will try to explain what I mean.

On RE, light is being bent due to refraction in atmosphere at the horizon. And that is possible because the horizon is not a fixed place.

Your light on the other hand bends because of dark matter. I can understand that fex in space, if light goes near dark matter, it will bend and alter course. Thats how black holes have been "seen" right?

So, where is that dark matter? It must be strictly above us, right? Or, it is many sources which together have a centre of balance that is straight above us.

Where is that centre of balance of the dark matter? I bet theres a real word for that.. Centre of gravitation?

Not dark matter, dark energy. It is not a gravitational effect, but rather a mechanism that we do not know very much about yet that causes the light to bend upwards. Also, refraction in the atmosphere is irrelevant to the Sinking Ship effect.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 17, 2008, 12:32:20 PM
(http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/5272/redheadandgreenheadle2.jpg)

Here's mine, bluehead can't see the bottom, but greenhead can, now the curving of light downwards like you have in yours is actually the explanation for the superior mirage.  

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 12:36:19 PM
(http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/5272/redheadandgreenheadle2.jpg)

Here's mine, bluehead can't see the bottom, but greenhead can, now the curving of light downwards like you have in yours is actually the explanation for the superior mirage.  


Your pic is the same as mine. 
The light is bent ever so slightly; this is why ENAG is flawed.  Obviously my pic has the light bending to much. 

DO NOT LECTURE ME ON MIRAGES.  I know all about them.  You weren't here when Tom and others were claiming mirages proved the earth was flat. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 12:41:10 PM
Note that Im NOT saying that you dont understand because you are stupid. Instead Im being more mature and will try to explain what I mean.

On RE, light is being bent due to refraction in atmosphere at the horizon. And that is possible because the horizon is not a fixed place.

Your light on the other hand bends because of dark matter. I can understand that fex in space, if light goes near dark matter, it will bend and alter course. Thats how black holes have been "seen" right?

So, where is that dark matter? It must be strictly above us, right? Or, it is many sources which together have a centre of balance that is straight above us.

Where is that centre of balance of the dark matter? I bet theres a real word for that.. Centre of gravitation?

Not dark matter, dark energy. It is not a gravitational effect, but rather a mechanism that we do not know very much about yet that causes the light to bend upwards. Also, refraction in the atmosphere is irrelevant to the Sinking Ship effect.

Im happy that you chose to be helpful instead of barging away frustrated.. Maybe this is good for both of us. I can learn about physics etc, and you can learn how to deal with people. :)

Ok. Dark energy it is. Dark energy is powering the acceleration of earth too, right?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 12:41:29 PM
Your pic is the same as mine.

No it isn't. His light rays don't bend around the surface of the planet to collide with the knee of an observer who, if he crouched down to knee level, should not be able to see the source.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 12:43:43 PM
Your pic is the same as mine.

No it isn't. His light rays don't bend around the surface of the planet to collide with the knee of an observer who, if he crouched down to knee level, should not be able to see the source.

I have the light hitting his knee just to show that light bends uniformly.  The yellow light is supposed to be starting parallel to the earth, while the red light does not.  Not all light is parallel to the earth.   
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 12:44:06 PM
Im happy that you chose to be helpful instead of barging away frustrated.. Maybe this is good for both of us. I can learn about physics etc, and you can learn how to deal with people. :)

Ok. Dark energy it is. Dark energy is powering the acceleration of earth too, right?

I only get frustrated when dealing with idiocy. You aren't being idiotic, so there isn't a problem there.

Yes, dark energy is thought to be accelerating the Earth upwards at 9.8 m s-2 in FET. My proposal is that it affects light more strongly than ordinary matter, and also that light is not shielded from it by the Earth as ordinary matter is.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 12:45:15 PM
Not all light is parallel to the earth.

You would have done well to acknowledge this when we were discussing the FE model.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 12:46:37 PM


I only get frustrated when dealing with idiocy. You aren't being idiotic, so there isn't a problem there.

Yes, dark energy is thought to be accelerating the Earth upwards at 9.8 m s-1 in FET. My proposal is that it affects light more strongly than ordinary matter, and also that light is not shielded from it by the Earth as ordinary matter is.

You should fix the error in the bold part, if you can find it. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 12:49:38 PM


I only get frustrated when dealing with idiocy. You aren't being idiotic, so there isn't a problem there.

Yes, dark energy is thought to be accelerating the Earth upwards at 9.8 m s-1 in FET. My proposal is that it affects light more strongly than ordinary matter, and also that light is not shielded from it by the Earth as ordinary matter is.

You should fix the error in the bold part, if you can find it. 

Ah, my mistake. Thank you for pointing that out.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: jdoe on August 17, 2008, 12:51:54 PM
Great pictures dyno!

I'm getting my camera repaired and I should have pictures of my experiment shortly as well.

It seems that these pictures do provide evidence that the earth is round.  Would FE'ers agree with this?  The only other explanation is the EA for FEers, which was just invented a few weeks ago.

Now how do we show whether it is the EA or the earth's convexity which causes this effect?  What experiment can we do to tell the difference?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 12:54:13 PM
Yes, dark energy is thought to be accelerating the Earth upwards at 9.8 m s-1 in FET. My proposal is that it affects light more strongly than ordinary matter, and also that light is not shielded from it by the Earth as ordinary matter is.

Aha. At first I thought you where proposing two different dark energy sources, one that bends light and one that pushes earth. The explanation you gave now makes your proposal make more sense (within your theory): Its the same source, but it has different effect on light and matter..
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 12:58:28 PM
Now how do we show whether it is the EA or the earth's convexity which causes this effect?  What experiment can we do to tell the difference?

Lasers? <- dont know why really, just throwing it in there
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 12:59:35 PM
Yes, dark energy is thought to be accelerating the Earth upwards at 9.8 m s-1 in FET. My proposal is that it affects light more strongly than ordinary matter, and also that light is not shielded from it by the Earth as ordinary matter is.

Aha. At first I thought you where proposing two different dark energy sources, one that bends light and one that pushes earth. The explanation you gave now makes your proposal make more sense (within your theory): Its the same source, but it has different effect on light and matter..

He was, he changed his theory apparently.  
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 01:01:49 PM
Aha. At first I thought you where proposing two different dark energy sources, one that bends light and one that pushes earth. The explanation you gave now makes your proposal make more sense (within your theory): Its the same source, but it has different effect on light and matter..

He was, he changed his theory apparently.  

Thats allowed.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 01:02:16 PM
He was, he changed his theory apparently.  

You misunderstanding what I said does not equate to me changing my theory.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 01:03:32 PM
He was, he changed his theory apparently.  

You misunderstanding what I said does not equate to me changing my theory.

Quote
Basically, I considered a second UA, one that passes through solid objects (so that we are not shielded from it by the Earth), but that only affects electromagnetic radiation.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 01:05:42 PM
He was, he changed his theory apparently.  

You misunderstanding what I said does not equate to me changing my theory.

Seriously, where would we be today if people never could change their minds?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 01:07:38 PM
He was, he changed his theory apparently.  

You misunderstanding what I said does not equate to me changing my theory.

Seriously, where would we be today if people never could change their minds?

People can change their mind, but pulling something out of your ass and then changing it every time you are proven wrong does not count. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: jdoe on August 17, 2008, 01:09:54 PM
Have we come to the conclusion that the FE explanation to the outcome of this experiment is that light is being bent?

That is their assertion, but it is wrong.

Even a simple set-up, something that will fit on a table, would demonstrate the presence of "bendy" light.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Michelson-Morley_experiment_%28en%29.svg/400px-Michelson-Morley_experiment_%28en%29.svg.png)

As you rotated the experiment in the vertical axis, the interference pattern would be changed by the "bend" of the light waves.  Since this is not observed, there is no bend in light waves.

I never saw a response to this.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 01:11:17 PM
People can change their mind, but pulling something out of your ass and then changing it every time you are proven wrong does not count. 

Depends if your goal is to win arguments or not.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 17, 2008, 01:12:31 PM
People can change their mind, but pulling something out of your ass and then changing it every time you are proven wrong does not count. 

Depends if your goal is to win arguments or not.

His theory failed, he needs to come up with a whole new one. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 01:19:24 PM
People can change their mind, but pulling something out of your ass and then changing it every time you are proven wrong does not count. 

Depends if your goal is to win arguments or not.

His theory failed, he needs to come up with a whole new one. 

Ok.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 01:27:15 PM
His theory failed, he needs to come up with a whole new one. 

No. Also, I didn't remember posting that, but apparently I did have a different vision when I first conceived the EA. It is unimportant; the effect is the same.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 02:03:41 PM
His theory failed, he needs to come up with a whole new one. 

No. Also, I didn't remember posting that, but apparently I did have a different vision when I first conceived the EA. It is unimportant; the effect is the same.

Now. How can your theory be tested? Or even better, falsified?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 02:08:29 PM
Now. How can your theory be tested? Or even better, falsified?

I haven't finalised the mathematics behind it yet. Once I have, then I shall be able to answer that.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 02:14:37 PM
I haven't finalised the mathematics behind it yet. Once I have, then I shall be able to answer that.

Do you have a thread for your theory? Ive gone through the first 7 pages and I dont know what to search for..
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 02:16:40 PM
I haven't finalised the mathematics behind it yet. Once I have, then I shall be able to answer that.

Do you have a thread for your theory? Ive gone through the first 7 pages and I dont know what to search for..

Here. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21912.0) I locked it temporarily because people were trolling it.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 17, 2008, 02:53:09 PM
Here. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21912.0) I locked it temporarily because people were trolling it.

*reading*
You should edit it.. Says "second UA" at first. Dont think people read all those posts to see if you changed it later on.
And, illustrations is allways nice.

Another thing. Could your theory work with anything else than FE? If not, one way to falsify your theory is to show that earth is fex round?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 02:57:27 PM
*reading*
You should edit it.. Says "second UA" at first. Dont think people read all those posts to see if you changed it later on.
And, illustrations is allways nice.

Another thing. Could your theory work with anything else than FE? If not, one way to falsify your theory is to show that earth is fex round?

I won't bother editing it. Once I've finished working out the mathematics, I am going to upload a PDF document detailing the specifics of it. Also, it wouldn't have a reason to work outside of FET. It is an attempt to explain the Sinking Ship effect, assuming a flat Earth. Indeed, I have begun to wonder if it might be possible that light is bent in the shape of a secant curve rather than a parabola, such that it is completely indistinguishable from the effect of a round Earth.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 17, 2008, 03:25:01 PM
*reading*
You should edit it.. Says "second UA" at first. Dont think people read all those posts to see if you changed it later on.
And, illustrations is allways nice.

Another thing. Could your theory work with anything else than FE? If not, one way to falsify your theory is to show that earth is fex round?

I won't bother editing it. Once I've finished working out the mathematics, I am going to upload a PDF document detailing the specifics of it. Also, it wouldn't have a reason to work outside of FET. It is an attempt to explain the Sinking Ship effect, assuming a flat Earth. Indeed, I have begun to wonder if it might be possible that light is bent in the shape of a secant curve rather than a parabola, such that it is completely indistinguishable from the effect of a round Earth.

if it wasn't indistinguishable, it would be easy to detect with 3 guys and 3 sticks.  School kids all over hte world would have noticed too. 

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 17, 2008, 03:33:10 PM
if it wasn't indistinguishable, it would be easy to detect with 3 guys and 3 sticks.  School kids all over hte world would have noticed too.

Stop posting.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 17, 2008, 04:00:17 PM
if it wasn't indistinguishable, it would be easy to detect with 3 guys and 3 sticks.  School kids all over hte world would have noticed too.

Stop posting.

You first. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on August 17, 2008, 05:41:11 PM
Disappointing responses from the FE's.

I see a lot of bold statements about theories and mathematics supporting them being "finalised" before release. I've yet to see any of them. Not just talking about Robosteve here.

The most vocal FE proponents seem to have avoided this topic like the plague. I gave plenty of notice about this experiment. I believe I provided quality evidence. Many FEs had strongly held beliefs about exactly what would happen when I whipped out a telescope and pointed it at something on the horizon.
They haven't come to the defense of their earlier beliefs which I see as an acceptance of this new evidence.

I'm not looking for them to convert to RE theory but I would like people to indicate perhaps they have learned something.

And to all those FE's with theories under development;

How about producing? Let's see some evidence of real work on your part. Talk is cheap.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 17, 2008, 07:44:11 PM
Disappointing responses from the FE's.

I see a lot of bold statements about theories and mathematics supporting them being "finalised" before release. I've yet to see any of them. Not just talking about Robosteve here.

The most vocal FE proponents seem to have avoided this topic like the plague. I gave plenty of notice about this experiment. I believe I provided quality evidence. Many FEs had strongly held beliefs about exactly what would happen when I whipped out a telescope and pointed it at something on the horizon.
They haven't come to the defense of their earlier beliefs which I see as an acceptance of this new evidence.

I'm not looking for them to convert to RE theory but I would like people to indicate perhaps they have learned something.

And to all those FE's with theories under development;

How about producing? Let's see some evidence of real work on your part. Talk is cheap.
Well Said
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 18, 2008, 01:28:02 AM
Never. The force on the light ray perpendicular to the direction of its velocity approaches zero as does the acute angle between its velocity vector and the direction in which dark energy acts.

This point where the force would be zero would be when the light was moving in the same direction as the force; vertically.  Eventually, all light would be moving vertically away from the surface of the Earth, unless the light can maintain momentum and turn past vertical, but then there would be a period of sine wave motion as the force acted on either "side" of the light.  Then it would just take longer to reach vertical, but would probably have some interesting visual effects.

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 03:48:15 AM
This point where the force would be zero would be when the light was moving in the same direction as the force; vertically.  Eventually, all light would be moving vertically away from the surface of the Earth, unless the light can maintain momentum and turn past vertical, but then there would be a period of sine wave motion as the force acted on either "side" of the light.  Then it would just take longer to reach vertical, but would probably have some interesting visual effects.

No.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 18, 2008, 04:03:01 AM
No.

Why not?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 18, 2008, 04:06:15 AM
how would light accelerate in any direction except perpendicular to its current direction of motion? 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 18, 2008, 04:13:40 AM
how would light accelerate in any direction except perpendicular to its current direction of motion? 

If this "effect" is "pushing" light in a parabolic curve away from the Earth, that implies that it acts perpendicular to the surface of the Earth.  The light would be eventually moving in the same direction as the deflecting "effect".  In the opposite, light moving straight toward the Earth would be in direct opposition to this effect and would have to lose momentum.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 04:26:54 AM
No.

Why not?

The same reason that no matter how large x gets, x-1 is never zero.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 04:27:29 AM
If this "effect" is "pushing" light in a parabolic curve away from the Earth, that implies that it acts perpendicular to the surface of the Earth.  The light would be eventually moving in the same direction as the deflecting "effect".  In the opposite, light moving straight toward the Earth would be in direct opposition to this effect and would have to lose momentum.

No.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 18, 2008, 04:35:28 AM
No.

You are the king of one word answers today.

Please explain.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 18, 2008, 04:36:30 AM
The same reason that no matter how large x gets, x-1 is never zero.

Can you please explain how that relates?  It doesn't make sense to me.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 05:14:47 AM
You are the king of one word answers today.

Please explain.

The light does not lose or gain any momentum, it simply changes direction. For this reason, vertical light is unaffected and horizontal light is most strongly affected.

Can you please explain how that relates?  It doesn't make sense to me.

Light rays going up get closer and closer to being vertical, but never actually become vertical - unless, of course, they were vertical to begin with.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 18, 2008, 06:28:10 AM
is the acceleration constant in one direction? 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 06:38:24 AM
is the acceleration constant in one direction? 

Obviously not.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 18, 2008, 06:48:22 AM
is the acceleration constant in one direction? 

Obviously not.

So what causes this acceleration?  is it a force applied to light, why does it accelerate the light in a different direction depending on the direction of hte light? 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 06:50:58 AM
So what causes this acceleration?  is it a force applied to light, why does it accelerate the light in a different direction depending on the direction of hte light? 

I answered in another thread.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: lolz at trollz on August 18, 2008, 06:53:32 AM
So what causes this acceleration?  is it a force applied to light, why does it accelerate the light in a different direction depending on the direction of hte light? 

I answered in another thread.
no you didn't!
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 06:57:16 AM
So what causes this acceleration?  is it a force applied to light, why does it accelerate the light in a different direction depending on the direction of hte light? 

I answered in another thread.
no you didn't!

Sigh.

It accelerates it in a different direction depending on its velocity because c is a constant.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 18, 2008, 07:00:02 AM
I answered in another thread.

Link?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 07:02:59 AM
Link?

This is about as much information as I can give at the present time on the matter of the direction in which light bends. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22328.msg455098#msg455098)
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 18, 2008, 07:34:35 AM
Link?

This is about as much information as I can give at the present time on the matter of the direction in which light bends. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22328.msg455098#msg455098)

What's stopping your worthless theory from causing gravitational redshifting? 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 18, 2008, 07:39:50 AM
What's stopping your worthless theory from causing gravitational redshifting? 

If you are going to throw unnecessarily malicious adjectives around, I am not going to answer your questions.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 18, 2008, 07:43:34 AM
What's stopping your worthless theory from causing gravitational redshifting? 

If you are going to throw unnecessarily malicious adjectives around, I am not going to answer your questions.

Because you can't.  I already knew it. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 19, 2008, 01:18:38 AM
ttt
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 19, 2008, 04:41:12 AM
If you are going to throw unnecessarily malicious adjectives around, I am not going to answer your questions.

Please sir, if you would please answer a question.  What's stopping your theory from causing gravitational redshifting?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 04:57:57 AM
Please sir, if you would please answer a question.  What's stopping your theory from causing gravitational redshifting?

The fact that it does not change the amount of energy in each photon.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 19, 2008, 06:39:58 AM
The fact that it does not change the amount of energy in each photon.

Moving a light source doesn't change the energy level, but it still produces a dopplar shift in the frequency.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 19, 2008, 06:59:09 AM
Moving a light source doesn't change the energy level, but it still produces a dopplar shift in the frequency.

The energy of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency. You lose.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 19, 2008, 07:01:41 AM
The energy of a photon is directly proportional to its frequency. You lose.

I stand corrected.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 19, 2008, 11:44:22 PM
It accelerates it in a different direction depending on its velocity because c is a constant.

I thought you said that the direction was always perpendicular to the direction of travel.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 20, 2008, 12:12:09 AM
I thought you said that the direction was always perpendicular to the direction of travel.

Yes. That is what I meant; the direction of acceleration changes depending on the direction of velocity. I did not mean that the relationship between the directions of the velocity and acceleration vectors changes.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 20, 2008, 01:21:20 AM
[Yes. That is what I meant; the direction of acceleration changes depending on the direction of velocity. I did not mean that the relationship between the directions of the velocity and acceleration vectors changes.

How does an effect that always is perpendicular to the direction of motion equal an effect that must act perpendicular to the surface of the Earth?

As I understand that if you graph the vectors, there will be a perpendicular component, but there should also be a component in the parallel correct?

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: holymoly on August 20, 2008, 01:52:13 AM
Why do people quoe Rowbotham as a god when his experiments have been dsproven. and light DOES ben Oka Nieba, it bends over the curve of the Earth. Also  light from other stars is bent by gravity of other stars as it travels to Earth, as  discovered by Einstein. light does bend, light easily bends as it has no mass.

You are partly correct. Light has no rest mass but light is never at rest so it is considered to have mass.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 20, 2008, 12:54:37 PM
How does an effect that always is perpendicular to the direction of motion equal an effect that must act perpendicular to the surface of the Earth?

As I understand that if you graph the vectors, there will be a perpendicular component, but there should also be a component in the parallel correct?

Yes. There is always a component perpendicular to the surface of the Earth (unless the light is vertical), and its direction is always up. If the light is not horizontal or vertical, there is also a component parallel to the surface of the Earth, resulting in a net acceleration perpendicular to the direction of velocity.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 22, 2008, 03:33:14 AM
So based on this "secant curve of light," how distance will a horizontal beam of light be moving vertically, or at least a close approximation of vertically?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 22, 2008, 10:18:51 AM
So based on this "secant curve of light," how distance will a horizontal beam of light be moving vertically, or at least a close approximation of vertically?

It's difficult to infer meaning from sentences that don't make sense, but I shall explain where I get the secant relationship from.

(http://i37.tinypic.com/2iurjnp.png)

We want to find y (the distance of the light ray above ground level) as a function of x (the horizontal distance along the surface of the Earth).

We can easily see that:

x = rθ
cos θ = r / (r + y)

And therefore:

(r + y) / r = sec (x / r)

r + y = r sec (x / r)

y = r sec (x / r) - r

y = r * ( sec (x / r) - 1 )

It is this secant function that the EA approximates over short distances.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 22, 2008, 11:55:34 PM
Sorry, I must have been tireder than I thought when I typed that.  Let me try this again...

So based on this "secant curve of light," at what distance will a horizontal beam of light be deflected so that it is moving vertically, or at least a close approximation of vertical?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 23, 2008, 01:11:13 AM
Sorry, I must have been tireder than I thought when I typed that.  Let me try this again...

So based on this "secant curve of light," at what distance will a horizontal beam of light be deflected so that it is moving vertically, or at least a close approximation of vertical?

