« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Sinking Ships

  • 114 Replies
  • 21140 Views
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
  • +0/-0
Sinking Ships
« on: July 05, 2007, 08:21:59 AM »
This is a post similar to the Wave Crests And Sunsets thread.  The point is that the waves and vanishing point explanation is cr*p.  I'm serious.  The vanishing point has nothing to do with this phenomenon.  As long as Tom (my subject) is above the height of the waves (and I believe Tom + the shore will be above 44 inches or whatever), then Tom will be able to see the entirety of the ship above those waves.  Here's a picture of what and FE sinking ship would look like:



Now on a round Earth the sinking ship phenomenon is causing by the curve of the Earth and is much more easily explained.  As the ship travels, the Earth gets in the way.  Further evidence for this is the ship simply gets smaller and sinks.  On an FE, we should be able to see the patch of water that the ship would "disappear" on, or get so small as to not see it.  But on an RE, we see only the patch of water that gets in our way, in this picture, where Tom's field of vision touches the horizon.



In conclusion, the waves are not going to obscure the ship.  It's silly and wishful thinking on the FEer's part.
Logged
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
  • +0/-0
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2007, 08:27:10 AM »
Oh, and by the way, this is not correct.  The person isn't looking down, Tom, we're looking straight out.  You will be able to see the Orange, and the vanishing point is never going like that.  The Vanishing point is at eye-level.
Logged
?

slappy

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2007, 08:59:56 AM »
Quote from: Trekky0623 on July 05, 2007, 08:27:10 AM
Oh, and by the way, this is not correct.  The person isn't looking down, Tom, we're looking straight out.  You will be able to see the Orange, and the vanishing point is never going like that.  The Vanishing point is at eye-level.


You're right of course, except that he'll answer that it's just a schematic. The same representation could be achieved if the eye level (blue line) remained steady but the ground inclined upwards in order to represent all objects 'ascending' towards the horizon (that's actually a better representation). The real error is in the fact that the strawberries shrink disproportionatelly. For the schematic to be correct, the strawberries would have to shrink such that the proportional distance between them and the blue line would remain the same. In other words, they would always remain below the blue line and never intersect it. That's the real problem with Robotham's schematic drawings as well. His attempts to explain the sinking ship phenomeno via the natural law of perspective is complete and utter nonsense. His diagrams are riddled with errors. I'm amazed that some people actually bought into this explanation.
Logged
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..
*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • +0/-0
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2007, 09:15:38 AM »
Or, since it's such a good point, he won't post at all.

But yes, he still has yet to recognize that a wave that could disrupt the view of the ship would have to be absolutly massive as it would have to contend with the laws of perspective that Tom holds so dearly to, as a person on a sinking ship holds dearly to the railing in the hopes it will save him. The wave would also appear to be smaller the farther out it is. I would draw up a diagram, but that would take to much effort.
Logged
Quote from: Hara Taiki on August 02, 2007, 10:40:31 AM
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
  • +0/-0
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2007, 09:22:15 AM »
Logged
*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • +0/-0
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2007, 09:40:10 AM »
Pssh.. That's small. Everybody knows that a wave that could disrupt the view of a ship would have to be twice that high.
Logged
Quote from: Hara Taiki on August 02, 2007, 10:40:31 AM
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +2/-4
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2007, 09:58:58 AM »
Quote from: Trekky0623 on July 05, 2007, 08:27:10 AM
Oh, and by the way, this is not correct.  The person isn't looking down, Tom, we're looking straight out.  You will be able to see the Orange, and the vanishing point is never going like that.  The Vanishing point is at eye-level.


Your illustration only emphasizes my point. Since the vanishing point is at eye level, it puts the the waves three quarters of the way to the orange above eye level. Therefore as the orange recedes and shrinks into the distance from the observer, it will be obscured from the bottom up by the many waves in front of it.

There we see that a sinking ship effect would result from the natural elements of perception.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 10:01:48 AM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

The Communist

  • 1217
  • +0/-0
  • Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2007, 10:06:01 AM »
However three-quarters down, waves are also obscured because their image shrinks, just like the orange.
Logged
On FES, you attack a strawman. In Soviet Russia, the strawman attacks you
-JackASCII

Do you have any outlandish claims to back up your evidence?
-Raist

Quote from: GeneralGayer date=1190908626
Yeah I love gay porn.
?

slappy

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2007, 10:07:45 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2007, 09:58:58 AM
Quote from: Trekky0623 on July 05, 2007, 08:27:10 AM
Oh, and by the way, this is not correct.  The person isn't looking down, Tom, we're looking straight out.  You will be able to see the Orange, and the vanishing point is never going like that.  The Vanishing point is at eye-level.


Your illustration only emphasizes my point. Since the vanishing point is at eye level, it puts the the waves three quarters of the way to the orange above eye level. Therefore as the orange recedes and shrinks into the distance from the observer, it will be obscured from the bottom up by the many waves in front of it.

There we see that a sinking ship effect would result from the natural elements of perception.