Using the above equation:

dy/dx = sec(x/r) * tan(x/r)

dx/dy = cos(x/r) * cot(x/r)

The light will be vertical when dx/dy is 0, which will happen when either cos(x/r)=0 or cot(x/r)=0. Interestingly, these two functions will only ever equal zero at the same time as the other.

The first positive value of x that will result in dx/dy being zero is therefore πr/2, and since r is the radius of the round Earth, this works out to be 10,019 kilometres. Keep in mind that this will mean that light would approach vertical as it approaches this distance.

Of course, if the EA causes light to move in a parabolic arc, it will not resemble the secant curve in this extreme case. Light will approach vertical as the distance approaches infinity if this is so.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 23, 2008, 01:41:14 AM
...The first positive value of x that will result in dx/dy being zero is therefore πr/2, and since r is the radius of the round Earth, this works out to be 10,019 kilometres. Keep in mind that this will mean that light would approach vertical as it approaches this distance.

Right, but we are talking about a Flat Earth here.  No Round Earth mathematics here.

If you are going to continue to refer to a FE, then you won't talk to yourself. ;)

It seems that if light is "bent up" then at altitudes that aren't sea level, you would get in a condition where you would be able to see the sun "in the sky" from the light directly coming from the sun, and then a "second" sun below the horizon where you are seeing the light "bent" back up toward you.

It also seems that this would cause some distortion in the image of the Sun.  Light from the "far" edge of the Sun would be traveling a different distance to the observer's eye than light from the "near" edge of the Sun.

Forgive my ramblings, I am trying to express my "feelings" about what is wrong with this without the necessary words.

Quote
Of course, if the EA causes light to move in a parabolic arc, it will not resemble the secant curve in this extreme case. Light will approach vertical as the distance approaches infinity if this is so.

Yes, I understand that it shouldn't get to be 90, but it could get nearly vertical (>80) before the slope of the distance curve becomes great.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 23, 2008, 02:20:24 AM
Right, but we are talking about a Flat Earth here.  No Round Earth mathematics here.

If you are going to continue to refer to a FE, then you won't talk to yourself. ;)

The secant curve is the relationship between the distance of the light above ground level and the distance travelled along the surface on a Round Earth. The EA is an attempt to explain this effect on a Flat Earth. Therefore, RE mathematics is necessary to explain the behaviour of the secant curve.

It seems that if light is "bent up" then at altitudes that aren't sea level, you would get in a condition where you would be able to see the sun "in the sky" from the light directly coming from the sun, and then a "second" sun below the horizon where you are seeing the light "bent" back up toward you.

No. All light will be bent up, so the only image of the Sun you will see (if you are high enough) is one below you, which explains why at altitude the Sun appears to set behind the horizon, even though the horizon is now beneath you.

It also seems that this would cause some distortion in the image of the Sun.  Light from the "far" edge of the Sun would be traveling a different distance to the observer's eye than light from the "near" edge of the Sun.

Only very slightly. Certainly not enough to be noticeable.

Yes, I understand that it shouldn't get to be 90°, but it could get nearly vertical (>80°) before the slope of the distance curve becomes great.

Using the current (incomplete) model of the EA, horizontal light will reach an angle of 80° once it has moved 36,172 kilometres in the horizontal direction. At this point, the light would be 102,570 kilometres above its starting point.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 23, 2008, 03:50:50 AM
The secant curve is the relationship between the distance of the light above ground level and the distance travelled along the surface on a Round Earth. The EA is an attempt to explain this effect on a Flat Earth. Therefore, RE mathematics is necessary to explain the behaviour of the secant curve.

If you continue to talk about RE as a basis for your argument, they are going to take away those shiny new moderator powers.


Quote
No. All light will be bent up, so the only image of the Sun you will see (if you are high enough) is one below you, which explains why at altitude the Sun appears to set behind the horizon, even though the horizon is now beneath you.

Of course, that implies that all of the light from the sun comes out directly toward the ground.  That is a big assumption.  can you explain the mechanics of how that would work please?



Quote
Only very slightly. Certainly not enough to be noticeable.

Considering the effect is noticeable over short distances, even the 32 mile diameter of the Sun would give sufficient distance for there to be a measurable effect.


Quote
Using the current (incomplete) model of the EA...

I know, so all of those numbers should be treated as pure guesses until that is finished and there is proof to support it.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 23, 2008, 04:18:01 AM
If you continue to talk about RE as a basis for your argument, they are going to take away those shiny new moderator powers.

I am using RET as the basis because it is known that it makes accurate predictions. Therefore, the best way to make FET work correctly is to make it predict similar results to RET.

Of course, that implies that all of the light from the sun comes out directly toward the ground.  That is a big assumption.  can you explain the mechanics of how that would work please?

The Sun is a spotlight that converts matter directly into energy with 100% efficiency. I don't know exactly how it gets all the light to shine down. Perhaps some of the light does go up, but you still would not see two Suns if you were high enough; rather, it would look enormous and possibly highly distorted. "High enough" means thousands of kilometres up.

Considering the effect is noticeable over short distances, even the 32 mile diameter of the Sun would give sufficient distance for there to be a measurable effect.

Without the EA, the Sun at sunset would be 31.6° above the horizon and would be severely distorted into an ellipse with its major axis parallel to the direction in which it is being viewed. This distortion is perfectly countered by the distortion caused by the EA, so that it looks circular the whole time.

I know, so all of those numbers should be treated as pure guesses until that is finished and there is proof to support it.

Guesses? No. Tentative estimates? Certainly.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Stabler12 on August 23, 2008, 04:24:39 AM
Not just "Moderator", but "Global Moderator"
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 23, 2008, 04:30:07 AM
I am using RET as the basis because it is known that it makes accurate predictions. Therefore, the best way to make FET work correctly is to make it predict similar results to RET.

Ahh, but there is a flaw in RE predictions, namely they predict that the world is round.  I don't think that FE theory is compatible with that prediction.  Even then, your mechanics (effects) would have to work differently, and because they don't work in RE theories, then they are consistently proven false.


Quote
The Sun is a spotlight that converts matter directly into energy with 100% efficiency. I don't know exactly how it gets all the light to shine down. Perhaps some of the light does go up, but you still would not see two Suns if you were high enough; rather, it would look enormous and possibly highly distorted. "High enough" means thousands of kilometres up.

Nope, just saying "that is how it works" is not a good argument.


Quote
Without the EA, the Sun at sunset would be 31.6 above the horizon and would be severely distorted into an ellipse with its major axis parallel to the direction in which it is being viewed. This distortion is perfectly countered by the distortion caused by the EA, so that it looks circular the whole time.

and with EA, the effect should be an ellipse in the opposite direction because you are substituting a vertical distortion in place of a horizontal distortion.


Quote
Guesses? No. Tentative estimates? Certainly.

Estimates with no data to back it up?  Certainly.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Jack on August 23, 2008, 04:30:28 AM
Not just "Moderator", but "Global Moderator"
I could be wrong but I think there is only the red Administrator, the blue Global Moderator, and the green Global Moderator.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Stabler12 on August 23, 2008, 04:40:52 AM
Key word:  Global.  Sorry, I'm kinda tired and punchy.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 23, 2008, 06:54:39 AM
Key word:  Global.  Sorry, I'm kinda tired and punchy.

I got it.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 23, 2008, 07:58:53 AM
Ahh, but there is a flaw in RE predictions, namely they predict that the world is round.  I don't think that FE theory is compatible with that prediction.  Even then, your mechanics (effects) would have to work differently, and because they don't work in RE theories, then they are consistently proven false.

As far as observable effects are concerned, RET makes damn good predictions. I am trying to reconcile FET with these observations in the simplest way possible.

Nope, just saying "that is how it works" is not a good argument.

But it is the best that we have at this point in time.

and with EA, the effect should be an ellipse in the opposite direction because you are substituting a vertical distortion in place of a horizontal distortion.

I am fully aware of that. The thing is that the elliptical distortion causes by perspective doesn't go away, so the two cancel each other out.

Estimates with no data to back it up?  Certainly.

That is why I said "tentative". They are still estimates from a mathematical model, making them more accurate than pure guesswork.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 23, 2008, 08:59:50 AM
But it is the best that we have at this point in time.

Sorry, the FE supporters set the bar on this one.  Look how many people have made that argument in terms of gravitation, and it was mocked as not being sufficient.


Quote
I am fully aware of that. The thing is that the elliptical distortion causes by perspective doesn't go away, so the two cancel each other out.

I am going to remain skeptical on that point.  I am not visualizing how that will work, but I am going to take your word.


Quote
That is why I said "tentative". They are still estimates from a mathematical model, making them more accurate than pure guesswork.

Purely mathematical models and no data to work with is guesswork.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 23, 2008, 09:26:50 AM
Sorry, the FE supporters set the bar on this one.  Look how many people have made that argument in terms of gravitation, and it was mocked as not being sufficient.

There is always going to be a point where things cannot be explained further.

Purely mathematical models and no data to work with is guesswork.

If RET had been hugely deficient in its predictions due to the curvature of the Earth's surface, people would have noticed by now. The EA explains these effects in an attempt to model RET's predictions (which are known to work) over short distances, and so it is not entirely a stab in the dark.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 24, 2008, 08:42:09 AM
As far as observable effects are concerned, RET makes damn good predictions. I am trying to reconcile FET with these observations in the simplest way possible.

Hey, youre not like many of the other FE'ers! And I mean that in a good way..
What does the FES say about this?

And, isnt there an even simpler way to reconcile FET to RET predictions? The simplest way must be to aknowledge the theory to be a theoretic mindgame, not connected to 'reality'. Or just abandon the theory all together (explanation to FET: RE), but that wouldnt be reconciling.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 24, 2008, 10:27:51 PM
RET's predictions are only assumed "to work". Robosteve seems to be an RE'er who has put his blind faith into the RE model. He has not looked into the facts or looked into the data for his claim of "accuracy." Any claim of accuracy must first be proven.

For example, its said in the RE model that the North Star disappears at the equator. However, there are a number of accounts in literature of the North Star being seen at 23.5 degrees beyond the equator. These accounts put the Round Earth model to shame and are ignored as "anomalies" or "refraction did it."

It's said that a Lunar Eclipse cannot occur with both the moon and sun above the horizon line. However, there are many accounts of such events occurring. These accounts again put the Round Earth model to shame. But the Astronomer can only stutter "refraction did it". It's a wonder how he could even predict the location of anything in the sky at all (as he is assumed to be able to do).

The vast vast majority of people who comes to this website are assuming that the Round Earth Theory accurately predicts celestial events. But none of them come here with accounts by astronomers who have seen the North Star disappear at the equator. None of them come here with accounts from astronomers which prove that celestial bodies are in the correct prediction their model needs them to be. There are entire books on astronomical anomalies which contradict the Round Earth model.

Anyone who thinks that the Round Earth model provides "excellent and accurate predictions" first needs to provide concrete evidence in form of testimonies, astronomical logs, diagrams, and mathematical charts to PROVE that the RE model is accurate in even the slightest degree.

It's assumed that the RE model is so worked out that astronomer can predict the next eclipse by math involving the geometry of the sun, moon and earth. But he cannot even do that. The eclipse is predicted in the same fashion which was used 3000 years ago by the Ancient Greeks - an analysis of patterns in historic charts and tables of past eclipses. By studying these charts and looking for patterns, the astronomer can derive an equation to tell when the eclipse will occur. His methodology has nothing to do with the geometry of his model. The same goes for the transit of planets and many other repeating celestial events.

It's assumed that the astronomer can see planets beyond our solar system. But they cannot prove what they think they see with any degree of certainty. For example, back in January, it was reported that the youngest planet ever to be discovered (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-505817/Astronomers-identify-youngest-planet-discovered.html), about ten times the mass of Jupiter, was orbiting the eight- to ten-million-year-old star TW Hydrae. Now a Spanish research team has concluded that TW Hydrae b doesn't even exist (http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2386), and that cold spots on the star's surface actually produced the dip in brightness instead of a transiting planet.

Astronomers are nothing more than squirrels in a roundabout, trapped in a whirl of inconsistency and delusion by the mumbling pretensions of arrogant 'scientists' who bowed to the fashionable assumptions of their age.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 24, 2008, 10:34:16 PM
Quote
If RET had been hugely deficient in its predictions due to the curvature of the Earth's surface, people would have noticed by now.

They have noticed. Read a book on collected astronomical anomalies sometime.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 24, 2008, 10:38:31 PM
Robosteve's ideas are the wave of the future, Tom.  Ride it.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: jdoe on August 24, 2008, 10:55:14 PM
Whoa, Tom, let's keep in mind what the title of this thread is.  In my time here, I have seen you expound the sinking ship effect as evidence for FE over and over again.  Yet, when someone actually went out with a telescope and decided to verify these claims, the results were totally contradictory to what is predicted by the FE literature and what you have claimed here time and time again.  It seems your model has failed most spectacularly.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 24, 2008, 11:25:31 PM
Whoa, Tom, let's keep in mind what the title of this thread is.  In my time here, I have seen you expound the sinking ship effect as evidence for FE over and over again.  Yet, when someone actually went out with a telescope and decided to verify these claims, the results were totally contradictory to what is predicted by the FE literature and what you have claimed here time and time again.  It seems your model has failed most spectacularly.

The FE literature has always predicted a sinking ship.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: jdoe on August 24, 2008, 11:31:44 PM
Whoa, Tom, let's keep in mind what the title of this thread is.  In my time here, I have seen you expound the sinking ship effect as evidence for FE over and over again.  Yet, when someone actually went out with a telescope and decided to verify these claims, the results were totally contradictory to what is predicted by the FE literature and what you have claimed here time and time again.  It seems your model has failed most spectacularly.

The FE literature has always predicted a sinking ship.

It also predicts that the ship should be restored by telescope.  The pictures show the opposite.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: narcberry on August 24, 2008, 11:32:46 PM
Um, a recent forum experiment showed a telescopic view to restore such an object. Please make use of our search.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 24, 2008, 11:34:12 PM
Quote
It also predicts that the ship should be restored by telescope.  The pictures show the opposite.

Dyno doesn't show us what the ship looks like unzoomed. How are we supposed to know how much of the ship's hull is restored by him zooming in on it?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: jdoe on August 24, 2008, 11:36:50 PM
Yes, he does.  Check again.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 24, 2008, 11:38:30 PM
My mistake. It seems that he included a zoomed out image in an edit of his post after he initially posted the thread.

Here's where he shows the ship zoomed out:

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/2606/shipsgk3.jpg

Then he zoomed in on the left ship:

http://img174.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9409027smalldb7.jpg

We can clearly see that part of the hull has been restored.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: narcberry on August 24, 2008, 11:40:12 PM
Once again, Tom proves RET wrong.
He makes it look easy, but don't despair, when he goes offline you maintain a standing challenge of anything he said for at least 8 hours.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: jdoe on August 24, 2008, 11:40:48 PM
The second picture is wrong.  It's from altitude.  The correct picture from ground is http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg (http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg).

The ship still appears sunk.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 24, 2008, 11:42:51 PM
The second picture is wrong.  It's from altitude.  The correct picture from ground is http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg (http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg).

The ship still appears sunk.

How do we know where the unzoomed image was taken from? Dyno doesn't leave any notes for us. We don't even know how powerful his telescope is.

Besides, Dyno's images are exactly consistent with what Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us we should experience.

From the chapter Perspective on the Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) from Earth Not a Globe we read the following:

"We have now to consider a very important modification of this phenomenon, namely, that whereas in the several instances illustrated by diagrams Nos. 71 to 84 inclusive, when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull at sea a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be."

Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us directly that a telescope will not be able to restore the hull on a sea due to the environ. Dyno used his telescope to look at the sea, so his being unable to restore the hull to any significant degree is exactly what Samuel Birley Rowbotham predicts.

The Winship and Teed experiments which restored the hulls of ships when viewed through a telescope, of which you are referring to, were conducted on calm bodies of water such as lakes: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on August 25, 2008, 04:50:56 AM
Hahahah that's what I like so see.

Backtrack tommy my boy.

I really wanted a FEr who can put some thought into things. Robosteves theories may need a lot of work but at least he isn't rehashing a 100yr old book written by someone of dubious integrity.

I'm still waiting for Dogplatter or Username. I think they are gone though.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on August 25, 2008, 04:52:04 AM
The second picture is wrong.  It's from altitude.  The correct picture from ground is http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg (http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg).

The ship still appears sunk.

How do we know where the unzoomed image was taken from? Dyno doesn't leave any notes for us. We don't even know how powerful his telescope is.

Besides, Dyno's images are exactly consistent with what Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us we should experience.

From the chapter Perspective on the Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) from Earth Not a Globe we read the following:

"We have now to consider a very important modification of this phenomenon, namely, that whereas in the several instances illustrated by diagrams Nos. 71 to 84 inclusive, when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull at sea a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be."

Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us directly that a telescope will not be able to restore the hull on a sea due to the environ. Dyno used his telescope to look at the sea, so his being unable to restore the hull to any significant degree is exactly what Samuel Birley Rowbotham predicts.

The Winship and Teed experiments which restored the hulls of ships when viewed through a telescope, of which you are referring to, were conducted on calm bodies of water such as lakes: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

The problem with your argument Tom, is that in my viewing of his pics, he did restore the hull, and the surrounding environs as well, so I don't get what you're getting at... Did you want him to expose the part of the hull underwater as well?

His post proves Rowbotham wrong, and in the first page of this thread you basically say, well, that just proves that light curves up like people here at theflatearthsociety.org say, thanks for confirming that for me... You can't have it both ways Tom. Either you're for Rowbotham's theories, or the unconfirmed theories put forth by members of theflatearthsociety.org. No more flip-flopping. Pick a side and let it be recorded by all of us.

And it's people like you Tom, that make people like Dyno, and me, and others reluctant to do anything productive towards proving our side of the discussion. Dyno did this perfect in my opinion, and it's a shame that there are people like you to criticize him, and take him down a notch just because. Tom, can you state any research at all you're done for your cause, or do you really feel your place is to stand up and say all research done by others is meaningless since you were not there to witness? Others call you a bot, but that implies realistic direction and reasoning. You're just an opportunist, and you should be ashamed.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 25, 2008, 04:58:55 AM
Nope.

Please stop making these useless posts in Debate & Discussion. If you want to debate, then go for it, but saying "Nope." to that doesn't give the discussion anywhere to go. I have warned you before about this, and if you continue I will simply delete any posts you make that don't contribute anything to the discussion.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Stabler12 on August 25, 2008, 05:13:32 AM
Fair is fair...Tom does the same thing...give him the same warning.  "You're wrong", and "No", are his stock and trade a good deal of the time as well
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 25, 2008, 05:25:02 AM
Fair is fair...Tom does the same thing...give him the same warning.  "You're wrong", and "No", are his stock and trade a good deal of the time as well

I can't say I've seen him do so in the time I've been a mod. Next time I do, I shall indeed give him such warning.

Now, let's continue the discussion of the Sinking Ship experiment results.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 25, 2008, 05:31:04 AM
Robosteve seems to be an RE'er who has put his blind faith into the RE model. He has not looked into the facts or looked into the data for his claim of "accuracy." Any claim of accuracy must first be proven.

Im really confused. Why is Robosteve a mod then? Who owns this forum? Where is the power, whos in charge?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 25, 2008, 05:35:52 AM
Im really confused. Why is Robosteve a mod then? Who owns this forum? Where is the power, whos in charge?

Daniel is in charge. I am a mod because he chose to make me one.

Now please, enough of this off-topic banter.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Stabler12 on August 25, 2008, 05:39:14 AM
Thank you, Steve...that's all I ask.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 25, 2008, 06:35:34 AM
The Winship and Teed experiments which restored the hulls of ships when viewed through a telescope, of which you are referring to, were conducted on calm bodies of water such as lakes: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

Please define 'calm'. I dont know how much you know about sailing. But you cant really sail without any wind...

Tom and narc. You two are embarrasing yourself and FET. Robosteve, divito, theengineer and so on.. They keep this site pumping. Im looking forward to the completion of the bent light theory.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on August 25, 2008, 07:00:24 AM
I definitely agree. Robosteve listens to other posters, adapts his opinion appropriately, and at least pretends to look into things further. Divito is the most fun you can have arguing with a self professed nihilist, and The Engineer at least tries to hold the party line while posing his own assertions and observations.

The way Dyno was railroaded in this thread by Tom though made me mad at all the FE hardliners. If that's the way all RET proponents can be expected to be treated, then why shouldn't we all just leave and leave all the FET proponents to their own devices?

I can tell you why I'm here though, and why I think most others are here. I'm here because I love to argue, regardless of the cause. And this cause somehow struck me as a cause I could enjoy arguing. And now I'm hooked and can't leave, so you're all stuck with me for the time being.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: divito the truthist on August 25, 2008, 07:27:35 AM
I definitely agree. Robosteve listens to other posters, adapts his opinion appropriately, and at least pretends to look into things further. Divito is the most fun you can have arguing with a self professed nihilist, and The Engineer at least tries to hold the party line while posing his own assertions and observations.

I suppose I could take that as a compliment.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: AmateurAstronomer on August 25, 2008, 07:29:55 AM
I definitely agree. Robosteve listens to other posters, adapts his opinion appropriately, and at least pretends to look into things further. Divito is the most fun you can have arguing with a self professed nihilist, and The Engineer at least tries to hold the party line while posing his own assertions and observations.

I suppose I could take that as a compliment.

I meant it as a compliment, if that matters. You piss me off to a degree I don't think you understand, but you do make me think.

Just out of curiousity, that's Light in your avatar right?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: divito the truthist on August 25, 2008, 07:35:00 AM
Fantastic. I can't say I don't want to piss people off, but I want to do it in such a way that motivates them to either learn or at least consider my proposition and side of the argument; to make them think, as you put it.

And yes, that's Light in my avatar. Good of you to notice, I'm impressed.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 25, 2008, 08:23:22 AM
How do we know where the unzoomed image was taken from? Dyno doesn't leave any notes for us. We don't even know how powerful his telescope is.

He is a regular poster on these forums, I am sure that he would be happy to answer your questions about his equipment and the method that he used.  Of course, the week before these photos were taken, there was a multi-page thread about what the conditions of the experiment should be (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21115.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21115.0)).  I don't remember you making any protests about his methods at that time.


Quote
...The Winship and Teed experiments which restored the hulls of ships when viewed through a telescope, of which you are referring to, were conducted on calm bodies of water such as lakes: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

Winship in his book Zetetic Cosmology says...

Quote from: Zetetic Cosmology
(http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/1831/capetownobservationwr0.png) (http://imageshack.us)


Quote from: Zetetic Cosmology
(http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/1402/laqueridaobservationjf2.png) (http://imageshack.us)

Both of those examples are of observations of ships at sea.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Alienfreak on August 25, 2008, 08:33:46 AM
If you are in plane you see that your bending light theory suxx big time.

If the earth was flat and you are look just right into the ground beneath you you would see a lot of things at the similiar place if the earth would be flat and light would curve up.

So start thinking first and then try to be a scientist.

(http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/1036/32256426xm7.jpg)
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 25, 2008, 01:05:14 PM
If you are in plane you see that your bending light theory suxx big time.

If the earth was flat and you are look just right into the ground beneath you you would see a lot of things at the similiar place if the earth would be flat and light would curve up.

So start thinking first and then try to be a scientist.

(http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/1036/32256426xm7.jpg)

Classiest illustration to date!

To your thoughts. The light is not bent more than it creates the same effect as the curvature on RE. So I think the visual effect would be the same as RE.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Nightmare on August 25, 2008, 01:10:37 PM
If light bends as FE says it does, then shouldn't the boat appear higher than the water?
(http://xs330.xs.to/xs330/08351/fedisproof260.jpg) (http://xs.to)
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Mrs. Peach on August 25, 2008, 01:16:39 PM
Sometimes things do seem to float above the water, but that would be a fata morgana.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Nightmare on August 25, 2008, 01:19:38 PM
A "fata morgana" indeed.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 25, 2008, 01:37:40 PM
If light bends as FE says it does, then shouldn't the boat appear higher than the water?
(http://xs330.xs.to/xs330/08351/fedisproof260.jpg) (http://xs.to)

Hm.. But light from the boat emits in all directions.
Try to change the illustration but draw the lightpaths that hits the viewers eye.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Alienfreak on August 25, 2008, 03:56:38 PM
Quote
Classiest illustration to date!

To your thoughts. The light is not bent more than it creates the same effect as the curvature on RE. So I think the visual effect would be the same as RE.

You guys are really scary.

How the hell is a 40Mm x 40 Mm plate ever supposed to look like a 6Mm radius sphere by simply bending light. You guys really didnt think that through.
What is supposed to happen with the stuff thats more than 1/2*Pi*6Mm away? On a globe you cant see it anymore, because the earth isnt translucent and 6Mm is the turning point of the curve.
If you want to represent that your light has to be straight at a horizontal distance of 1/2*Pi*6Mm. But then you would have the problem i have drawn at exactly 1/2*Pi*6Mm.

Proof me wrong.

(http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1418/65603850gt2.jpg)
(http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7925/97321038pc9.jpg)
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2008, 04:05:32 PM
Quote
Quote from: Zetetic Cosmology
(http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/1831/capetownobservationwr0.png) (http://imageshack.us)


Quote from: Zetetic Cosmology
(http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/1402/laqueridaobservationjf2.png) (http://imageshack.us)

Both of those examples are of observations of ships at sea.

The first quote doesn't even tell us where the observation was conducted, while the second quote tells us that Winship's observation was made in a bay. Inland bays are very often calmer in nature than the open ocean.

In that same chapter (http://earthnotaglobe.com/ships/index.html) in paragraphs four and five Winship reports looking at a ship at sea with a telescope and being unable to restore its hull. Wiship also reports looking at a ship sailing parallel alongside his own for a number of days - he reports sometimes being able to restore the hull and sometimes being unable to restore the hull, proving that the sinking ship on the ocean has more to do with the nature of the waves and the present atmospheric conditions more than anything.

Quote
So the environment of the ocean somehow prohibits one from restoring a ship with a telescope?  I can't believe this.  This is how FEers respond to evidence of RE?  Just make up new laws of perspective?

Rowbotham specifically tells us from experiment and experience that the ship's hull on the sea is not brought back with a telescope. Samuel Birley Rowbotham told us exactly what Dyno would experience in his experiment 150 years ago.

I'll post the quote again for you. From the chapter Perspective on the Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) from Earth Not a Globe we read the following:

"We have now to consider a very important modification of this phenomenon, namely, that whereas in the several instances illustrated by diagrams Nos. 71 to 84 inclusive, when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull at sea a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be."

See that bolded part? It means that we shouldn't expect to restore the hull of a ship at sea with a telescope. Later on in the chapter it describes how the chaotic nature of the ocean surface prevents a person at ground level from peering through the waves the ship shrinks behind as it recedes into the distance.

The OP has specifically done his experiment where Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us a ship's hull cannot be restored. If he had done the experiment on a lake, a pond, a canal, or some other body of water there would be no issue. The blame is on the OP for not reading the material before preforming the experiment.

Just look at the OP's ground image of the cargo ship:

http://img501.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9393020smallhg9.jpg

We can clearly see that the waves are obscuring the view between observer and ship. We can also see that the waves at that ground angle are obscuring the tiny hull of the distant sailboat in the distance.

When the OP goes to a higher altitude and sees the cargo ship restored there's a waterline from the waves in the restored area, marking exactly how much of the ship was hidden at ground level:

http://img503.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9410028smallkj9.jpg

Samuel Birley Rowbotham's work remains accurate time and time again. This thread just demonstrates how correct Rowbotham is.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 25, 2008, 04:11:04 PM
Tom. Please post photos from Rowbotham's experiments for us to compare.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Nightmare on August 25, 2008, 04:11:26 PM
The theory of light curvating upward benefits RE mostly. Because it renders objects farther away to appear higher than they actually are, proving that any such observance of a flat earth to be purely illusory.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 25, 2008, 04:23:16 PM
(http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/1402/laqueridaobservationjf2.png) (http://imageshack.us)

The first quote doesn't even tell us where the observation was conducted, while the second quote tells us that Winship's observation was made in a bay. Inland bays are very often calmer in nature than the open ocean.

Youre in a corner and you fight bravely but youre in a desperate position. Thats why you keep guessing and inventing as you go along.

Do you know what a bay is? Do you know what a barque is? Do you know where Table Bay is?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 25, 2008, 04:46:21 PM
Quote
Tom. Please post photos from Rowbotham's experiments for us to compare.

Rowbotham would have had a hard time taking photographs at the time of his experiment.

Quote
Do you know where Table Bay is?

I sure do.

http://www.capespirit.com/Table%20Bay.jpg
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on August 25, 2008, 05:10:51 PM
You know why hulls at sea can't be fully restored Tom? A lot lies beneath the water.

Optics have nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 25, 2008, 11:37:29 PM
The first quote doesn't even tell us where the observation was conducted, while the second quote tells us that Winship's observation was made in a bay. Inland bays are very often calmer in nature than the open ocean.

You aren't going to watch a ship sail out of sight bound for another port and have it still be in the harbor.


Quote
In that same chapter (http://earthnotaglobe.com/ships/index.html) in paragraphs four and five Winship reports looking at a ship at sea with a telescope and being unable to restore its hull. Wiship also reports looking at a ship sailing parallel alongside his own for a number of days - he reports sometimes being able to restore the hull and sometimes being unable to restore the hull, proving that the sinking ship on the ocean has more to do with the nature of the waves and the present atmospheric conditions more than anything.

I don't suppose it is to strong to think that maybe refraction takes a hand in whether something is visible at a distance? 


Quote
Rowbotham specifically tells us from experiment and experience that the ship's hull on the sea is not brought back with a telescope. Samuel Birley Rowbotham told us exactly what Dyno would experience in his experiment 150 years ago.

Except he wasn't able to restore the hull like Winship or Rowbotham were.  Because of the presence of the bulker in the picture, we are able to use it to determine the height of the waves by seeing the wetted area at the waterline.  Since each of those white marks is 10 cm (4") and the major divisions are 1 m (3'), we can safely say that the seas (combined swells and waves) are less than 0.5 meters (1') in height.

Even if we double the height of the seas to 1 meter (3'), that doesn't account for the fact that half of the spinnaker (bow sail) isn't visible.


I'll post the quote again for you. From the chapter Perspective on the Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) from Earth Not a Globe we read the following:

Quote
See that bolded part? It means that we shouldn't expect to restore the hull of a ship at sea with a telescope. Later on in the chapter it describes how the chaotic nature of the ocean surface prevents a person at ground level from peering through the waves the ship shrinks behind as it recedes into the distance.

Amazing how the model breaks down once you increase your field of vision to tens of miles.  Have you ever noticed that in all of Rowbotham's observations about how the tops of lighthouses are visible at times when they shouldn't, he never mentions that he can see the bottom of those lighthouses?  It always mentions the light or the top mark.


Quote
The OP has specifically done his experiment where Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us a ship's hull cannot be restored. If he had done the experiment on a lake, a pond, a canal, or some other body of water there would be no issue. The blame is on the OP for not reading the material before preforming the experiment.

We can clearly see that the waves are obscuring the view between observer and ship. We can also see that the waves at that ground angle are obscuring the tiny hull of the distant sailboat in the distance. [/quote]

Except it isn't a "tiny" sailboat, and I explained the size of the seas above.


Quote
When the OP goes to a higher altitude and sees the cargo ship restored there's a waterline from the waves in the restored area, marking exactly how much of the ship was hidden at ground level:

Well, the wetted area at the waterline shows us how high the waves were, but the increased area of visibility was much greater than that.  See the scrapes in the paint on the bulbous portion of the bow where the anchor chain rubs?  That area is now much higher over the "horizon" than the height of the seas that we are supposedly now "seeing over."


Quote
Samuel Birley Rowbotham's work remains accurate time and time again. This thread just demonstrates how correct Rowbotham is.

That is apparently a matter of interpretation.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 25, 2008, 11:40:53 PM
If light bends as FE says it does, then shouldn't the boat appear higher than the water?
(http://xs330.xs.to/xs330/08351/fedisproof260.jpg) (http://xs.to)

As opposed to under the water? We aren't discussing submarines here, you know. Boats float in water.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 26, 2008, 12:10:31 AM
Quote
Tom. Please post photos from Rowbotham's experiments for us to compare.
Rowbotham would have had a hard time taking photographs at the time of his experiment.

Exactly.
Thats why I suggest that you go out and make the exact same experiments as Rowbotham. Be sure to take pictures.

Quote
Do you know where Table Bay is?
I sure do.
http://www.capespirit.com/Table%20Bay.jpg

Good boy. Now please explain how you know this bay was without waves or swells at the time of the experiment. Once again, define your sense of 'calm'.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 26, 2008, 01:49:17 AM
Quote
Tom. Please post photos from Rowbotham's experiments for us to compare.

Rowbotham would have had a hard time taking photographs at the time of his experiment.

Can you post the Lady Blount pictures?  I can't seem to find those either.  That might help if we could see those.


Quote
I sure do.

(http://www.capespirit.com/Table%20Bay.jpg)

OK Tom, posting a photo of the place does not provide proof of familiarity.

That picture was taken from Table Mountain and is looking toward the northeast and doesn't show the mouth of the harbor.

Here is a chart of the bay...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Cape_Town_%26_Table_Bay_1882.jpg/366px-Cape_Town_%26_Table_Bay_1882.jpg)

Unfortunately, Winship doesn't tell where in Cape Town he made his observations.  Most likely place that he would have observed both a northbound ship (Lilla) and the southbound ship (La Querida) would have been in the vicinity of Green Point where the land starts curving toward the south.  This site has the advantage of being elevated above the water, has easy access from the city and gives views of approaching and departing ships.  It also means that your observations are going to be made over open water.  There is also the issue that Table bay is notorious for its exposure to westerly swells.  This means that even observations made within the bay will probably have waves or swells.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Alienfreak on August 26, 2008, 03:04:05 AM
Any responses to my falsification of your theory?

Or any responses to the falsification provided by the reflection of light experiment someone proposed earlier?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 26, 2008, 04:48:43 AM
Any responses to my falsification of your theory?

Or any responses to the falsification provided by the reflection of light experiment someone proposed earlier?

If you accept the premise of "bendy light" then the math for the electromagnetic effect seems to work.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Alienfreak on August 26, 2008, 05:35:39 AM
Quote
If you accept the premise of "bendy light" then the math for the electromagnetic effect seems to work.

Thats without any reference to anything i asked.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 26, 2008, 06:26:07 AM
Thats without any reference to anything i asked.

You were referring to the post about how light reflected off an airplane would still be visible to an observer on the ground?

Here is a thread where the math is discussed...
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22379.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22379.0)

The math is crafted so that if you accept that light bends, then the equations explain how light can be bent to give the illusion of a round Earth.

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Alienfreak on August 26, 2008, 07:03:58 AM
Quote
You were referring to the post about how light reflected off an airplane would still be visible to an observer on the ground?

Here is a thread where the math is discussed...
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22379.0

The math is crafted so that if you accept that light bends, then the equations explain how light can be bent to give the illusion of a round Earth.[/img]

Light reflected off an Airplane? Wut?

Go read my posts or increase your reading skills ;)
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 26, 2008, 08:16:10 AM
Light reflected off an Airplane? Wut?

This is the post that I am referring to...

If you are in plane you see that your bending light theory suxx big time.

If the earth was flat and you are look just right into the ground beneath you you would see a lot of things at the similiar place if the earth would be flat and light would curve up.

So start thinking first and then try to be a scientist.

(http://img371.imageshack.us/img371/1036/32256426xm7.jpg)

Quote
Go read my posts or increase your reading skills ;)

I read your post, looked at the picture, and I still don't understand your question I guess.

It appears that you are questioning the paths that the light will take (reflected off the ground or off a plane).  My response is, that if you accept his theory that light bends, the math for the paths does work out.  Because the curve is similar to the curve of the Earth, it works the same as a horizon for the observer on FE.

If that doesn't answer your question, I am sorry.  I will attempt to read more and try to comprehend the questions that you ask.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Alienfreak on August 26, 2008, 08:49:25 AM
If the light bends that 2 rays of light would hit your eye at exactly the same angle at exactly the same point of the eye if you are looking right downwards.

Also note the other 2 pictures i made.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 26, 2008, 10:48:20 AM
If the light bends that 2 rays of light would hit your eye at exactly the same angle at exactly the same point of the eye if you are looking right downwards.

Why? Depends on the height doesnt it?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 26, 2008, 08:04:41 PM
If light bends as FE says it does, then shouldn't the boat appear higher than the water?
(http://xs330.xs.to/xs330/08351/fedisproof260.jpg) (http://xs.to)

As opposed to under the water? We aren't discussing submarines here, you know. Boats float in water.

Still waiting for a response to this.

And Alienfreak, light doesn't bend that much at the height planes fly. You'd have to go up much higher than that to see the effect you are talking about. At the height planes fly, the only effect that you see is that the Earth appears curved.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Alienfreak on August 27, 2008, 03:12:32 AM
Quote
Why? Depends on the height doesnt it?

To make it impossible to see more of the earth than a circle with 6Mm radius, so that it looks like a sphere with a radius of 6Mm the light has to go straight up. Otherwise i could just increase my altitude and then see further than the 6Mm.

Which also has the little downside that once i can see 6Mm of distance the Light hits my eye at the same angle and point as the surface right beneath me does...
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Alienfreak on August 28, 2008, 03:19:16 PM
Noone?

Thought so :)
Ignorance is a bliss... especially if you believe in stupid things :)
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on August 28, 2008, 09:51:14 PM
FEs position seems to be "If YOU didn't create the evidence yourself, it's not real evidence", is that right?

I'm just wondering if by their logic the use of my own evidence is allowable for them to formulate their theory of bendy light. Shouldn't they be using their own images taken themselves? It's a rhetorical question. I'd like some acknowledgment that all the data out there probably isn't forged and that there isn't anything wrong with us using information and evidence published by others to support our argument, without having it dismissed as "conspiracy"

It just seems crazy to me that you won't accept things unless you have experienced it first hand.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 28, 2008, 11:23:56 PM
It just seems crazy to me that you won't accept things unless you have experienced it first hand.

Otherwise they wouldn't be able to dismiss people that have observed the stars in the southern hemisphere.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2008, 11:30:59 PM
It just seems crazy to me that you won't accept things unless you have experienced it first hand.

Do you mean like the time you were three years old and blindly accepted your mother's story about Santa Clause leaving gifts beneath the tree without seeing him slide down your chimney first hand?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on August 29, 2008, 12:22:16 AM
It just seems crazy to me that you won't accept things unless you have experienced it first hand.

Do you mean like the time you were three years old and blindly accepted your mother's story about Santa Clause leaving gifts beneath the tree without seeing him slide down your chimney first hand?

Are you saying FEs have the mental development of a 3 year old?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 29, 2008, 01:23:06 AM
Do you mean like the time you were three years old and blindly accepted your mother's story about Santa Clause leaving gifts beneath the tree without seeing him slide down your chimney first hand?

Well, I was three at the time.  I realized by the time I was six that it was impossible for a person to fit down the 6" diameter of my chimney flue.

Since then, I have also navigated vessels with 50000 ton displacements through all of the world's oceans but the Arctic Ocean while shooting celestial sights. 

I would say that my experience has led me to my view of the world based on my experiences.  Much the same way it led me to eventually dismiss my mother's stories about Santa.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: markjo on August 29, 2008, 05:14:35 AM
It just seems crazy to me that you won't accept things unless you have experienced it first hand.

Do you mean like the time you were three years old and blindly accepted your mother's story about Santa Clause leaving gifts beneath the tree without seeing him slide down your chimney first hand?

Or that silly fable about how smoking causes cancer.   ::)
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Universal Object of Attraction on August 29, 2008, 06:51:48 AM
The sea is all over the place off the Coast of Fremantle...

http://magicseaweed.com/South-Western-Australia-MSW-Surf-Charts/44/ (http://magicseaweed.com/South-Western-Australia-MSW-Surf-Charts/44/)
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on August 29, 2008, 05:02:30 PM
That doesn't go back to Aug 16th
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 29, 2008, 06:42:34 PM
Quote
Are you saying FEs have the mental development of a 3 year old?

The analogy suggested that those who accepted facts from authority blindly and without question were the ones with the mental development of a 3 year old.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Stabler12 on August 30, 2008, 01:16:07 AM
Quote
Are you saying FEs have the mental development of a 3 year old?

The analogy suggested that those who accepted facts from authority blindly and without question were the ones with the mental development of a 3 year old.

Why should we blindly accept what you claim to be facts, Tom?

I haven't seen Niagra Falls except in photographs, should I conclude that they are not real since I haven't personally seen them?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 30, 2008, 01:18:00 AM
The analogy suggested that those who accepted facts from authority blindly and without question were the ones with the mental development of a 3 year old.

But in your analogy, you should accept the existence of Santa Claus.  You observed the presents appearing on Christmas morning, you have the "evidence" from your mother saying that they are there because of Santa, and you can't prove that it wasn't Santa that left them there.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: ProofPositive on August 30, 2008, 04:20:16 AM
Just finished reading the tread, good times. I have a few questions. RoboSteve is a moderator who can delete posts as he feels fit and seems to favor the flat earth theory. Is there a forum where this topic is discussed where one side cannot delete the posts of people on the opposing side? I just wanted to see a thread where both sides are represented equally but I'm not sure if linking to such sites is allowed, any info here is appreciated.

Also is Robosteve the resident physicist for the flat earth model? If so, I'm curious what sort of physics background he might have, completed high school physics, college, grad student post doc, prof, etc. Just curious.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 30, 2008, 04:23:58 AM
Just finished reading the tread, good times. I have a few questions. RoboSteve is a moderator who can delete posts as he feels fit and seems to favor the flat earth theory. Is there a forum where this topic is discussed where one side cannot delete the posts of people on the opposing side? I just wanted to see a thread where both sides are represented equally but I'm not sure if linking to such sites is allowed, any info here is appreciated.

Not that I am aware of.  Of course, a true FE would probably say that all other sites except for this one are RE friendly.


Quote
Also is Robosteve the resident physicist for the flat earth model? If so, I'm curious what sort of physicist background he might have, completed high school physics, college, grad student post doc, prof, etc. Just curious.

I believe that he is still in college as a physics major.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Parsifal on August 30, 2008, 04:24:12 AM
Just finished reading the tread, good times. I have a few questions. RoboSteve is a moderator who can delete posts as he feels fit and seems to favor the flat earth theory. Is there a forum where this topic is discussed where one side cannot delete the posts of people on the opposing side? I just wanted to see a thread where both sides are represented equally but I'm not sure if linking to such sites is allowed, any info here is appreciated.