I guess you missed the part where I pointed out exactly what the main problem with your illustration was right? And how the waves three quarters of the way wouldn't be put above eye level by perspective because they would be shrinking PROPORTIONALLY, thanks to perspective, thus never actually intersecting the line of sight.
Logged
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +2/-4
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2007, 10:12:56 AM »
Quote
And how the waves three quarters of the way wouldn't be put above eye level by perspective because they would be shrinking PROPORTIONALLY, thanks to perspective, thus never actually intersecting the line of sight.

If that were true it would be impossible for a ship to lay atop the horizon. If what you said were accurate a ship would continually shrink into the horizon infinitely, never breaching the line which divides sea and sky.

Quite clearly, ships do appear above the line of the horizon all the time. Even if the observer is at an altitude above the ship, the ship will still breach the horizon line. The ship can still lay atop the horizon.

Therefore, if ships can breach the line of sight, so can the waves.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 10:15:48 AM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

slappy

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2007, 10:15:40 AM »
Wrong again. On a flat plane the ship could breach the horizon if and only if it was intersecting your line of sight to begin with. In reality, a ship can breach the horizon if it is below your line of sight percisely because of the fact that the earth is a sphere. On a flat plane however, any object below your line of sight will never breach the horizon.
Logged
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +2/-4
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #11 on: July 05, 2007, 10:25:20 AM »
Quote
Wrong again. On a flat plane the ship could breach the horizon if and only if it was intersecting your line of sight to begin with. In reality, a ship can breach the horizon if it is below your line of sight percisely because of the fact that the earth is a sphere. On a flat plane however, any object below your line of sight will never breach the horizon.

In a video game or simulation with a large flat surface, objects still breach the horizon line; the line of sight. Any teenager could tell you this. A distant character on the horizon would be standing above it, not shrunk into it. Even if your own character is standing on top of a building, a distant character could still breach the horizon line. There we see that on a flat plane distant objects absolutely do breach the horizon line.

What you are proposing is ludicrous and nothing more than a speculation. To think that receding objects would continually and infinitely shrink into the horizon is downright dense, with zero backing or support.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 10:30:18 AM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #12 on: July 05, 2007, 10:30:10 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2007, 10:25:20 AM
Quote
Wrong again. On a flat plane the ship could breach the horizon if and only if it was intersecting your line of sight to begin with. In reality, a ship can breach the horizon if it is below your line of sight percisely because of the fact that the earth is a sphere. On a flat plane however, any object below your line of sight will never breach the horizon.

In a video game or simulation with a large flat surface, objects still breach the horizon line; the line of sight. Any teenager could tell you this. A distant character on the horizon would be standing above it, not shrunk into it. There we see that on a flat plane objects absolutely do breach the horizon line.

What you are proposing is ludicrous and nothing more than a speculation. To think that objects would continually and infinitely shrink into the horizon is downright dense, with zero backing or support.
My oh my, You're just rambling along, using circular reasoning and ignoring the facts and diagrams presented. Why don't you present some original evidence to support your claim? Why don't you present some mathematics to support your claim? Why don't you show how the laws of optics allow you to raise the lines in your drawings?

We've presented more than enough evidence. We've refuted every experiment that you claim supports your side. You've refused to document your bay experiment even with financial incentives.

You lose.
Logged
?

slappy

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #13 on: July 05, 2007, 10:33:11 AM »
Wait, could it be that the objects that breach the horizon line are actually in your line of sight to begin with?? You know.. like I said?A distant character on the horizon would be standing above it because he's in your line of sight! Also most videogames and such don't render areas wher they simulate objects all the way to the true and unobstructed horizon. How stupid are you? Really?
Logged
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +2/-4
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #14 on: July 05, 2007, 10:34:29 AM »
Quote
My oh my, You're just rambling along, using circular reasoning and ignoring the facts and diagrams presented. Why don't you present some original evidence to support your claim?

You would like me to retort the assertion that objects would shrink infinitesimally into the horizon on a flat surface? That's just stupid. Ask any teenager if an object infinitesimally shrinks into the horizon without breaching it on his 3D simulation video game. That's all the evidence we need.

Quote
Wait, could it be that the objects that breach the horizon line are actually in your line of sight to begin with?? You know.. like I said?

Here's what you do: Load up Half Life 2 or one of your other video games, open a big empty map, spawn a NPC at one end of the map, move to the opposite end and tell us if it appears above the horizon. Then ascend in altitude and tell us if the NPC can still appear above the horizon.

This should be a pretty easy claim to test if what you are saying is accurate and true.

« Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 10:44:00 AM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

Gulliver

  • 3804
  • +0/-0
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2007, 10:35:48 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2007, 10:34:29 AM
Quote
My oh my, You're just rambling along, using circular reasoning and ignoring the facts and diagrams presented. Why don't you present some original evidence to support your claim?

You would like me to retort the assertion that objects would shrink infinitesimally into the horizon on a flat surface? That's just stupid. Ask any teenager if an object infinitesimally shrinks into the horizon without breaching it on his 3D simulation video game. That's all the evidence we need.
Then all we need to prove the Earth is round is a globe. Case closed.
Logged
?

slappy

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2007, 10:44:58 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2007, 10:34:29 AM
Here's what you do: Load up Half Life 2 or one of your other video games, open a big empty map, spawn a NPC at one end of the map, move to the opposite end and tell us if it appears above the horizon. Then ascend in altitude and tell us if the NPC is still above the horizon.