I don't delete posts just because I don't agree with them. I only delete spam posts that contribute nothing to the discussion.

Also is Robosteve the resident physicist for the flat earth model? If so, I'm curious what sort of physicist background he might have, completed high school physics, college, grad student post doc, prof, etc. Just curious.

There are some who have a better grasp of physics than I, just because they are more educated. TheEngineer is probably the best example I can think of. I have completed high school physics, and I am currently in my first year at the University of Sydney, hoping to major in physics. I do find it fascinating and I have a natural affinity for the subject.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Stabler12 on August 30, 2008, 04:30:37 AM
And I have to say that Robo does a better job than most in putting physics problems into laymans terms that can be understood.  I never took physics, but lurking here and commenting on occasion has expanded my grasp of the concepts a lot better than in the past.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: ProofPositive on August 30, 2008, 11:40:24 AM
So you have high school physics under your belt and want to pursue physics in college, cool. Well it seems you have your work cut out for you with your light bends up theory, how can it be demonstrated?

Robo, have you talked you anyone in your astro physics department about your theory? What are their thoughts about how one might go about knowing for sure if the world if flat or round?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Alienfreak on August 30, 2008, 03:11:55 PM
Quote
There are some who have a better grasp of physics than I, just because they are more educated. TheEngineer is probably the best example I can think of. I have completed high school physics, and I am currently in my first year at the University of Sydney, hoping to major in physics. I do find it fascinating and I have a natural affinity for the subject.


If you have a natural affinity for the subject PLEASE falsify my theory and the experiment with the light reflection on a desk.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 30, 2008, 03:20:20 PM
There are some who have a better grasp of physics than I, just because they are more educated. TheEngineer is probably the best example I can think of. I have completed high school physics, and I am currently in my first year at the University of Sydney, hoping to major in physics. I do find it fascinating and I have a natural affinity for the subject.
Then do me a favor, everytime you resolve forces in one of your physics classes (modern Physics classes included) and the professor puts mg in the equation raise you hand and tell him he is wrong and see what happens
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Alienfreak on August 30, 2008, 03:34:49 PM
Quote
There are some who have a better grasp of physics than I, just because they are more educated. TheEngineer is probably the best example I can think of. I have completed high school physics, and I am currently in my first year at the University of Sydney, hoping to major in physics. I do find it fascinating and I have a natural affinity for the subject.

Then he becomes a target of teh evil goverment agents waiting all over the world for one student to make a false comment.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 30, 2008, 03:37:03 PM
Quote
So you have high school physics under your belt and want to pursue physics in college, cool. Well it seems you have your work cut out for you with your light bends up theory, how can it be demonstrated?

Shine a laser beam across a mile long lake. The photons on the receiving end should arrive at a slightly higher altitude. This is evidence that light is bending upwards.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: jdoe on August 30, 2008, 03:48:05 PM
Quote
So you have high school physics under your belt and want to pursue physics in college, cool. Well it seems you have your work cut out for you with your light bends up theory, how can it be demonstrated?

Shine a laser beam across a mile long lake. The photons on the receiving end should arrive at a slightly higher altitude. This is evidence that the earth is curved.

Fixed.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 30, 2008, 04:27:27 PM
I don't see any reason to assume that the entire earth curved downwards. It's clear that the photons just curved upwards.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on August 30, 2008, 05:26:17 PM
Quote
So you have high school physics under your belt and want to pursue physics in college, cool. Well it seems you have your work cut out for you with your light bends up theory, how can it be demonstrated?

Shine a laser beam across a mile long lake. The photons on the receiving end should arrive at a slightly higher altitude. This is evidence that light is bending upwards.

That experiment cannot prove that it is the light bending up, because you would get the same results if the surface of the earth was curved.  I wiki'd the bedford level experiment, on the page it stated that the pole in the middle, assuming to be 3 miles away from both end poles, appeared to be almost 3 feet higher than the other poles when measured with a theodolite.  Using the FE explanation, I would think that would mean that the light that leaves one of the end poles traveling parallel to the groud, would bend up almost 3 feet before reaching the middle pole 3 miles away.  I think we could find a way to measure this by taking out the unknown (is the earth curved or flat).

Lets say we do the same experiment over a known man made flat and level surface, such as a football field, and we set up two poles at each endzone 100 yards from each other.  Also lets round up the amount the light may or may not have bent in the original experiment to exactly 3 feet for simplicity. (the real experiment we would use the exact numbers).

So if a laser appears to bend up 3 feet, or 1 yard every 3 miles (5280 yards), like in the original experiment, then over a distance of 100 yards, in a setting where we know the plain is exactly flat, we would expect the laser to be 0.01893 yards higher on the opposite pole.  If light is not bending up, then it should touch the opposite pole at the exact same height, and the phenomenon mentioned in your post would have to be explained by something other than bending light.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: ProofPositive on August 31, 2008, 02:17:10 AM
Quote
So you have high school physics under your belt and want to pursue physics in college, cool. Well it seems you have your work cut out for you with your light bends up theory, how can it be demonstrated?

Shine a laser beam across a mile long lake. The photons on the receiving end should arrive at a slightly higher altitude. This is evidence that light is bending upwards.

Tom, you are adorable.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 31, 2008, 06:38:12 AM
Shine a laser beam across a mile long lake. The photons on the receiving end should arrive at a slightly higher altitude. This is evidence that light is bending upwards.

But this would invalidate the Bedford Levels experiment?  If light bends upwards, like the electromagnetic acceleration theory says, that would mean that Rowbotham wouldn't have been able to make the observations that he documented because the light would have bent up away from the lens of his telescope.

Here is your original response to Robosteve's (now known as Osama Bin Laden) concept of EA...

Robosteve seems to be an RE'er who has put his blind faith into the RE model. He has not looked into the facts or looked into the data for his claim of "accuracy." Any claim of accuracy must first be proven.

This is quite a change that you are willing to abandon the observations of Rowbotham for his theory.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 31, 2008, 06:48:34 AM
Quote
That experiment cannot prove that it is the light bending up, because you would get the same results if the surface of the earth was curved.

But it's not curved. I don't see any reason to assume that the entire earth is curving when clearly it's only a few photons which are doing the curving.

Quote
But this would invalidate the Bedford Levels experiment?  If light bends upwards, like the electromagnetic acceleration theory says, that would mean that Rowbotham wouldn't have been able to make the observations that he documented because the light would have bent up away from the lens of his telescope.

I'm sure the scale of the experiments has something to do with it.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Stabler12 on August 31, 2008, 07:07:08 AM
Quote
That experiment cannot prove that it is the light bending up, because you would get the same results if the surface of the earth was curved.

But it's not curved. I don't see any reason to assume that the entire earth is curving when clearly it's only a few photons which are doing the curving.

Quote
But this would invalidate the Bedford Levels experiment?  If light bends upwards, like the electromagnetic acceleration theory says, that would mean that Rowbotham wouldn't have been able to make the observations that he documented because the light would have bent up away from the lens of his telescope.

I'm sure the scale of the experiments has something to do with it.

Aside from your gut feeling, what makes you sure?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Alienfreak on August 31, 2008, 08:09:00 AM
Quote
But it's not curved. I don't see any reason to assume that the entire earth is curving when clearly it's only a few photons which are doing the curving.

Photons... plus the stars... plus all satellites plus all planes... plus all ships... plus plus plus.

I see no reason, too.


Btw. another experiment:

Book a flight on a commercial plane. Then fly around the globe with it. Have a small gyro with you (even an advanced Wii Mote may suffice) and record all the changes in direction the plane made. Then apply those to a plain map and then to a globe. And then look on which one you would be at the place you then are after marking the way on it. You may even take a GPS with you to track the planes speed and then apply that one to the map, too.

Maybe a bit expensive, but would give you an undeniable prood of the earths roundness. And nobody can manipulate your own gyro.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on August 31, 2008, 08:13:28 AM
Quote
Book a flight on a commercial plane. Then fly around the globe with it. Have a small gyro with you (even an advanced Wii Mote may suffice) and record all the changes in direction the plane made. Then apply those to a plain map and then to a globe. And then look on which one you would be at the place you then are after marking the way on it. You may even take a GPS with you to track the planes speed and then apply that one to the map, too.

GPS are part of the conspiracy !!!!! lol

..and ask them the reason why we fly over the pacific to get to Australia from NY, even though it seems like that according to FE map a route over africa and asia is WAY shorter and safer.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: divito the truthist on August 31, 2008, 08:18:38 AM
GPS are part of the conspiracy !!!!! lol

No, it's not.

..and ask them the reason why we fly over the pacific to get to Australia from NY, even though it seems like that according to FE map a route over africa and asia is WAY shorter and safer.

This is easily answered with the FAQ and some common sense.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Josef on August 31, 2008, 08:20:53 AM
Quote
That experiment cannot prove that it is the light bending up, because you would get the same results if the surface of the earth was curved.
But it's not curved. I don't see any reason to assume that the entire earth is curving when clearly it's only a few photons which are doing the curving.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is what I call Belief.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on August 31, 2008, 08:21:54 AM
Oh really common sense you say?
Have you tried looking at your map?
The pacific Route is so long that makes it a senseless idea to fly by the pacific
1. Because it is not fuel efficient
2. Less safe (since across the african continent, and asia you would have more airport to stop by in case of emergency
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on August 31, 2008, 08:24:25 AM
Oh yeah and in case of emergency landing or crush, they would find themselves in the middle of africa, how would they explain that? I am sorry but that conspiracy theory just doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Alienfreak on August 31, 2008, 09:18:14 AM
Quote
Oh yeah and in case of emergency landing or crush, they would find themselves in the middle of africa, how would they explain that? I am sorry but that conspiracy theory just doesn't make sense.

Then the MiB come and get rid of them all and fake a crash in the ocean.

Or once the evil conspirators see on their radar screens that a plane tries to land on africa while its passangers should think they are elsewhere they just shoot it down and fake a crahs landing.


See? It all makes that much sense...
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on August 31, 2008, 09:20:20 AM
Quote
Then the MiB come and get rid of them all and fake a crash in the ocean.

Or once the evil conspirators see on their radar screens that a plane tries to land on africa while its passangers should think they are elsewhere they just shoot it down and fake a crahs landing.


See? It all makes that much sense..

You are being funny, right?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on August 31, 2008, 10:01:30 AM
Quote
That experiment cannot prove that it is the light bending up, because you would get the same results if the surface of the earth was curved.

But it's not curved. I don't see any reason to assume that the entire earth is curving when clearly it's only a few photons which are doing the curving.

But I didn't "assume" anything in my post, I never said "assume the earth is curved".  I said that with your experiment the question of whether the earth was curved or flat was an unknown.  The fact that the laser point appears to be higher on the opposite pole could be explained by either light bending upwards, or earth being curved.  I suggested doing an experiment that takes that unknown out of the picture, by using a known man made flat and level surface.  The football field was just an example (not sure if its exactly flat).  It could be any man made flat surface, as long as it was tested before hand to be exactly flat.  You could prove whether or not the light bends up when projected parallel to a flat (and level) surface.

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sokarul on August 31, 2008, 10:13:03 AM
GPS are part of the conspiracy !!!!! lol

No, it's not.


You sure do like to change the FET. 
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on August 31, 2008, 10:19:11 AM
..and ask them the reason why we fly over the pacific to get to Australia from NY, even though it seems like that according to FE map a route over africa and asia is WAY shorter and safer.

This is easily answered with the FAQ and some common sense.
[/quote]

Quote
Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"

A: (Presumed answer: The airline pilots are misled by their GPS, or are deliberately conspiring to make it appear that the flights take different times)

Q: "How can a compass work on a Flat Earth?"

I saw that, and I saw the map also.  You could explain it by misled GPS, but how does that explain intercontinental submarine cables?  There are fiber cables (and power, and telephone) run across the ocean floors between the continents, I would imagine this is something that would have to have been precisely measured in order to accomplish.  According to that map, the cables between North America and Europe would have to be the same length as the cable between Australia and New Zea land.  You cannot explain that with faulty GPS.

Here is a map of the submarine cable system, unfortunately there is no scale, but the cables are labeled and you could find out their length if you research further.

http://www1.alcatel-lucent.com/submarine/refs/World_Map_2007_LR.pdf
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on August 31, 2008, 10:47:42 AM
Quote
I saw that, and I saw the map also.  You could explain it by misled GPS, but how does that explain intercontinental submarine cables?  There are fiber cables (and power, and telephone) run across the ocean floors between the continents, I would imagine this is something that would have to have been precisely measured in order to accomplish.  According to that map, the cables between North America and Europe would have to be the same length as the cable between Australia and New Zea land.  You cannot explain that with faulty GPS.

Here is a map of the submarine cable system, unfortunately there is no scale, but the cables are labeled and you could find out their length if you research further.

Exactly! But then again, the conspiracy excuse could be use...
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on August 31, 2008, 11:18:02 AM
Fiber cables only have a maximum range of 10000 miles.  The pacific ones would have to be longer than that.  Just to the untrained eye.  I am a network engineer myself, but I specialize in cisco LAN/WAN and IP routing.  A friend of mine works at a switching center for ISP's and phone companies.  Hes a bit more experienced with Sonet and inter continental cables.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on August 31, 2008, 11:24:37 AM
Well, im not sure im gettin this right. but on the map you posted, it seems like that there is a meeting point of these cables in the middle of the pacific ocean..couldn't that justify the need for longer cables?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on August 31, 2008, 11:49:52 AM
Branching units are just places where one of the cables from the bundle branches off.  A branching unit is not like a switching device that repeats the signal.  That still doesn't explain the fact that we would have to have exact measurements of the distances between these continents in order to do this.

A repeating device would exist in Hawaii, and New Zealand for connectivity between U.S. and Australia.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on August 31, 2008, 11:54:15 AM
Hey..since you are an engineering you could answer my question...

Couldn't one use sound waves (im not sure if that is what they use..but i rememebr it being some kind of waves), like they do to find the shape of the oceans' bottom, to end the argument of flat vs round earth?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on August 31, 2008, 12:02:33 PM
Perhaps, but I'm not that kind of engineer.  I design networks.  I do believe they use Sonar to map the bottom of the ocean, but it has a range.  Just like Satellite photos don't prove the earth is round because its thousands of pictures put together.  Same thing goes with mapping the ocean floor with Sonar.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on August 31, 2008, 12:05:08 PM
Ugh yeah i guess you are right.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on August 31, 2008, 12:07:50 PM
Now, back to the subject at hand, if you want to discuss intercontinental cables, we can make another thread and I will discuss what I know about them.  Again it's my friend that works with Sonet, Im more on the LAN end, but I have some understanding of it.

Back to the subject:

Quote
That experiment cannot prove that it is the light bending up, because you would get the same results if the surface of the earth was curved.

But it's not curved. I don't see any reason to assume that the entire earth is curving when clearly it's only a few photons which are doing the curving.

But I didn't "assume" anything in my post, I never said "assume the earth is curved".  I said that with your experiment the question of whether the earth was curved or flat was an unknown.  The fact that the laser point appears to be higher on the opposite pole could be explained by either light bending upwards, or earth being curved.  I suggested doing an experiment that takes that unknown out of the picture, by using a known man made flat and level surface.  The football field was just an example (not sure if its exactly flat).  It could be any man made flat surface, as long as it was tested before hand to be exactly flat.  You could prove whether or not the light bends up when projected parallel to a flat (and level) surface.


Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on August 31, 2008, 12:16:07 PM
nah I am quite tired of trying to make a point today..

..but I do think the experiment you are proposing is quite logical, and could prove one side or the other wrong.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: divito the truthist on August 31, 2008, 03:55:35 PM
Oh really common sense you say?
Have you tried looking at your map?
The pacific Route is so long that makes it a senseless idea to fly by the pacific
1. Because it is not fuel efficient
2. Less safe (since across the african continent, and asia you would have more airport to stop by in case of emergency

That's fantastic and all, but if airlines don't know the shape of the Earth, they can't have better fuel efficiency and make it "more safe."
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on August 31, 2008, 03:59:54 PM
Quote
That's fantastic and all, but if airlines don't know the shape of the Earth, they can't have better fuel efficiency and make it "more safe."

So Airlines fly blindly, get to destination, and in case of emergency landing, they land in the middle of nowhere, assuming its somewhere near the pacific?

And I brought that point up since I was told that flying over the Pacific even in the FE scenario is more fuel efficient than it would be to fly over Africa to Australia.

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: divito the truthist on August 31, 2008, 04:05:49 PM
So Airlines fly blindly

No, they don't.

get to destination, and in case of emergency landing, they land in the middle of nowhere, assuming its somewhere near the pacific?

What? The shape of the Earth doesn't change how they operate.

And I brought that point up since I was told that flying over the Pacific even in the FE scenario is more fuel efficient than it would be to fly over Africa to Australia.

I don't see your point. It's more fuel efficient if they fly based on something they don't know about?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on August 31, 2008, 04:14:12 PM
I do not think this is making any sense to you right now, because it was a discussion started on another thread, where a FE supporter, based on a representation of FE (where the Pacific extends at the north) said that flying over the pacific, based on that representation was still more advantageous.

Now if you do not agree with your fellow FE, it is not by problem.

But do keep in mind that the shape of the earth does change the way you fly. Because if you look at the map proposed on this thread:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20580.msg395901#msg395901

you can see that flying in a straight line to Australia is the quickest route to reach it. And not by flying over the Pacific.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: ppridgen1 on August 31, 2008, 05:33:00 PM
 I'm no brillian scientist or professer, but what was depicted in the photos is called a wave...they rise and fall and can obstruct your view if you are close to the height of the water :P
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on August 31, 2008, 06:10:49 PM
I'm no brillian scientist or professer,


Really?  I never would have guessed.  I had you pegged as a genuine intellectual.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: markjo on August 31, 2008, 07:13:38 PM
get to destination, and in case of emergency landing, they land in the middle of nowhere, assuming its somewhere near the pacific?

What? The shape of the Earth doesn't change how they operate.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that it would.  Especially in the southern hemisphere.  But, then again, that's been done to death already.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Alienfreak on September 01, 2008, 01:26:44 AM
Quote
You are being funny, right?


This page has, sadly, moved past the barrier of being funny long ago i guess -.-

And i guess that MiBs killing whol airplanes full of people is right what they believe...



And Sonars would work. As they have a range over 20kms.

As well as the gyro in an airplane would work. As well as the experiment with the lightrefraction on a plane surface would work. As well as the paradoxon of the 2lightrays at the same place falsifies it.


Get over it, you can give them as many proofs as you want. They wont believe you.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: LogicIsBetter on September 01, 2008, 06:33:28 AM
FEs position seems to be "If YOU didn't create the evidence yourself, it's not real evidence", is that right?

I'm just wondering if by their logic the use of my own evidence is allowable for them to formulate their theory of bendy light. Shouldn't they be using their own images taken themselves? It's a rhetorical question. I'd like some acknowledgment that all the data out there probably isn't forged and that there isn't anything wrong with us using information and evidence published by others to support our argument, without having it dismissed as "conspiracy"

It just seems crazy to me that you won't accept things unless you have experienced it first hand.

I've asked about this 3 or 4 times.  There is never any thoughtful response.  The evidence that is acceptable is that which can be interpreted to support the preconceived idea.  All others are unacceptable.  Tom likes to quote a few pieces of literature, but never says why those are considered trustworthy rather than many, many other pieces of literature from an established scientific community.

I don't mind if someone wants to argue either side of an argument.  But contradictions, in logic, are indications that at least one assumption is wrong.

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: divito the truthist on September 01, 2008, 06:57:41 AM
you can see that flying in a straight line to Australia is the quickest route to reach it. And not by flying over the Pacific.

Yes, but from the FAQ, east to west travel is done on a curve. Since pilots are not going to question what they've learned, they are going to fly how they were taught to fly. This means that while a "straight" line may be faster, it's not going to happen.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Alienfreak on September 01, 2008, 07:05:48 AM
Quote
Yes, but from the FAQ, east to west travel is done on a curve. Since pilots are not going to question what they've learned, they are going to fly how they were taught to fly. This means that while a "straight" line may be faster, it's not going to happen.


Get your advanced Wiimote on a plane with your notebook and proof it.

Every not that crappy gyro on this planet (or your disk) is able to measure a curve. Probably even your iPhone will suffice, but i guess this one is really too crappy ;)
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on September 01, 2008, 11:18:36 AM
Quote
Yes, but from the FAQ, east to west travel is done on a curve. Since pilots are not going to question what they've learned, they are going to fly how they were taught to fly. This means that while a "straight" line may be faster, it's not going to happen.

Oh really?? Pilots are not going to question what they have learned?

I am sure one of the theories said that they were part of the conspiracy.

So how can you be part of the conspiracy and not know the truth?

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: divito the truthist on September 01, 2008, 12:10:57 PM
Oh really?? Pilots are not going to question what they have learned?

Not if they want to get to their destinations and not piss off their employers.

I am sure one of the theories said that they were part of the conspiracy.

So how can you be part of the conspiracy and not know the truth?

Maybe one theory, but not all of them.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on September 01, 2008, 12:16:50 PM
Quote
Not if they want to get to their destinations and not piss off their employers.
Not all pilots are employees, some people fly for the fun of it, others are private pilots, some are close to retirement, why keep the secret if you are not risking much? hmm.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: divito the truthist on September 01, 2008, 02:54:32 PM
Not all pilots are employees, some people fly for the fun of it, others are private pilots, some are close to retirement, why keep the secret if you are not risking much? hmm.

Do you think you can just go gallivanting around the world in your plane and discover this? Things are not that simple.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on September 01, 2008, 03:11:37 PM
Obviously they are not. Because people like you make it so complicated.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: markjo on September 01, 2008, 03:19:13 PM
Not all pilots are employees, some people fly for the fun of it, others are private pilots, some are close to retirement, why keep the secret if you are not risking much? hmm.

Do you think you can just go gallivanting around the world in your plane and discover this? Things are not that simple.

Other than avoiding restricted air space and making sure that you have enough fuel, what's to stop a private pilot from gallivanting around the world?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: divito the truthist on September 01, 2008, 03:29:48 PM
Other than avoiding restricted air space and making sure that you have enough fuel, what's to stop a private pilot from gallivanting around the world?

I'm unaware of the specifics, but would restricted air space include other countries? Can someone put an incorrect destination on the flight record and just enter another country?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 01, 2008, 03:32:56 PM
No, you usually you have to get a country clearance.  Which can take up anywhere between 3 days to 1 month to acquire.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: divito the truthist on September 01, 2008, 03:38:33 PM
No, you usually you have to get a country clearance.  Which can take up anywhere between 3 days to 1 month to acquire.

And their boundaries usually extend into the surrounding body of water, correct? This makes restricted air space further than their landmass I take it?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: markjo on September 02, 2008, 05:24:26 AM
No, you usually you have to get a country clearance.  Which can take up anywhere between 3 days to 1 month to acquire.

And their boundaries usually extend into the surrounding body of water, correct? This makes restricted air space further than their landmass I take it?

I believe that the international community generally recognizes a 3 mile limit (but some countries may claim more).  Still, what is the insurmountable issue keeping someone from flying pretty much anywhere they want?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 02, 2008, 05:30:02 AM
It depends on the country and its topography.  The actual term for the zone is ADIZ  Air Defense Identification Zone.

Heres Japans.  You can see in some parts it quite aways away from the shoreline.  Other particularly over on the west side it is closer.

(http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/9929/japanclaimedeez4pg8fo.jpg)
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: divito the truthist on September 02, 2008, 05:35:11 AM
Still, what is the insurmountable issue keeping someone from flying pretty much anywhere they want?

Er, haven't you been reading?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on September 02, 2008, 05:39:03 AM
Quote
Still, what is the insurmountable issue keeping someone from flying pretty much anywhere they want?
Quote
Er, haven't you been reading?

I still don't get it myself. And if your answer is " things are not as easy as you think", you will have to do better than that, because that is "slightly" ambiguous.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Korollis on September 02, 2008, 05:41:10 AM
lol are you people serious? you guys actually believe that the earth is flat? what is the matter with you all, haven't you guys seen the pics from NASA? what is that fake too? bc i live in florida and i go to every single launch at the KSC. wow you guys are toasted....
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on September 02, 2008, 05:44:32 AM
Quote
lol are you people serious? you guys actually believe that the earth is flat? what is the matter with you all, haven't you guys seen the pics from NASA? what is that fake too? bc i live in florida and i go to every single launch at the KSC. wow you guys are toasted....

Hey there..

I suggest you read the FAQ, because that would explain what you just said about NASA and all.

I believe in Round Earth obviously, but i like to keep an open mind, and i quite like the debates, since i got nothing to do at the moment lol
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on September 02, 2008, 05:50:07 AM
Still, what is the insurmountable issue keeping someone from flying pretty much anywhere they want?

Er, haven't you been reading?

You have to remember all my international flights are in military airplanes. As far as commercial liners Im sure the company has something worked out with the country.  Probably a blanket clearance.  Im not sure just any civilian can hop into his jet and acquire a country clearance and go continent hopping.  But I could be wrong.  Its happened before.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: divito the truthist on September 02, 2008, 06:00:51 AM
Im not sure just any civilian can hop into his jet and acquire a country clearance and go continent hopping. 

Exactly.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on September 02, 2008, 06:02:12 AM
Quote
Exactly.

*edit*
Exactly what? All i see is an "I am not sure", it doesnt say "i am certain of"
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: divito the truthist on September 02, 2008, 06:06:32 AM
I'd find it very unlikely that a random person with a pilot's license will gain clearance to simply enter another country's air space. This limits the area they can cover in their plane. This doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that they need information on which to base their conclusions, that they are in a different area, or that they didn't follow their compass properly.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: McKee on September 02, 2008, 06:17:23 AM
You know what? Since we actually do not know what the regulations are, and how hard it id to get a permission to fly in certain airspace, we cannot quite continue this discussion. All I know is that we read all the FAA regulations we could continue this, but honestly I am not That bored to read them! lol..

One thing I have read is that the US charges by nautic mile to navigate in their airspace. So it might be a question of paying in order to be in someone's airspace.

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/international_aviation/overflight_fees/

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: markjo on September 02, 2008, 01:23:43 PM
I'd find it very unlikely that a random person with a pilot's license will gain clearance to simply enter another country's air space. This limits the area they can cover in their plane. This doesn't even begin to touch on the fact that they need information on which to base their conclusions, that they are in a different area, or that they didn't follow their compass properly.

As near as I can figure it's all logistics and red tape.  Daunting, perhaps, but not impossible to overcome.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Nightmare on September 08, 2008, 03:10:38 AM
Don't you fools know? Antartica is NOT a country!  :D :D
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Gabe on September 08, 2008, 06:56:23 AM
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.

Anyone can yell "it's an illusion" at anything. The claim of an illusion along with some vague explanation concerning optics or physics isn't proof that the explanation is true. It isn't proof of anything.

LOL!
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: GoodPoint on September 08, 2008, 06:41:38 PM
Another victory for RE!

The Earth appears flat because the camera is close to the ground.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on September 09, 2008, 06:52:13 PM
So let me sum this up.

Possible reasons why the hull of the sailboat isn't visible...

1.  Really large waves, as predicted by Rowbotham, are obscuring the hull of sailboat.

2.  Some phenomenon, also as predicted by Rowbotham, makes it impossible to see the hull of the sailboat, but this effect is only present over seawater.

3.  Electromagnetic acceleration, which contradicts Rowbotham, bends the light in such a way that the hull of the sailboat is not visible.

4.  It is a government conspiracy!

Did I miss any?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on September 10, 2008, 07:27:43 PM
Possible reasons why the hull of the sailboat isn't visible...

1.  Really large waves, as predicted by Rowbotham, are obscuring the hull of sailboat.

Except we showed that the waves were no larger than 0.5 meters.


Quote
2.  Some phenomenon, also as predicted by Rowbotham, makes it impossible to see the hull of the sailboat, but this effect is only present over seawater.

No explanation as to why there is this special effect over seawater??!?


Quote
3.  Electromagnetic acceleration, which contradicts Rowbotham, bends the light in such a way that the hull of the sailboat is not visible.

Tom doesn't know whether to support this one or not.  It is a nice convenient explanation on one hand, but on the other, if this is a true effect it means that the observations of Mr. Rowbotham were erroneous.


Quote
4.  It is a government conspiracy!

I doubt that Dyno is a government agent, but who knows, they might pay him to "lose" those pictures.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on September 10, 2008, 07:38:20 PM
Possible reasons why the hull of the sailboat isn't visible...

1.  Really large waves, as predicted by Rowbotham, are obscuring the hull of sailboat.

Except we showed that the waves were no larger than 0.5 meters.


Quote
2.  Some phenomenon, also as predicted by Rowbotham, makes it impossible to see the hull of the sailboat, but this effect is only present over seawater.

No explanation as to why there is this special effect over seawater??!?


Quote
3.  Electromagnetic acceleration, which contradicts Rowbotham, bends the light in such a way that the hull of the sailboat is not visible.

Tom doesn't know whether to support this one or not.  It is a nice convenient explanation on one hand, but on the other, if this is a true effect it means that the observations of Mr. Rowbotham were erroneous.


Quote
4.  It is a government conspiracy!

I doubt that Dyno is a government agent, but who knows, they might pay him to "lose" those pictures.

Oh noes! If I go down I'm taking you all with me.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: E349 on September 28, 2008, 09:11:20 PM

...if this is a true effect it means that the observations of Mr. Rowbotham were erroneous.


God Forbid!
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: MessiahOfFire on September 28, 2008, 11:51:48 PM
The analogy suggested that those who accepted facts from authority blindly and without question were the ones with the mental development of a 3 year old.

But in your analogy, you should accept the existence of Santa Claus.  You observed the presents appearing on Christmas morning, you have the "evidence" from your mother saying that they are there because of Santa, and you can't prove that it wasn't Santa that left them there.

Wow, thats probably the best summary of FET I has seen yet. Good work mate! And I am being serious here (incase you thought I am bein sarcastic)!

EDIT: My bad, I mean its a good summary of Tom Bishop, not FET. I have actually read some good theories around here that are more plausible then RET.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Rig Navigator on September 28, 2008, 11:54:24 PM
The analogy suggested that those who accepted facts from authority blindly and without question were the ones with the mental development of a 3 year old.

But in your analogy, you should accept the existence of Santa Claus.  You observed the presents appearing on Christmas morning, you have the "evidence" from your mother saying that they are there because of Santa, and you can't prove that it wasn't Santa that left them there.

Wow, thats probably the best summary of FET I has seen yet. Good work mate! And I am being serious here (incase you thought I am bein sarcastic)!


Thank you.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on June 02, 2009, 01:48:42 AM
In light of a recent post I saw stating FES was no longer supporting bendy light, how are these results now interpreted?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Visco on June 02, 2009, 09:56:39 PM
Light does NOT bend.  The only time is does bend is with gravity.  BUT in the FE perspective, there is no gravity, so yes light does NOT bend.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on June 04, 2009, 06:57:05 PM
No FEr going to respond?
Given the abandonment of bendy light, don't these results kick Rowbowthams arse all over the place?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Visco on June 04, 2009, 09:47:28 PM
Im just going to say its ANOTHER win for the REers!  win win win!
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Abysmal on June 04, 2009, 10:09:43 PM
I would like to hear a response from an FE'er without the "bendy light" idea.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2009, 10:19:01 PM
I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on June 04, 2009, 10:32:42 PM
I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.
and Dogplatter sees nothing wrong with man creating penguins
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Visco on June 04, 2009, 10:50:59 PM
I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.

wat is the EA?
And light is not affected by magnetism...
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on June 04, 2009, 11:48:17 PM
I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.

wat is the EA?
And light is not affected by magnetism...

EA is the phenomenon you are referring to as bending light.  Try conducting a search, there are a few threads dedicated to it.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Mammon on June 05, 2009, 12:31:21 AM
Quote
GIVE IT UP.  You have no proof for bending light.

We can clearly wee more of the ship's hull when we increase our altitude. This is evidence that light bends upwards.

LOL? We can see more of the hull because we can see over the curvature of the earth.. It's as simple as that.

Making up theories that light bends upwards is a typical and poor attempt to try make your silly flat earth theory work.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Scooter on June 06, 2009, 01:24:00 PM
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards (http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.msg4506#msg4506). Thanks dyno.

If light bent upwards then we would just see more water compared to the original image when going to a higher altitude.

The only way to explain this is to say that the light simply disappeared. It was cut out and the light remaining came together to reform the picture.

I took a second to make a quick picture show what I mean:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v281/FirmW2/dissapearinglight.jpg)

If the light bent upwards we would see the exact same image only it would look higher, like we were looking up a slope. What we actually see is the are between the bolded lines vanishing when you look at a lower altitude, and the full picture when looking at a higher altitude. I don't believe bending light properly explains what is observed, unless I am misunderstanding the theory.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Abysmal on June 06, 2009, 11:58:27 PM
I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.
i found this in the FAQ

UPDATE: The Flat Earth Society no longer accepts the Electromagnetic Acceleration (AKA "bendy light") theory due to a consensus among the FEW members.

you may not see something wrong with it. but FE'ers do.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Euclid on June 07, 2009, 02:56:22 AM
I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.
i found this in the FAQ

UPDATE: The Flat Earth Society no longer accepts the Electromagnetic Acceleration (AKA "bendy light") theory due to a consensus among the FEW members.

you may not see something wrong with it. but FE'ers do.

The FEW does not represent the Flat Earth Society.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on June 07, 2009, 03:01:21 AM
So what is the Flat Earth Society scientific theory of choice? The one considered most plausible by the majority?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Euclid on June 07, 2009, 03:05:12 AM
Considering what the "big" FE'ers believe, (Tom, Username, Ski)  I would say bendy light of some kind is accepted.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: markjo on June 07, 2009, 09:26:16 AM
I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.
i found this in the FAQ

UPDATE: The Flat Earth Society no longer accepts the Electromagnetic Acceleration (AKA "bendy light") theory due to a consensus among the FEW members.

you may not see something wrong with it. but FE'ers do.

The FEW does not represent the Flat Earth Society.

Actually, I think that it does (at least as far as this site goes).  I'm sure that some members will have differing opinions on various elements of the model, but as near as I can tell the FEW (Flat Earth Wiki) is supposed to describe the "official" FE model.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: markjo on June 07, 2009, 10:31:08 AM
Considering what the "big" FE'ers believe, (Tom, Username, Ski)  I would say bendy light of some kind is accepted.

But (as I recall) they all have different versions of bendy light.  Tom is proposing two different kinds of light (bendy celestial and non-bendy terrestrial) and Username favors Aetherific Edification.  I forget what Ski supports (EA, I think), but I don't think that he's been around much lately to discuss the matter.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: T.P. Crockmier on June 07, 2009, 12:59:02 PM
Quote
GIVE IT UP.  You have no proof for bending light.

We can clearly wee more of the ship's hull when we increase our altitude. This is evidence that light bends upwards.

This is evidence that you're ignorant.  We can see more of the ship's hull as we go higher because the higher vantage point allows us, or the camera for that matter, to see over the curve of the earth that's getting in our way at ground level.  The pictures that Dyno took didn't do anything for your theory, it actually proved it wrong.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Ebaum on June 08, 2009, 03:44:00 PM
You must be realy, realy stupid. LOL AT YOU, YOU STUPID RETARD.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Delthan on June 09, 2009, 03:21:31 AM
I see nothing wrong with electromagnetic acceleration.

There's a pun in there somewhere...
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sandokhan on June 09, 2009, 03:49:06 AM
dyno, when you post a picture, you need to tell the distance involved, there was no such thing in your message.

Is it 10 km? 15 km? Did you specify the curvature involved?

There is no need to resort to bending light; which is not an argument to be used in our discussions, with bending light you could accomplish lots of things, which might have alternative explanations.

Let me prove to you the Earth is flat, without bending light.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/

(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072bb88a_0020000203427_00_600.jpg)

The roof top of the Sky Dome visible (well intended round earth supporters brought to our attention that the height of the Sky Dome is actually 90 meters, and not 86; at least 5 meters of the roof is visible, that would bring it back right to about 86, but we will use here a value of 90 meters).

Even with atmospheric reffraction (which is absent in this photograph) we might substract a few meters, there would still be about 50-55 meters remaining which cannot be explained on a round earth.

The photographer was on the beach at St. Catharines (50 km distance from Toronto), curvature of 49.5 meters, from a height of 2 meters you could not see anything under 158 meters, from 3 meters nothing could be seen under 150.5 meters.

Here is the beach in St. Catharines:

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pirate-ship-5137.jpg
(already we can see the top of the CN Tower, due to the fact we are using a poor quality camera)

http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/mirage-across-the-lake-5112.jpg
(with a better camera, more details become available, confirming the theory described in Earth is not a Globe, WITHOUT resorting to bending light)

There is a difference of 60 meters between the accepted round earth measure of 150.5 meters (under which you could see nothing), and the visible portion of the top of the Sky Dome...



Note that I have used a 50 km distance (actually 52-53 km) and a 3 meter height for the photographer (actually 2).

Here is a panorama of the Toronto skyline:

http://www.vignetted.com/images/200705/20070510_sm.jpg
http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/1351778/2/istockphoto_1351778_toronto_skyline.jpg
http://www.translatorscafe.com/cafe/images/wallpapers/Toronto-Skyline.jpg

Now another three photograph section, in which we see the theory written by Rowbotham, once again, confirmed:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/ (visible roof top of the Sky Dome, 60 meters difference between the accepted value of 150.5 meters, and the height of 90 meters)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/83867796/ (better camera, better picture, with more details)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/150629243/

If we imagine Toronto as a gigantic ship, with the CN Tower as its masthead, we get a complete confirmation of the theory in:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sandokhan on June 09, 2009, 03:56:50 AM
And now, dyno let me pull out all stops.

We will increase the distance to 55 kilometers, Hamilton - Toronto lakeshore west condominiums.

At that distance, there would be a 59 meter curvature, with an visual obstacle of 195 meters, given the position taken by the photographers right there on the beach (2 meters altitude).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/

Looking from the beach in Hamilton across Lake Ontario towards Toronto

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/198/487755017_a114c05e50.jpg?v=0)

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

Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontario Beach in Hamilton

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/487726854_181aa457da.jpg?v=0)

No curvature whatsoever, where there should have been 59 meters of it, given the 55 km distance, pictures taken right on the Hamilton Beach.

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on June 09, 2009, 04:38:59 AM
edited OP to include distance(18km)

My rebuttal.

The images you linked do not have information about them. At least 2 images are shot from elevations significantly greater than 2m. It doesn't matter in any case. All images linked are from approximately the same position yet show significantly different portions of the skyline. Atmospheric effects can account for this.

None of the accounts provide any measure of detail from which to infer ground level distortion.

The last 2 images do not contain a shoreline or any means of inferring elevation of the shooting point. Without this information, talk is merely speculation.

No magnification is evident in any image and I see no restoring of anything either.

If you present images taken which document the conditions under which they were shot then we can debate.

No refutation on my images?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sandokhan on June 09, 2009, 04:55:34 AM
You are really dynodumb.

Your claimed 18 km distance must be verified by official data from that ship, that is why I never use but a fixed visual target. What is the written proof of your distance? Did you call the captain of that ship to ask where he was located? How do you estimate the 18 km distance, with proof?

My images have all the information needed posted right next to them.

All were taken on the beach, by that author j-a-x, that is why I posted the other two photos, so you can see where you are.

In the first one, you can see the rocks located right next to the St. Catharines beach, and right next to Lake Ontario, look carefully.

The Toronto lakeshore west condominiums are seen clearly with all the details needed, do not play dynodumb with me, because it is going to hurt badly, my friend.

Do you understand what is going on here?

THERE SHOULD BE 59 METERS OF CURVATURE BETWEEN THE TWO SHORES.

FROM THE BEACH IN HAMILTON YOU CANNOT SEE ANYTHING UNDER 195 METERS, WAY ABOVE THE HEIGHT OF THOSE CONDOMINIUMS.

YOU DO NOT NEED MAGNIFICATION, CUT THE CRAP.

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on June 09, 2009, 05:22:49 AM
Actually if you read the OP, I identify Rottnest Island as being 18km away and state the distance to the ships is unknown. I'm pretty sure the island doesn't move around much.

Sure you can see the rocks. Both the foreground rocks and horizon are in focus which means he could have been any height.

I restate that the shots that show the condos have nothing to indicate elevation.

Why can't refraction account for this?

2 images from the same place(St Catherines) with differ greatly in detail shown. Evidently favourable atmospheric conditions produce a superior mirage.

Magnification is vital especially since you are proposing your links favour Rowbowtham. You haven't provided any evidence in favour of that nonsense and still haven't addressed why my findings refute his.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sandokhan on June 09, 2009, 05:31:43 AM
Your approach does not work with me dyno.

We will increase the distance to 55 kilometers, Hamilton - Toronto lakeshore west condominiums.

At that distance, there would be a 59 meter curvature, with an visual obstacle of 195 meters, given the position taken by the photographers right there on the beach (2 meters altitude).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/

Looking from the beach in Hamilton across Lake Ontario towards Toronto

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/198/487755017_a114c05e50.jpg?v=0)

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

Looking Across Lake Ontario at Toronto from Lake Ontario Beach in Hamilton

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/232/487726854_181aa457da.jpg?v=0)

No curvature whatsoever, where there should have been 59 meters of it, given the 55 km distance, pictures taken right on the Hamilton Beach.

The authors of the photos right there on the beach, we do not need no magnification.

All the evidence is right here in the pictures dyno, do not pretend or play dumb, won't work with me.

Do you understand dyno?

The pictures were taken right on the Hamilton beach, so says the caption.

Those rocks there have about 1 meter in height, you have to be right there on the beach, to see those details, but I suppose you would like to increase the height to about 20 meters, wouldn't you?
No way Dyno, not with me here...

Your target does not specify the distance to the ships, that is what I am trying to tell you. The photos with the ships are worth nothing without a distance being offered, with proof.

As for the 18 km, you simply DID NOT USE A GOOD QUALITY CAMERA TO CAPTURE THE FULL DETAILS.






Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on June 09, 2009, 05:57:28 AM
What is your objection with my choice of camera?
The 6.1MP CCD is a quality device. No lens was used in the telescopic images due to the direct mount. What further details were you expecting?