This should be a pretty easy claim to test if what you are saying is accurate and true

There's one problem with your suggestion. A big empty map in half life is not nearly big enough. If the NPC is at the very edge of the map or approaching it then it would appear above the horizon (which is the very edge of the map). I agree with that part. However, if the map were infinitelly large and your eye level was above the NPC then as the NPC moved farther away it would indeed shrink into the horizon without ever rising above it. The only way the NPC could ever rise above the horizon in such a scenario is if the plane itself is finite and the NPC reaches the very edge of the plane. Techincally this would be true on an FE as well (i.e. if the FE is finite then an object at the very edge of the plane could rise above the horizon, which like I said, is the edge of the plane). However that would be AT the ice wall itself and nowhere before.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 10:47:17 AM by slappy »
Logged
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..
?

The Communist

  • 1217
  • +0/-0
  • Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2007, 10:50:53 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2007, 10:25:20 AM
What you are proposing is ludicrous and nothing more than a speculation. To think that receding objects would continually and infinitely shrink into the horizon is downright dense, with zero backing or support.

An image of an object continues to shrink asymptotically due to perspective on a perfect plane.  The slight curvature of the earth-disc causes the 'sinking' perspective.
Logged
On FES, you attack a strawman. In Soviet Russia, the strawman attacks you
-JackASCII

Do you have any outlandish claims to back up your evidence?
-Raist

Quote from: GeneralGayer date=1190908626
Yeah I love gay porn.
*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
  • +0/-0
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2007, 10:53:22 AM »
Oh dearest me, this isn't STILL being coughed up is it?

Obviously the ship sinks because the ship gets smaller with perspective but the waves stay the same... wait there's something wrong there somewhere...
Logged
?

Skeptical ATM

Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2007, 11:24:43 AM »
Agreeing ith Chrissetti, and also pointing out that Tom didn't say anything about the excellently written first post, but only the brief second post. Bad form Tom.
Logged
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
  • +0/-0
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2007, 11:43:07 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2007, 10:25:20 AM
Quote
Wrong again. On a flat plane the ship could breach the horizon if and only if it was intersecting your line of sight to begin with. In reality, a ship can breach the horizon if it is below your line of sight percisely because of the fact that the earth is a sphere. On a flat plane however, any object below your line of sight will never breach the horizon.

In a video game or simulation with a large flat surface, objects still breach the horizon line; the line of sight. Any teenager could tell you this. A distant character on the horizon would be standing above it, not shrunk into it. Even if your own character is standing on top of a building, a distant character could still breach the horizon line. There we see that on a flat plane distant objects absolutely do breach the horizon line.

What you are proposing is ludicrous and nothing more than a speculation. To think that receding objects would continually and infinitely shrink into the horizon is downright dense, with zero backing or support.

They're called pixels Tom.  Thought the map is flat, the character gets so small that the pixels can't form the shape.  Plus, in order to appear real, most of this is programed to only come into view after a certain distance.  Don't use video games to illustrate your point.  And that's YOUR illustration with the strawberries.  Why is the line sloping towards the ground?  We're not looking in that direction and there is NO law of perspective that agrees with your assumptions.
Logged
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #21 on: July 05, 2007, 11:43:07 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2007, 10:25:20 AM

In a video game with a large flat surface, objects still breach the horizon line; the line of sight. Any teenager could tell you this.

These are his references? This is his evidence? Games, which are in no way bound by physics, and he trusts teenagers to tell him this, despite his oh so helpful Geology degree?!
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
  • +0/-0
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #22 on: July 05, 2007, 11:49:00 AM »
Quote
What you are proposing is ludicrous and nothing more than a speculation. To think that receding objects would continually and infinitely shrink into the horizon is downright dense, with zero backing or support.
And why would this be wrong?  As an object gets farther away, it's size decreases.  On a flat plane, there's no point at which the image just sinks,  That is stupid. 



The vanish point on a plane is on the surface.  How do you explain sinking on flat ground?  You don't need waves.  It happens because of the Earth's spherical properties.  On a plane, images get infinitely small.  It makes sense and is much more truthful than saying that 44 inch waves obscure a 16 ft or something boat!
Logged
?

Ferruccio

  • 348
  • +0/-0
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #23 on: July 05, 2007, 11:51:31 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2007, 10:34:29 AM
Quote
My oh my, You're just rambling along, using circular reasoning and ignoring the facts and diagrams presented. Why don't you present some original evidence to support your claim?

You would like me to retort the assertion that objects would shrink infinitesimally into the horizon on a flat surface? That's just stupid. Ask any teenager if an object infinitesimally shrinks into the horizon without breaching it on his 3D simulation video game. That's all the evidence we need.

Quote
Wait, could it be that the objects that breach the horizon line are actually in your line of sight to begin with?? You know.. like I said?

Here's what you do: Load up Half Life 2 or one of your other video