Cables and handrails are resolved in the images of the ships. I think I was pretty much at the limit here due to atmospheric distortion.

There is no more details to the ships between the non-telescopic image and the telescoped one at the same elevation. Increasing elevation reveals more hull. Distance doesn't matter.
But if you want distances, explain the island.

Tell you what, contact the photographer and ask him for a full size high resolution version of those images and ask him exactly where he was standing. Then we will have something to work with.
I do believe it's stange that more isn't obscured but like I said, it depends exactly where the image was shot.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: NTheGreat on June 09, 2009, 06:10:28 AM
A small observation about the CN tower images. In This image (http://valdodge.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pirate-ship-5137.jpg) There is only a small section of lake that you can see above the breakwater, no thicker than the breakwater itself. In This image (http://www.flickr.com/photos/j-a-x/129240474/) however, the visible lake is many times thicker than the breakwater at the bottom. This suggests the second image was taken at a higher altitude than the first.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sandokhan on June 09, 2009, 06:26:06 AM
Let me show you what quality equipment is.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9979943/Dove-Dover (the original photos posted on flickr.com, I saved the web pages)

(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072b89d5_0020000203085_00_600.jpg)

Taken on the Cap Gris Nez beach, 34 km distance, the full view of the White Cliffs Dover.

Here are the photographers on the French beach, Shipspotting:

(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072b29eb_0020000203086_00_600.jpg)

That is the equipment you should have used, dyno.


Let us now visit Beamer Falls Conservation Area.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/libraryplayground/343037881/

Beamer?s Falls #071114
River Forty Mile Creek
Class Ramp
Size Medium
Height: 45
Crest: 20
The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority acquired Beamer Memorial Conservation Area in 1964, to protect and preserve the Niagara Escarpment and the Forty-Mile Creek valley system. The site is home to a variety of Carolinian plants and wildlife.

One of the best proofs that there is no curvature over lake Ontario; from 45 meters, we need another 10 meters just to reach the top of the curvature, right in front of you, and then miss the bottom 65 meters of the buildings in Toronto (the visual obstacle). But there is no curvature, no midpoint 55 meter obstacle, the Toronto downtown buildings visible top to bottom.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53037827_fdb83b96bd_b.jpg)

No 55 meter curvature whatsoever.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: NTheGreat on June 09, 2009, 06:53:15 AM
Quote
Taken on the Cap Gris Nez beach, 34 km distance, the full view of the White Cliffs Dover.

I can't see anything that suggests the image was taken from the beach of Cap Gris Nez, especially considering Cap Gris Nez consists of a rocky outcrop over 30 meters high.


Quote
Let us now visit Beamer Falls Conservation Area.

The area's a good 120 meters above the surface of the lake.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sandokhan on June 09, 2009, 06:59:42 AM
NGreat, do not try these things with me here; I will punish you.

HERE IS THE BEAMER FALLS CONSERVATION AREA:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/343037881_497327a9d6_o.jpg)

45 meters, NOT THE 220 METERS HEIGHT YOU ARE SUGGESTING; THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING IN GRIMSBY, NOT SOME MILES AWAY FROM THE SHORELINE, AND THEN WE WOULD NOT BE IN GRIMSBY AT ALL. Not even at 2 km inland, the height of the Escarpment does not reach beyond 170 meters.

Did you think it would work with me? Not a chance...

Even with a 120 meter altitude, we can see the entirety of the view from Toronto, impossible even from that height (which does not exist there).

THE CAPTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SAYS: TAKEN FROM BEAMER FALLS CONSERVATION AREA, 45 METERS IN HEIGHT, THAT IS WHY I POSTED THE GEOLOGICAL FACTS.

You wrote:

I can't see anything that suggests the image was taken from the beach of Cap Gris Nez, especially considering Cap Gris Nez consists of a rocky outcrop over 30 meters high.

Cap Gris Nez has a maximum height of 45 meters.

Here are the photographers on the BEACH ITSELF:

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072b29eb_0020000203086_00_600.jpg

IT SAYS SHIPSPOTTING.

THE NEXT PHOTOGRAPH IS THIS, THE SHIPSPOTTING, LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL WEB SITE ADDRESS:

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072b89d5_0020000203085_00_600.jpg

One, right next after the other; no curvature whatsoever.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: NTheGreat on June 09, 2009, 07:19:04 AM
Quote
<photo of Grimsby>

LOTS OF YELLING

I'm not sure what you're saying. The photo of Grimsby probably was taken from the Escarpment. I can't see anything suggesting that the photo of Toronto was taken from the same place. All the caption says is 'As seen from Beamer Falls Conservation Area', nothing about the Escarpment.


Quote
Here are the photographers on the BEACH ITSELF:

Why is the large cliff behind them highlighted? I can't see anything that suggests that that is the exact place from which they took the photos, and besides, it hardly looks like they are right down by the water's edge there.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sandokhan on June 09, 2009, 07:30:55 AM
That highlight is the Cap BLANC Nez cliffs, about 10 km in the distance.

The Escarpment includes cliffs ranging from 20 meters to 45 meters at the Beamer Falls Conservation Area. In the city of Grimsby there is at most 45 meters to take into account.

If you want to go further inland, about 2 km, you will ascend to a 170 meter height. To see those details, you need to ascend to 237 meters, inland, or to 200 meters in Grimsby, no such point of reference there.


KillaB, go ahead, make my day.

http://www.stevefu.net/hostedstuff/mine/Caturday/fucktard.JPG
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: NTheGreat on June 09, 2009, 08:05:04 AM
Quote
To see those details, you need to ascend to 237 meters, inland, or to 200 meters in Grimsby, no such point of reference there.

How high is this hill of water again?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on June 09, 2009, 05:53:36 PM
Let me show you what quality equipment is.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9979943/Dove-Dover (the original photos posted on flickr.com, I saved the web pages)

(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072b89d5_0020000203085_00_600.jpg)

Taken on the Cap Gris Nez beach, 34 km distance, the full view of the White Cliffs Dover.

Here are the photographers on the French beach, Shipspotting:

(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072b29eb_0020000203086_00_600.jpg)

That is the equipment you should have used, dyno.


Let us now visit Beamer Falls Conservation Area.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/libraryplayground/343037881/

Beamer?s Falls #071114
River Forty Mile Creek
Class Ramp
Size Medium
Height: 45
Crest: 20
The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority acquired Beamer Memorial Conservation Area in 1964, to protect and preserve the Niagara Escarpment and the Forty-Mile Creek valley system. The site is home to a variety of Carolinian plants and wildlife.

One of the best proofs that there is no curvature over lake Ontario; from 45 meters, we need another 10 meters just to reach the top of the curvature, right in front of you, and then miss the bottom 65 meters of the buildings in Toronto (the visual obstacle). But there is no curvature, no midpoint 55 meter obstacle, the Toronto downtown buildings visible top to bottom.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/suckamc/53037827/

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/29/53037827_fdb83b96bd_b.jpg)

No 55 meter curvature whatsoever.

OK, you need to research material you intend to debate. There is nothing in those images to indicate their equipment was better. If anything it shows an inferior smaller telescope and no information is provided about the camera used to take the shots. The shots weren't taken on the beach, they were taken from a great elevation. The resolved detail is far less than any shot I took.

So once again, your explanation of my images?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sandokhan on June 12, 2009, 05:20:00 AM
Quote
To see those details, you need to ascend to 237 meters, inland, or to 200 meters in Grimsby, no such point of reference there.

How high is this hill of water again?

The curvature between Grimsby and Toronto is 55 meters. In order to see the following details from Grimsby, you would have to ascend to 200 meters there in that city, no such geographical point references exists, at most 45-50 meters...

(http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg)

Each and every detail of the opposing shore being seen...

Here is a zoom:

(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/d6/9d/673e7b52_0010000368417_00_600.jpg)

A zoom from the same spot at night:

(http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/d6/9d/673e74d0_0010000368416_00_600.jpg)

Each and every detail being seen, no curvature whatsoever over a distance of 53 km.

The original photos:

http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Toronto1.jpg
http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/Toronto2.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tundrabluephotography/312939439/

Another photo from Grimsby, zero curvature:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/312939439_ef682e2d8a_o.jpg)

dyno, over a 18 km distance we will have a 6.3 meter curvature, if we take that into account, your photos do not need anymore comments...use a better photographic equipment, and you will capture the full details, even from 1 meter of height...
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on June 12, 2009, 06:20:57 AM
what is better photographic equipment? tell me what it is and why it is better than what i used.

do you even know?

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: NTheGreat on June 12, 2009, 08:07:00 AM
Quote
The curvature between Grimsby and Toronto is 55 meters. In order to see the following details from Grimsby, you would have to ascend to 200 meters there in that city, no such geographical point references exists, at most 45-50 meters...

Suppose you were to just ascend to 120 meters. How high would the hill of water appear to be from there?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on June 15, 2009, 05:13:06 AM
still waiting.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on June 17, 2009, 04:49:28 PM
Your calculations were too quick; you should see nothing under 5.56 meters. In the zoom taken at nighttime we can see EVERYTHING, even the light from the small island in front of Toronto; and in the original (without zoom) photo in daytime, we can see every detail with no curvature whatsoever. 170 meters is a height which we will find 2 km inland, in Grimsby, the actual place the photographs were taken, we can ascend just to about 45 meters.

If you still have doubts, let me remove them right now:

Port Credit - Toronto, 14.5 km, 4 meters curvature, absolutely nonexistent, there isn't one centimeter/one inch of curvature over this distance:


(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2300/2410587891_e9bbe99452_b.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2012/1571369829_dada8e886e_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/2889142212_de5f408540_b.jpg)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/253/454343806_8776df8b25_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/2549368657_8150a4dbaa_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3089/2379255560_d357df6305_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3287/2740770461_5063085e20_o.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2157/2336833000_3079d5112b_b.jpg)
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/253/454343806_8776df8b25_o.jpg)

Let us increase the distance to 33.6 km, zero curvature (supposed to be 22 meters), Oakville - Toronto:

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3269/2586347950_98fc26bfb8_b.jpg)


There are the tops of trees visible in the large telescoped photos and a lack of shoreline. They are shot from a substantial elevation and therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

The other photos from the marina are more useful. While still lacking information about the equipment set up,  it does appear that the image was shot from tripod height.  You can't say there isn't any curvature though. The detail is insufficient to determine that. This was the whole reason I shot using a high magnification telescope and the unmagnified camera lens. What elevation are the buildings on the shore? Obviously nothing is built at water level to prevent flooding. Foundations etc all tend to lift things a little.

Besides levee, you still haven't shown up the problems with my images for which equipment information is known. That's the challenge. Open to anyone. Come on down.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on July 01, 2009, 06:29:39 AM
Paging Dogplatter.
Can you comment on the results in the OP?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: James on July 01, 2009, 09:03:35 AM
For starters, the change in visibility looks very pronounced for just 4 metres, regardless of RE or FE. I'm not saying it's wrong, but that did take me by surprise.

Anyway, looking at your pictures, I don't see why there is any difference with what would be predicted by a combination of natural perspective and the gradient of atmolayeric density which varies by altitude. It is not disputed that the bottoms of large objects will be obscured before their tops, because air is less transparent closer to the Earth (this is especially true over bodies of water, wherein spray and water vapour become additional factors). It is not disputed that one will be able to see a greater distance from a higher vantage point, again because the line of vision will pass through a greater area of atmolayer with better transparency. The effect seems more pronounced for the opposite shore than for the tanker, as one would expect given the greater distance involved.

I have given my opinion on the photographic evidence you have provided. I commend you for having the zetetic spirit to gather it for yourself.

To corroborate my interpretation, chiefly by demonstrating that the effects you have witnessed are highly dependent on variable conditions of atmolayeric distortion (if they were caused by curvature, they would be universally observed), I offer the following pieces of photographic evidence which clearly demonstrate a LACK of these effects, which we can only assume is caused by lesser atmolayeric distortion on the days and at the sites when and where these were taken:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=1090.0
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=831.0
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=607.0

Now, in the last item in that list, my esteemed colleague has even posted a highly detailed analysis of the distances, as well as a trigonometric proof that what we are seeing is none other than a Flat Earth vista (i.e., that curvature is completely absent).

My response to you, then, is this. Flat Earth Theory plausibly explains both sets of photographs. Not only does it predict the effect witnessed in yours (which is merely indicative of lower atmolayeric clarity), but of course it is wholly attested and corroborated by photographs taken in superior conditions which alleviate this phenomenon.

I am interested to hear if your globularism can explain both sets of photographs to the same satisfactory level. I am inclined to believe that it can't. It copes with your set of images just fine, since the phenomena of gradiated atmolayeric distortion and natural perspective (the latter hasn't really been an issue here given the distances involved) can be construed as evidence of phantom curvature by the dedicated globularist. Now, how does your theory cope with the second set of images?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: cdenley on July 01, 2009, 09:50:36 AM
If the atmosphere were causing the bottom of the ship or the coast to be obstructed, then it would be gradually obstructed by what would look like fog, not obstructed by a horizon of water up to a specific point. The horizon of water obstructing the objects more at a lower elevation than a higher elevation cannot be explained by atmospheric visibility or perspective.

Now, for your photographic rebuttal, you should post the photos one at a time with the elevation of the photographer, the distance from what is not being obstructed by the horizon, and the geographic location. Make sure to include the source of the photo and data.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: James on July 01, 2009, 10:52:52 AM
If the atmosphere were causing the bottom of the ship or the coast to be obstructed, then it would be gradually obstructed by what would look like fog, not obstructed by a horizon of water up to a specific point. The horizon of water obstructing the objects more at a lower elevation than a higher elevation cannot be explained by atmospheric visibility or perspective.

There is no sharp cut-off point, if you closely observe the horizon you'll see that it's blurred because of this gradient effect, and that actually the visible bottom part of each object is generally slightly less clear than the top of it.

Now, for your photographic rebuttal, you should post the photos one at a time with the elevation of the photographer, the distance from what is not being obstructed by the horizon, and the geographic location. Make sure to include the source of the photo and data.

They're all posted in those threads, along with details, I see no reason to clog up this one by copying and pasting them all.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: cdenley on July 01, 2009, 11:35:16 AM
There is no sharp cut-off point, if you closely observe the horizon you'll see that it's blurred because of this gradient effect, and that actually the visible bottom part of each object is generally slightly less clear than the top of it.
(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/279/horizonmqj.jpg)
Are you actually suggesting the area in the red box is atmosphere?
(http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/5295/linem.jpg)
Here I pointed out the very distinct point at which the horizon, not the atmosphere, no longer obstructs the image. Whether the atmosphere slightly affects the visibility above this point is irrelevant.


They're all posted in those threads, along with details, I see no reason to clog up this one by copying and pasting them all.
Some have details, some don't. Some are missing crucial details. Some make false assumptions. I'm not going to spam either thread by posting a grocery list of problems, nor do I want to waste my time, so why don't you find which photos provide sufficient and reliable data, then post it here.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on July 02, 2009, 04:14:55 AM
I believe that many of those shots of Toronto seem like compelling evidence for a FE were it not for the lack of resolution. You just can't tell if the shoreline is hidden or not. Are we actually seeing the land behind it?
The main city near me, Perth, is built on a river. The buildings are all elevated by 4-6metres above the water line. It doesn't really look that way though from a distance.

The images I have posted show quite clearly a distinct water line with resolvable objects like huts and houses behind them.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on July 02, 2009, 04:18:05 AM
see
(http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/8692/dsc9437038smallkm7.jpg) (http://img359.imageshack.us/i/dsc9437038smallkm7.jpg/) (http://img359.imageshack.us/img359/dsc9437038smallkm7.jpg/1/w800.png) (http://g.imageshack.us/img359/dsc9437038smallkm7.jpg/1/)
this is the same as
(http://www.rottnestdiving.com.au/images/headers/rottnest_dive_snorkelling_rottnest_island.jpg)
from a different angle
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: cdenley on July 02, 2009, 06:51:40 AM
Most of those photos were not taken for the purpose of FET evidence, and the elevation was not documented. Photos taken from Hamilton Beach could have been taken from a significant altitude. There is an observation tower on the beach. Photos taken from Grimsby could have been taken at altitude higher than 200 meters from Vinemount Ridge. The elevation is crucial, as well as details as demonstrated by dyno, and of course distance. Please provide the specific photos you think are valid evidence that there is obstruction on the horizon where RET would expect one.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Squat on July 02, 2009, 07:55:47 AM
I need your help everyone, especially the Feers.

I live here, 36.773672? N  28.246684? E for those that have/use google earth:

(http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg152/Hugh_Jar/FET1.jpg)

The arrow is pointing to a short, low jetty.

Ten miles away is an island, it's almost due east. Ten minutes walk will take me down to the small jetty where I could take photographs of the island from a standing position and from about 2 feet above sea level; I haven't measured the height of the jetty above sea level yet but it is quite low and I wouldn't dream of going to take any photos without taking a rule. I can probably get lower, to just above the surface of the sea but not so that I screw my camera lol.

I can provide you with details of the camera (an Olympus C-5000 Zoom) and set up and the data on each photograph will be readily available. I can take photos with normal exposure and with the zoom activated (3x optical and up to 10x digital zoom). I am not a photographer and the camera is nothing special  although I can change things like exposure time etc.

Now what do I need help with. Well, basically what do I need to do to allow those looking at any pictures to believe that I have taken them from the position I have indicated and what sort of settings should I use. Basically, you set the parameters and I'll take some snaps. I'm going to take some anyway as I am interested in what will come out. I will wait for a day when the humidity is such that the island is clearly visible and I will take the photos in the evening when the sun is behind me. So, do you want some photos from the eastern Med or are you happy to stick with (and argue over)Toronto.

I really don't know how I can put into the picture enough foreground detail to show that I am actually on the jetty and at what height. Maybe you guys can help there. Thanks
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: markjo on July 02, 2009, 11:04:54 AM
I'm not sure about others, but I don't think that a small point and shoot camera will be up to the task.  Even at 5 MP, you still have a tiny CCD and questionable optics (some point and shoots use plastic lenses).  Personally, I'd prefer a good DSLR with a good quality lens, but I understand if you don't have access to such equipment.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Squat on July 02, 2009, 11:34:08 AM
I'm not sure about others, but I don't think that a small point and shoot camera will be up to the task.  Even at 5 MP, you still have a tiny CCD and questionable optics (some point and shoots use plastic lenses).  Personally, I'd prefer a good DSLR with a good quality lens, but I understand if you don't have access to such equipment.

I understand your concerns. I'll ask around to see what better equipment is available.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on December 05, 2009, 10:51:13 PM
Thread resurrection for consideration of newbie members as topic was raised again.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Mookie89 on December 06, 2009, 12:19:38 AM
NGreat, do not try these things with me here; I will punish you.

HERE IS THE BEAMER FALLS CONSERVATION AREA:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/343037881_497327a9d6_o.jpg)

45 meters, NOT THE 220 METERS HEIGHT YOU ARE SUGGESTING; THERE AIN'T NO SUCH THING IN GRIMSBY, NOT SOME MILES AWAY FROM THE SHORELINE, AND THEN WE WOULD NOT BE IN GRIMSBY AT ALL. Not even at 2 km inland, the height of the Escarpment does not reach beyond 170 meters.

Did you think it would work with me? Not a chance...

Even with a 120 meter altitude, we can see the entirety of the view from Toronto, impossible even from that height (which does not exist there).

THE CAPTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SAYS: TAKEN FROM BEAMER FALLS CONSERVATION AREA, 45 METERS IN HEIGHT, THAT IS WHY I POSTED THE GEOLOGICAL FACTS.

You wrote:

I can't see anything that suggests the image was taken from the beach of Cap Gris Nez, especially considering Cap Gris Nez consists of a rocky outcrop over 30 meters high.

Cap Gris Nez has a maximum height of 45 meters.

Here are the photographers on the BEACH ITSELF:

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072b29eb_0020000203086_00_600.jpg

IT SAYS SHIPSPOTTING.

THE NEXT PHOTOGRAPH IS THIS, THE SHIPSPOTTING, LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL WEB SITE ADDRESS:

http://gal.neogen.ro/galleries/socialro/68/ca/072b89d5_0020000203085_00_600.jpg

One, right next after the other; no curvature whatsoever.


Let's take another look at this photo.


(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e300/JeremyLew/RoundEarth-1.jpg)


Now if the Earth truly were flat, the horizon should follow the red line across, never deviating from it. But as you see, the purple line indicates it's true path, which is curved. So in you trying to prove the Earth is flat, have instead proven that the Earth is curved.

Thank you, have a nice day.

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2009, 12:24:12 AM
That's barrel distortion.

The earth isn't even curved from the altitude of an international flight.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Mookie89 on December 06, 2009, 12:36:10 AM
That's barrel distortion.

The earth isn't even curved from the altitude of an international flight.

Barrel distortion? What are you talking about?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Mookie89 on December 06, 2009, 12:38:12 AM
Oh yeah, by the way, watch this video and skip to 6:09 of the video, and tell me the Earth isn't curved. Also, listen closely to what James May says at around 6:10 or so.

(http://)


Since you did mention planes not being able to see a curvature of Earth.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2009, 01:49:02 AM
Oh yeah, by the way, watch this video and skip to 6:09 of the video, and tell me the Earth isn't curved. Also, listen closely to what James May says at around 6:10 or so.

(http://)


Since you did mention planes not being able to see a curvature of Earth.

From the edge of space one is looking down at an illuminated circle.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Mookie89 on December 06, 2009, 02:01:54 AM
Oh yeah, by the way, watch this video and skip to 6:09 of the video, and tell me the Earth isn't curved. Also, listen closely to what James May says at around 6:10 or so.

(http://)


Since you did mention planes not being able to see a curvature of Earth.

From the edge of space one is looking down at an illuminated circle.

Ok.... where is this infamous ice wall at? The section of the video where it shows the "flat" Earth meeting with the blackness of space, there is no hint of an ice wall that is 150 feet tall, and many miles across. Is it hiding from us?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 02:14:24 AM
Oh yeah, by the way, watch this video and skip to 6:09 of the video, and tell me the Earth isn't curved. Also, listen closely to what James May says at around 6:10 or so.

(http://)


Since you did mention planes not being able to see a curvature of Earth.

From the edge of space one is looking down at an illuminated circle.

Ok.... where is this infamous ice wall at? The section of the video where it shows the "flat" Earth meeting with the blackness of space, there is no hint of an ice wall that is 150 feet tall, and many miles across. Is it hiding from us?
What tom means is that what you see is the lit portion of the earth, which is circular because the sun is a floating disc in the sky, facing downward.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Mookie89 on December 06, 2009, 02:32:31 AM
Oh yeah, by the way, watch this video and skip to 6:09 of the video, and tell me the Earth isn't curved. Also, listen closely to what James May says at around 6:10 or so.

(http://)


Since you did mention planes not being able to see a curvature of Earth.

From the edge of space one is looking down at an illuminated circle.

Ok.... where is this infamous ice wall at? The section of the video where it shows the "flat" Earth meeting with the blackness of space, there is no hint of an ice wall that is 150 feet tall, and many miles across. Is it hiding from us?
What tom means is that what you see is the lit portion of the earth, which is circular because the sun is a floating disc in the sky, facing downward.


Ooooohhhh, so what he's also saying is that the portion of the Earth that is not lit up by the sun is pitch black, and noone has there lights on. I get it now, he's even crazier than I thought before.

And I'm sure the people who were flying in the plane beg to differ with his hypothesis.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: SupahLovah on December 06, 2009, 06:17:11 AM
Stop talking until you figure out what barrel distortion is and apologize.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 06, 2009, 09:27:40 AM
Oh yeah, by the way, watch this video and skip to 6:09 of the video, and tell me the Earth isn't curved. Also, listen closely to what James May says at around 6:10 or so.

(http://)


Since you did mention planes not being able to see a curvature of Earth.

From the edge of space one is looking down at an illuminated circle.
If in fact one is directly in line with the earth and sun and sufficiently far away.  Otherwise one is looking at a portion of an illuminated sphere.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2009, 02:45:23 PM
Quote
Ooooohhhh, so what he's also saying is that the portion of the Earth that is not lit up by the sun is pitch black, and noone has there lights on. I get it now, he's even crazier than I thought before.

The lights in the night area are being blotted out by the brightness of the earth, just as the brightness of the earth blots out the stars.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 02:53:39 PM
Quote
Ooooohhhh, so what he's also saying is that the portion of the Earth that is not lit up by the sun is pitch black, and noone has there lights on. I get it now, he's even crazier than I thought before.

The lights in the night area are being blotted out by the brightness of the earth, just as the brightness of the earth blots out the stars.
What about at night? Why is our view of light sources limited by around 20 miles then?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Mookie89 on December 06, 2009, 04:56:22 PM
Stop talking until you figure out what barrel distortion is and apologize.

I know exactly what barrel ditortion is, I just do not see how it fits in with this picture. Barrel distortion would be a viable case, if the curvature of the Earth was equally alligned with the top of the picture, but it is not, so it is debunked as being barrel distortion.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Mookie89 on December 06, 2009, 04:57:08 PM
Quote
Ooooohhhh, so what he's also saying is that the portion of the Earth that is not lit up by the sun is pitch black, and noone has there lights on. I get it now, he's even crazier than I thought before.

The lights in the night area are being blotted out by the brightness of the earth, just as the brightness of the earth blots out the stars.
What about at night? Why is our view of light sources limited by around 20 miles then?

"Because anti-light is blocking the light from reaching our eyes."
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: SupahLovah on December 07, 2009, 09:37:05 AM
Tom, do you still have that link to the page that has example photos of barrel distortion?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2009, 09:50:46 AM
Quote
Ooooohhhh, so what he's also saying is that the portion of the Earth that is not lit up by the sun is pitch black, and noone has there lights on. I get it now, he's even crazier than I thought before.

The lights in the night area are being blotted out by the brightness of the earth, just as the brightness of the earth blots out the stars.
What about at night? Why is our view of light sources limited by around 20 miles then?

Perspective.

On the ground our perspective lines are narrow and the vanishing point is about 30 miles away.

At the edge of space our perspective lines are broad and the vanishing point is thousands of miles away.

When you increase your altitude you are changing your perspective lines, pushing the vanishing point backwards, and can thus see more and more distant lands.

An eagle has a greater vantage point than a mouse, you could say.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 07, 2009, 10:33:40 AM
Quote
Ooooohhhh, so what he's also saying is that the portion of the Earth that is not lit up by the sun is pitch black, and noone has there lights on. I get it now, he's even crazier than I thought before.

The lights in the night area are being blotted out by the brightness of the earth, just as the brightness of the earth blots out the stars.
What about at night? Why is our view of light sources limited by around 20 miles then?

Perspective.

On the ground our perspective lines are narrow and the vanishing point is about 30 miles away.

At the edge of space our perspective lines are broad and the vanishing point is thousands of miles away.

When you increase your altitude you are changing your perspective lines, pushing the vanishing point backwards, and can thus see more and more distant lands.

An eagle has a greater vantage point than a mouse, you could say.

Why would the convergence of two lines depend on where you were or what your orientation is, unless of course you are secretly accounting for the disappearance due to the Earth's curvature?

Vantage point<> vanishing point.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2009, 01:24:49 PM
Quote
Why would the convergence of two lines depend on where you were or what your orientation is, unless of course you are secretly accounting for the disappearance due to the Earth's curvature?

The broadness of the perspective lines constitutes your vanishing point. The vanishing point occurs where the perspective lines are less than one minute of a degree.

One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.

When you increase your altitude you are changing your eye level, pushing your vanishing point backwards, as you climb in height, changing the broadness of your perspective lines in relation to the surface of the earth. Thus you can see farther before the vanishing point occurs.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Robert64 on December 07, 2009, 01:33:05 PM
Quote
Why would the convergence of two lines depend on where you were or what your orientation is, unless of course you are secretly accounting for the disappearance due to the Earth's curvature?

The broadness of the perspective lines constitutes your vanishing point. The vanishing point occurs where the perspective lines are less than one minute of a degree.

One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.

When you increase your altitude you are changing your eye level, pushing your vanishing point backwards, as you climb in height, changing the broadness of your perspective lines in relation to the surface of the earth. Thus you can see farther before the vanishing point occurs.
Is the "vanishing point" due to the limit of human vision? If so why can we still not see the object we are focussing on when we magnify it with a telescope? It mysteriously seems to be behind the horizon!?!

"But this is impossible! The world is flat so light must be bending upwards!"

Yes, the light does refract slightly if the temperature is right. But it usually refracts downwards, not up. This adds another mile or two to how far an object can be before we lose sight. But it still will be behind the horizon after enough distance.

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/ShipSailingOverTheHorizon/
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 07, 2009, 02:44:01 PM
Quote
Why would the convergence of two lines depend on where you were or what your orientation is, unless of course you are secretly accounting for the disappearance due to the Earth's curvature?

The broadness of the perspective lines constitutes your vanishing point. The vanishing point occurs where the perspective lines are less than one minute of a degree.

One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.

When you increase your altitude you are changing your eye level, pushing your vanishing point backwards, as you climb in height, changing the broadness of your perspective lines in relation to the surface of the earth. Thus you can see farther before the vanishing point occurs.

Or maybe that it lets you see farther along the curvature.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: markjo on December 07, 2009, 02:51:21 PM
Quote
Why would the convergence of two lines depend on where you were or what your orientation is, unless of course you are secretly accounting for the disappearance due to the Earth's curvature?

The broadness of the perspective lines constitutes your vanishing point. The vanishing point occurs where the perspective lines are less than one minute of a degree.

Tom, stop this nonsense right now.  You are not describing the vanishing point, you are describing angular resolution.  They are two different concepts.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2009, 03:08:06 PM
Quote
Is the "vanishing point" due to the limit of human vision? If so why can we still not see the object we are focussing on when we magnify it with a telescope? It mysteriously seems to be behind the horizon!?!

We can see hull down ships when viewing them with a telescope. Plenty of accounts of hull restorations here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Robert64 on December 07, 2009, 03:12:16 PM
Quote
Is the "vanishing point" due to the limit of human vision? If so why can we still not see the object we are focussing on when we magnify it with a telescope? It mysteriously seems to be behind the horizon!?!

We can see hull down ships when viewing them with a telescope. Plenty of accounts of hull restorations here:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon
Can you link to one that isn't biased towards FEt? Maybe even written less than 50 years ago would be nice. You know, that would actually add to the discussion.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: LiceFarm on December 07, 2009, 03:13:35 PM
We can see hull down ships when viewing them with a telescope.

No we can't. No one has done it.

A few zetetics in the 19th century told people they had, yet in the whole history of man no one else to this day has observed this, or photographed it, or reported it to the military so that it may be put to good use.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 07, 2009, 03:17:40 PM
Quote
Why would the convergence of two lines depend on where you were or what your orientation is, unless of course you are secretly accounting for the disappearance due to the Earth's curvature?

The broadness of the perspective lines constitutes your vanishing point. The vanishing point occurs where the perspective lines are less than one minute of a degree.

Tom, stop this nonsense right now.  You are not describing the vanishing point, you are describing angular resolution.  They are two different concepts.

Tom, it sounds like someone disagrees with you.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Robert64 on December 07, 2009, 03:21:33 PM
We have inadvertantly wandered into the reason for the conspiracy! The American navy is hiding the fact that they can see hulls of ships slightly further away by simply magnifying them! They tell everyone else that the earth is a globe so that no one else will bother!

We cracked it, gentlemen!
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2009, 04:11:03 PM
Quote
Can you link to one that isn't biased towards FEt?

There are also accounts of restored hulls in the book Cellular Cosmogony by Cyrus Teed, which is not a Flat Earth book:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 08, 2009, 05:06:05 AM
Quote
Why would the convergence of two lines depend on where you were or what your orientation is, unless of course you are secretly accounting for the disappearance due to the Earth's curvature?

The broadness of the perspective lines constitutes your vanishing point. The vanishing point occurs where the perspective lines are less than one minute of a degree.

One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.

When you increase your altitude you are changing your eye level, pushing your vanishing point backwards, as you climb in height, changing the broadness of your perspective lines in relation to the surface of the earth. Thus you can see farther before the vanishing point occurs.

You seem to have some dissension relating to your explanation.  Are you sure about your claim and what is or isn't at eye level?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2009, 01:29:28 PM
Quote
Why would the convergence of two lines depend on where you were or what your orientation is, unless of course you are secretly accounting for the disappearance due to the Earth's curvature?

The broadness of the perspective lines constitutes your vanishing point. The vanishing point occurs where the perspective lines are less than one minute of a degree.

One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.

When you increase your altitude you are changing your eye level, pushing your vanishing point backwards, as you climb in height, changing the broadness of your perspective lines in relation to the surface of the earth. Thus you can see farther before the vanishing point occurs.

You seem to have some dissension relating to your explanation.  Are you sure about your claim and what is or isn't at eye level?

The vanishing point is always at eye level.

Please cease posting and return to your community college.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 01:36:46 PM
The vanishing point is always at eye level.

Please cease posting and return to your community college.
What? What if you are looking down? Surely it is somewhere along the vector you are looking down. Unless you irrationally assume that there is an "up" and a "down", which are human constructs formed from our balancing mechanisms.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2009, 01:38:24 PM
The vanishing point is always at eye level.

Please cease posting and return to your community college.
What? What if you are looking down? Surely it is somewhere along the vector you are looking down. Unless you irrationally assume that there is an "up" and a "down", which are human constructs formed from our balancing mechanisms.

The vanishing point is still at the horizon when you look down.

The vanishing point is always at the level (altitude) of the eye.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Robert64 on December 08, 2009, 01:46:08 PM
The vanishing point is always at eye level.

Please cease posting and return to your community college.
What? What if you are looking down? Surely it is somewhere along the vector you are looking down. Unless you irrationally assume that there is an "up" and a "down", which are human constructs formed from our balancing mechanisms.

The vanishing point is still at the horizon when you look down.

The vanishing point is always at the level (altitude) of the eye.

Quote
The clapping of my hands always kills a fairy.

The act of producing fluctuations in the air sends undetectable supersonic shock waves that target the nearest fairy and ruptures its skull.

Please explain why your statement has more credibility than mine. Yours is a pure misunderstanding of perspective, and is aligning vision to right angles. Just because you cannot detach yourself from the notion of an "up", "down" and "horizontal" (all of which are just structures we use to handle input of the world), doesn't mean light is always aligned to right angles.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Moon squirter on December 08, 2009, 02:16:13 PM
The vanishing point is always at eye level.

Please cease posting and return to your community college.
What? What if you are looking down? Surely it is somewhere along the vector you are looking down. Unless you irrationally assume that there is an "up" and a "down", which are human constructs formed from our balancing mechanisms.

The vanishing point is still at the horizon when you look down.

The vanishing point is always at the level (altitude) of the eye.

Tom,

When I look vertically down a long elevator shaft, I can detect a vanishing point.

The point is, you don't know what a vanishing point is.  You are confused because Robotham gets mixed up with geometric perspective lines and human limits of resolution, without any mathematics to back up his ambiguous "drawings".  His explanation just raises more questions.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2009, 02:18:02 PM
Quote
Please explain why your statement has more credibility than mine. Yours is a pure misunderstanding of perspective, and is aligning vision to right angles. Just because you cannot detach yourself from the notion of an "up", "down" and "horizontal" (all of which are just structures we use to handle input of the world), doesn't mean light is always aligned to right angles.

I didn't say anything about light. I'm speaking of perspective in relation to the surface of the earth. The point where the perspective lines meet will be at the level of your eye. When you look into the distance the lands appear to rise in altitude until they reach your eye level. Where the lands stop is the horizon. The vanishing point is always on the horizon, which is at the level of the eye.

When you walk to the top of a skyscraper you are changing your perspective lines, and thus it takes more and more lands to ascend to your eye level. Ergo, you can see further.

Just the same, if you were to look down an infinitely deep well lit with lamps throughout its extent, the perspective lines relating to the sides of the shaft would appear to approach each other until they met at a point in the far distance.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2009, 02:19:19 PM
When I look vertically down a long elevator shaft, I can detect a vanishing point.

When we speak about perspective lines we're speaking of those in relation to the earth.

No one's talking about  perspective lines in relation to the sides of wells. We're talking about the lines in relation to the earth.

Quote
The point is, you don't know what a vanishing point is.

Wrong. The vanishing point is where the perspective lines meet.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 08, 2009, 03:46:51 PM

The vanishing point is always at eye level.

Please cease posting and return to your community college.

One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.

Unfortunately, that wasn't what you stated, thus the questioning.  Please cease posting.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 08, 2009, 03:59:23 PM

The vanishing point is always at eye level.

Please cease posting and return to your community college.

One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.

Unfortunately, that wasn't what you stated, thus the questioning.  Please cease posting.

The perspective lines in relation to the earth recede until they meet at a point in the distance.

The vanishing point in relation to the earth's surface is always at eye level, whether it be on ground level, on top of a sky scraper, or at the summit of Mt. Everest.

The horizon line rises when you rise.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 08, 2009, 05:03:53 PM

The vanishing point is always at eye level.

Please cease posting and return to your community college.

One perspective line lays along the surface of the earth and the other perspective line is at the level of your eye. Hence, this creates an angle into the far distance.

Unfortunately, that wasn't what you stated, thus the questioning.  Please cease posting.

The perspective lines in relation to the earth recede until they meet at a point in the distance.

The vanishing point in relation to the earth's surface is always at eye level, whether it be on ground level, on top of a sky scraper, or at the summit of Mt. Everest.

The horizon line rises when you rise.

Yes, you can see further past the curvature the farther up you go.  Why didn't you just say that the first time?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: SupahLovah on December 09, 2009, 05:20:36 AM
I still don't understand why you can't see two lines converging at tom bishop's vanishing point, even though they're going off to the horizon.

Would a shrinking effect making it appear that ships are going beyond the horizon make turbulent ship wakes converge at the vanishing point?

http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2009/07/ship-wakes-and-round-earth.html
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2009, 05:28:22 AM
I still don't understand why you can't see two lines converging at tom bishop's vanishing point, even though they're going off to the horizon.

Would a shrinking effect making it appear that ships are going beyond the horizon make turbulent ship wakes converge at the vanishing point?

http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2009/07/ship-wakes-and-round-earth.html

In that image the vanishing point occurs before the turbulent wake converges. The wake is too wide and thus disappears into vertical perspective before it meets to a point horizontally.

The wider the body, the longer it will take to merge to a point horizontally. If it meets the level of the eye before coming to a point horizontally, it disappears because it has met the vanishing point.

You can also imagine standing on a tall building and looking at a city below you. As the city recedes it appears to ascend to the level of the eye. Once it has met the level of the eye, the vanishing point occurs. The city could very well be wide enough that it hasn't horizontally met a point, but that matter is inconsequential, since it is the vertical perspective lines which make the vanishing point.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 05:33:36 AM
I still don't understand why you can't see two lines converging at tom bishop's vanishing point, even though they're going off to the horizon.

Would a shrinking effect making it appear that ships are going beyond the horizon make turbulent ship wakes converge at the vanishing point?

http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2009/07/ship-wakes-and-round-earth.html

Quote
Yes, you can see further past the curvature the farther up you go.  Why didn't you just say that the first time?
(http://epod.typepad.com/.a/6a0105371bb32c970b01157231613b970b-750wi)
Quote
Turbulent ship wakes stream aft of vessels and are commonly seen from the stern of a ship. But did you know that these wakes prove that the Earth is round? Look at the left and right edges of the wake. They form two fairly sharp lines that converge in the distance toward the horizon as a result of perspective. But they don?t meet at a point, as they would if the Earth was flat and the line-of-site was infinite. Rather, they?re separated by a small amount of space at the horizon where the observer?s finite line of sight is tangent to the spherical Earth.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2009, 10:59:47 AM
The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 11:18:13 AM
The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.
You forgot the part about where that happens above the horizon.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2009, 11:25:32 AM
The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.
You forgot the part about where that happens above the horizon.

Too bad we can't see it, being vertically squished from the vanishing point into imperception.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 09, 2009, 11:28:50 AM
The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.
You forgot the part about where that happens above the horizon.

Too bad we can't see it, being vertically squished from the vanishing point into imperception.

And you can use the same lines to determine the vanishing point's location.  Above the horizon.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Moon squirter on December 09, 2009, 12:02:51 PM
The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.
You forgot the part about where that happens above the horizon.

Too bad we can't see it, being vertically squished from the vanishing point into imperception.

You're going to say that a good telescope will restore the wakes' vanishing point.  I can feel it.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: SupahLovah on December 10, 2009, 08:10:32 AM
The wake reaches the eye level, and thus the vanishing point, before merging to a point left and right.
You forgot the part about where that happens above the horizon.
Too bad we can't see it, being vertically squished from the vanishing point into imperception.
You're going to say that a good telescope will restore the wakes' vanishing point.  I can feel it.
That's where I was leading this.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: onetwothreefour on December 10, 2009, 08:22:50 AM
This is the part where you are at odds with your ENTIRE philosophy. You are taking what has been observed and saying it is not so. Instead you resort to making up theories that are completely contradictory to what has been empirically observed.

The whole reason FEer's take issue with a round earth is because "look around, obviously the earth is flat." LOOK AT THE PICTURE.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Mookie89 on December 14, 2009, 04:10:36 AM
Again, from this picture, you can see that the horizon of the Earth is curved. Another win for RE.


(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e300/JeremyLew/6a0105371bb32c970b01157231613b970b-.jpg)


If the Earth were in fact flat, the top and bottom purple lines should be an equal distance from the middle line, but as we see, the bottom purple line is more than twice the distance from the red line than the top one is.

And before anyone asks, I made sure that the red line intersected with the horizontal middle of the picture.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: SupahLovah on December 14, 2009, 06:00:42 AM
That's great of you for making sure the red line is in the middle, but how much was that picture cropped?

It's not proof for curvature.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: markjo on December 14, 2009, 06:12:10 AM
Actually, that bit of curvature could easily be attributed to barrel distortion from a wide angle lens.  The fact that the turbulent wake does not recede to a sharp point like it should on a FE is much more significant and harder to dismiss.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: SupahLovah on December 14, 2009, 06:39:55 AM
I've brought it up. Tom gave some BS "I don't understand how perspective works" excuse.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Mookie89 on December 14, 2009, 10:31:17 AM
Actually, that bit of curvature could easily be attributed to barrel distortion from a wide angle lens.  The fact that the turbulent wake does not recede to a sharp point like it should on a FE is much more significant and harder to dismiss.

I don't believe so, because if it were barrell distortion, the curvature on each side of the picture should be equal, unless there are cameras that have a one-sided effect, which I have never heard of.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: markjo on December 14, 2009, 10:38:41 AM
Actually, that bit of curvature could easily be attributed to barrel distortion from a wide angle lens.  The fact that the turbulent wake does not recede to a sharp point like it should on a FE is much more significant and harder to dismiss.

I don't believe so, because if it were barrell distortion, the curvature on each side of the picture should be equal, unless there are cameras that have a one-sided effect, which I have never heard of.

Or if the camera wasn't exactly level.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Mookie89 on December 14, 2009, 10:40:34 AM
Actually, that bit of curvature could easily be attributed to barrel distortion from a wide angle lens.  The fact that the turbulent wake does not recede to a sharp point like it should on a FE is much more significant and harder to dismiss.

I don't believe so, because if it were barrell distortion, the curvature on each side of the picture should be equal, unless there are cameras that have a one-sided effect, which I have never heard of.

Or if the camera wasn't exactly level.

Good point. :D
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sry4mnknd on December 15, 2009, 04:30:36 PM
ok, what is the first thing that makes you think that the earth is flat? im sure most of you would say perception. now, think of a very very very small bug on a beach ball. think about how it would perceive it. flat. its just perception. all your lame theories are obsolete. those pictures do not prove that light bends upwards because you do not have anything to measure the speed of the light. it has been proven that when light bends, it is because it is slowing down. thats how we can see. our eye lenses slow it down so our brains can observe it. this is the technology they put into cameras. the cameras have lenses to slow down the light. the only thing those pictures prove is that the earth is indeed a sphere because as you increase your elevation, your perception is corrected.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 16, 2009, 05:00:54 AM
ok, what is the first thing that makes you think that the earth is flat? im sure most of you would say perception. now, think of a very very very small bug on a beach ball. think about how it would perceive it. flat. its just perception. all your lame theories are obsolete. those pictures do not prove that light bends upwards because you do not have anything to measure the speed of the light. it has been proven that when light bends, it is because it is slowing down. thats how we can see. our eye lenses slow it down so our brains can observe it. this is the technology they put into cameras. the cameras have lenses to slow down the light. the only thing those pictures prove is that the earth is indeed a sphere because as you increase your elevation, your perception is corrected.

You possess all this "knowledge", yet can't find the 'Shift' key?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: SupahLovah on December 16, 2009, 06:44:13 AM
ok, what is the first thing that makes you think that the earth is flat? im sure most of you would say perception. now, think of a very very very small bug on a beach ball. think about how it would perceive it. flat. its just perception. all your lame theories are obsolete. those pictures do not prove that light bends upwards because you do not have anything to measure the speed of the light. it has been proven that when light bends, it is because it is slowing down. thats how we can see. our eye lenses slow it down so our brains can observe it. this is the technology they put into cameras. the cameras have lenses to slow down the light. the only thing those pictures prove is that the earth is indeed a sphere because as you increase your elevation, your perception is corrected.
Refraction is not light bending.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: markjo on December 16, 2009, 09:04:18 AM
Refraction is not light bending.

Actually, that's exactly what refraction is.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: SupahLovah on December 16, 2009, 09:10:41 AM
It's not light bending like bendy light unless you use very thin layers of denser and denser materials.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: markjo on December 16, 2009, 09:22:17 AM
It's not light bending like bendy light unless you use very thin layers of denser and denser materials.

Actually, bendy light requires light to bend in a direction opposite to what normal atmospheric refraction would cause.  The atmosphere generally causes the the sun to appear higher than it really is.  Bendy light would need to cause the sun to appear lower than it really is in order to explain sunsets.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Optimus Prime on December 16, 2009, 09:24:25 AM
I am going to try to come up with a new child's toy or maybe a Spencer's type of adult gift named "Bendy Light" ... it just sounds cool.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: SupahLovah on December 16, 2009, 09:28:25 AM
I should've said in a smooth curve. I apologize.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: sry4mnknd on December 16, 2009, 03:21:12 PM
you know i write like this on purpose just to weed out the imbeciles who criticize grammar, punctuation, etcetera  from the people with brains who debate me on the relevant topic at hand. thank you for making my daily task of finding an idiot so much easier.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Its a Sphere on December 16, 2009, 04:24:23 PM
you know i write like this on purpose just to weed out the imbeciles who criticize grammar, punctuation, etcetera  from the people with brains who debate me on the relevant topic at hand. thank you for making my daily task of finding an idiot so much easier.

It's too bad for you that you contributed nothing relevant to the discussion.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Optimus Prime on December 16, 2009, 06:02:21 PM
you know i write like this on purpose just to weed out the imbeciles who criticize grammar, punctuation, etcetera  from the people with brains who debate me on the relevant topic at hand. thank you for making my daily task of finding an idiot so much easier.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it but - why criticize others about 'making your daily task' easier, when you were supposedly never coming back [or more accurately 'gone']. It would appear that you are the one coming back for more so ... you are simply getting what you ask for. Not to mention that kind of sounds like the old axiom 'the pot calling the kettle black' wouldn't you say?

Enjoy,
- Optimus
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: AshtonK on December 19, 2009, 05:16:43 AM
It's not exactly the same thing, but it's in a similar vein.

When doing point to point wireless installs (bridging), one must actually add height to each antenna mast to ensure that the signal (and the accompanied Fresnel zones) clear the curvature of the earth (and then one adds height for obstructions like trees, hills, houses, etc).

Why don't we try the ship experiment with wireless bridges? Find two shores more than 10-20 miles apart (yes, they'll reach), hook up the antennas as close to water level as safe, and see if we hit anything.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: LiceFarm on December 19, 2009, 05:36:03 AM
Why don't we try the ship experiment with wireless bridges?

The sinking ship experiment works with just about anything. It was probably devised at a time when ships were the tallest man made object that many people could regularly observe.

But it works just as well for buildings, bridges and masts as well as natural objects such as mountains / volcanoes.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: dyno on July 09, 2010, 07:01:34 AM
Any of the newer FE's want to comment?
Any of you thought of any better arguments?

How is that bendy light theory going?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Iivari on July 09, 2010, 12:48:55 PM
I haven't read but about 100 posts into this and I realize that ideas about light "bending" may have changed since two years ago when this thread started, but if light bends around earth like some posts where saying, then why on a RE at night when the sun is on the opposite side of the earth does a person not see the light bending around the earth?

I think it makes better since to say that light travels at a straight line and only changes angles once it hits the Earths atmosphere.  But like I said, I haven't finished reading through this marvelous "debate."
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: PizzaPlanet on July 09, 2010, 12:54:42 PM
I haven't read but about 100 posts into this and I realize that ideas about light "bending" may have changed since two years ago when this thread started, but if light bends around earth like some posts where saying, then why on a RE at night when the sun is on the opposite side of the earth does a person not see the light bending around the earth?

I think it makes better since to say that light travels at a straight line and only changes angles once it hits the Earths atmosphere.  But like I said, I haven't finished reading through this marvelous "debate."
You didn't even start reading through it.
ITP: applying FET to RE.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Iivari on July 09, 2010, 01:14:44 PM
I haven't read but about 100 posts into this and I realize that ideas about light "bending" may have changed since two years ago when this thread started, but if light bends around earth like some posts where saying, then why on a RE at night when the sun is on the opposite side of the earth does a person not see the light bending around the earth?

I think it makes better since to say that light travels at a straight line and only changes angles once it hits the Earths atmosphere.  But like I said, I haven't finished reading through this marvelous "debate."
You didn't even start reading through it.
ITP: applying FET to RE.

And you wonder why people troll here.  1) I stated that I had started reading and  2) I mentioned information from posts in this thread.  Seriously, you act the age of the person in your avatar.  And since this is the debate forum, you really shouldn't have pointless threads, i've heard it may lead to bans.

The only reason I said anything at all was because I knew I wasn't going to get through all 23 pages of posts anytime soon and I wanted to express a thought that ran through my head before I forgot it.  Regardless of FE or RE, my question about light in a straight line (instead of "bending") was legit.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Raver on July 10, 2010, 08:10:43 AM
Welcome to the FES, that is pizzaplanet, he will make many such comments during your time here. There is hardly ever a reason to respond to him as he is usually wrong and just likes to poke people with his e-fork. I hope you enjoy your stay nonetheless.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Lorddave on July 10, 2010, 08:40:07 AM
I haven't read but about 100 posts into this and I realize that ideas about light "bending" may have changed since two years ago when this thread started, but if light bends around earth like some posts where saying, then why on a RE at night when the sun is on the opposite side of the earth does a person not see the light bending around the earth?

I think it makes better since to say that light travels at a straight line and only changes angles once it hits the Earths atmosphere.  But like I said, I haven't finished reading through this marvelous "debate."

Because the light bends upwards when it goes away from the Earth and downwards when it goes towards the Earth.
This eventually causes the light to bend 90 degrees.  If you were to look above the Earth and sun you'd find yourself looking at multiple suns and moons.

Look, I don't make this stuff up, I just tell you how they see it.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: PizzaPlanet on July 10, 2010, 09:28:06 AM
And you wonder why people troll here.  1) I stated that I had started reading and
And I claim that you lied, based on the fact that you didn't know the basic information contained in this thread at the moment of your posting. Reading threads before posting is fundamental, though often unpracticed by people such as Raver, who then complain for not being taken too seriously. who generally have no will to be taken seriously.

2) I mentioned information from posts in this thread.
Which doesn't make it any less incorrect.

Seriously, you act the age of the person in your avatar.
That's me.

And since this is the debate forum, you really shouldn't have pointless threads, i've heard it may lead to bans.
This thread isn't pointless.

The only reason I said anything at all was because I knew I wasn't going to get through all 23 pages of posts anytime soon and I wanted to express a thought that ran through my head before I forgot it.
You should have at least tried.

Regardless of FE or RE, my question about light in a straight line (instead of "bending") was legit.
The question isn't legit at all. You're asking why people why FET doesn't work when applied to RET. It reminds me of people who ask: "If Darwin was so damn smart, then why is he dead?"
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Raver on July 10, 2010, 09:59:55 AM
Quote
who then complain for not being taken too seriously

Please be so kind as to point out where I do that. Furthermore one doesn't need to read entire threads to realize that you troll a lot and when you are not busy trolling you are busy with getting your facts all wrong.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: PizzaPlanet on July 10, 2010, 10:14:51 AM
Furthermore one doesn't need to read entire threads to realize that you troll a lot and when you are not busy trolling you are busy with getting your facts all wrong.
Incorrect.

Quote
who then complain for not being taken too seriously
Please be so kind as to point out where I do that.
I stay corrected. You actually don't want to be taken serious. Evidence:

raver, I have just taken a look at your messages here...my advice to you is that you should study physics further...then you will have a much better chance to be taken seriously...

Who said I wish to be taken serious?
I apologize for the unnecessary confusion and will keep that in mind from now on.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Raver on July 10, 2010, 10:25:02 AM
Furthermore one doesn't need to read entire threads to realize that you troll a lot and when you are not busy trolling you are busy with getting your facts all wrong.
Incorrect.

Quote
who then complain for not being taken too seriously
Please be so kind as to point out where I do that.
I stay corrected. You actually don't want to be taken serious. Evidence: implications at the very most

raver, I have just taken a look at your messages here...my advice to you is that you should study physics further...then you will have a much better chance to be taken seriously...

Who said I wish to be taken serious?
I apologize for the unnecessary confusion and will keep that in mind (you have one of those? :o) from now on.

www.rif.org

Fix'd :)
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: PizzaPlanet on July 10, 2010, 10:26:36 AM
Furthermore one doesn't need to read entire threads to realize that you troll a lot and when you are not busy trolling you are busy with getting your facts all wrong.
Incorrect.

Quote
who then complain for not being taken too seriously
Please be so kind as to point out where I do that.
I stay corrected. You actually don't want to be taken serious. Evidence: implications at the very most

raver, I have just taken a look at your messages here...my advice to you is that you should study physics further...then you will have a much better chance to be taken seriously...

Who said I wish to be taken serious?
I apologize for the unnecessary confusion and will keep that in mind (you have one of those? :o) from now on.

www.rif.org

Fix'd :)

Oh, so it was an example of complaining after all? Okay.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Raver on July 10, 2010, 10:27:56 AM
Furthermore one doesn't need to read entire threads to realize that you troll a lot and when you are not busy trolling you are busy with getting your facts all wrong.
Incorrect.

Quote
who then complain for not being taken too seriously
Please be so kind as to point out where I do that.
I stay corrected. You actually don't want to be taken serious. Evidence: implications at the very most

raver, I have just taken a look at your messages here...my advice to you is that you should study physics further...then you will have a much better chance to be taken seriously...

Who said I wish to be taken serious?
I apologize for the unnecessary confusion and will keep that in mind (you have one of those? :o) from now on.

www.rif.org

Fix'd :)

Oh, so it was an example of complaining after all? Okay.

Ty for proving my point, you are attempting to troll.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: PizzaPlanet on July 10, 2010, 10:31:00 AM
Ty for proving my point, you are attempting to troll.
Quite the opposite. You are stirring the topic up by casting pointless and baseless accusations. I encourage you to stop.
On the other hand, thank you for admitting that I was right.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Raver on July 10, 2010, 10:38:25 AM
Quote
Quite the opposite. You are stirring the topic up by casting pointless and baseless accusations. I encourage you to stop.

Stop talking about yourself, it is considered rude.

Quote
On the other hand, thank you for admitting that I was right.

Yes, you were right about being a troll. I also encourage you to stop telling people if their questions are legit or not, grow up kid, when someone asks a genuine question like the person did and you answer in the way you did, it is just trolling (or at the very least you are doing your best to appear as one).
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 10, 2010, 10:39:34 AM

Quote
Quite the opposite. You are stirring the topic up by casting pointless and baseless accusations. I encourage you to stop.

I know you are but what am I?

How mature.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: PizzaPlanet on July 10, 2010, 10:41:33 AM
Quote
Quite the opposite. You are stirring the topic up by casting pointless and baseless accusations. I encourage you to stop.

Stop talking about yourself, it is considered rude.
lol semantics.

Quote
On the other hand, thank you for admitting that I was right.

Yes, you were right about being a troll. I also encourage you to stop telling people if their questions are legit or not, grow up kid, when someone asks a genuine question like the person did and you answer in the way you did, it is just trolling (or at the very least you are doing your best to appear as one).


How mature.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Raver on July 10, 2010, 10:45:26 AM
Still trolling I see?
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 10, 2010, 10:47:14 AM
Still trolling I see?

Look, Raver, if you want to post up here, I'm gonna have to ask you to keep your posts on topic and stop trying to stir up trouble.  If you want to flame PizzaPlanet do it in Random Musings where such behavior is tolerated.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Raver on July 10, 2010, 10:50:18 AM
Still trolling I see?

Look, Raver, if you want to post up here, I'm gonna have to ask you to keep your posts on topic and stop trying to stir up trouble.  If you want to flame PizzaPlanet do it in Random Musings where such behavior is tolerated.

I apologize, I might have gone to far, I am not trying to stir any trouble. Just pointing out that PP's way of treating someone new (and polite might I add) is usually considered to be an act of trolling, but I shall refrain from posting here again as you wish so long as PP stops his attempts to troll bait me.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: PizzaPlanet on July 10, 2010, 11:02:59 AM
I wasn't trolling anyone. You just jumped in with accusations.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: ClockTower on July 10, 2010, 11:28:16 AM

Quote
Quite the opposite. You are stirring the topic up by casting pointless and baseless accusations. I encourage you to stop.

I know you are but what am I?

How mature.
If you wish to flame Raver, please do so in RM where such behavior is accepted. Thanks.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 10, 2010, 11:30:15 AM

Quote
Quite the opposite. You are stirring the topic up by casting pointless and baseless accusations. I encourage you to stop.

I know you are but what am I?

How mature.
If you wish to flame Raver, please do so in RM where such behavior is accepted. Thanks.

ClockTower, please keep in mind that memberating is a bannable offense.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: ClockTower on July 10, 2010, 11:44:48 AM

Quote
Quite the opposite. You are stirring the topic up by casting pointless and baseless accusations. I encourage you to stop.

I know you are but what am I?

How mature.
If you wish to flame Raver, please do so in RM where such behavior is accepted. Thanks.

ClockTower, please keep in mind that memberating is a bannable offense.
I do apologize to anyone who might have thought that I was a moderator here. I am not. I was simply applying my own simple request for decorum on RT's post. Thank you.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 10, 2010, 11:59:35 AM

Quote
Quite the opposite. You are stirring the topic up by casting pointless and baseless accusations. I encourage you to stop.

I know you are but what am I?

How mature.
If you wish to flame Raver, please do so in RM where such behavior is accepted. Thanks.

ClockTower, please keep in mind that memberating is a bannable offense.
I do apologize to anyone who might have thought that I was a moderator here. I am not. I was simply applying my own simple request for decorum on RT's post. Thank you.

I was simply pointing out that Raver was acting childish in that post.  And when he continued acting childish and flaming PizzaPlanet, I warned him for it.  Also you should know that I'm no hypocrite; I don't mind things getting a little less than serious from time to time; but when it happens repeatedly, as with Raver in this thread, I will say something about it.

Now, I think that's enough of this off-topic nonsense.  If you continue to pursue this I will ban you.  Consider that an *official* warning.

And you're welcome.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: Iivari on July 11, 2010, 07:32:27 PM
This is why I enjoy just sitting back and reading instead of attempting to have a debate.  I ask one little question, which is still legit and I am still awaiting an answer.  Instead of an answer it turns into a flame war, which by the way is off topic but no one says anything or does anything about it, and it is very amusing and similar to the rest of what occurs on this board.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: TheJackel on July 11, 2010, 10:56:58 PM
You have to laugh when someone states that light bends up and then draws a diagram of light bending down and then up LOL.. Self contradiction to mold and ideological construct around unintelligent manipulation of information. Especially when I can actually prove this theory of his incorrect via use of mirrors, or simply by calling Japan and asking them where the damn sun is in the sky.. According to Flat Earther's the Sun would set at the same time across the globe, and it shouldn't be dark outside in Japan while it's a bight sunny day in Minnesota. Do you people really fail at critical thinking skills so badly that you actually follow nonsensical religious like garbage like FET?.. And sorry, photons don't all bend and travel all in the same directions, anyone with a mirror can see why this is. It's like the people here have no concept of light refraction. Yes we can bend light with the application of enough gravitational force, or by reflection.. However, you know someone has lost this argument when they start making nonsensical garbage up like "salt can effect the lens" in a dishonest effort to deflect from the argument. This site sounds more like a creationist website than anything else..

Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: AdmiralAckbar on July 15, 2010, 09:40:32 PM
You have to laugh when someone states that light bends up and then draws a diagram of light bending down and then up LOL.. Self contradiction to mold and ideological construct around unintelligent manipulation of information. Especially when I can actually prove this theory of his incorrect via use of mirrors, or simply by calling Japan and asking them where the damn sun is in the sky.. According to Flat Earther's the Sun would set at the same time across the globe, and it shouldn't be dark outside in Japan while it's a bight sunny day in Minnesota. Do you people really fail at critical thinking skills so badly that you actually follow nonsensical religious like garbage like FET?.. And sorry, photons don't all bend and travel all in the same directions, anyone with a mirror can see why this is. It's like the people here have no concept of light refraction. Yes we can bend light with the application of enough gravitational force, or by reflection.. However, you know someone has lost this argument when they start making nonsensical garbage up like "salt can effect the lens" in a dishonest effort to deflect from the argument. This site sounds more like a creationist website than anything else..



My New Hero.
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: narcberry on October 12, 2016, 03:29:10 PM
This is why I enjoy just sitting back and reading instead of attempting to have a debate.  I ask one little question, which is still legit and I am still awaiting an answer.  Instead of an answer it turns into a flame war, which by the way is off topic but no one says anything or does anything about it, and it is very amusing and similar to the rest of what occurs on this board.

Perhaps you can clarify your question? Thanks!
Title: Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
Post by: rabinoz on October 12, 2016, 05:35:40 PM
This is why I enjoy just sitting back and reading instead of attempting to have a debate.  I ask one little question, which is still legit and I am still awaiting an answer.  Instead of an answer it turns into a flame war, which by the way is off topic but no one says anything or does anything about it, and it is very amusing and similar to the rest of what occurs on this board.

Perhaps you can clarify your question? Thanks!

Do you honestly expect someone who was "Last Active: October 08, 2011, 10:37:53 PM" to be sitting at his/her/its compoter just waiting for the narc to respond?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Now I wasn't around at that time either, but just possibly this might have contained the question to end all questions[1].
I haven't read but about 100 posts into this and I realize that ideas about light "bending" may have changed since two years ago when this thread started, but if light bends around earth like some posts where saying, then why on a RE at night when the sun is on the opposite side of the earth does a person not see the light bending around the earth?

I think it makes better since to say that light travels at a straight line and only changes angles once it hits the Earths atmosphere.  But like I said, I haven't finished reading through this marvelous "debate."

[1] Though wasn't "the question to end all questions" the one whose answer was (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Answer_to_Life.png) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42_(number)#The_Hitchhiker.27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy).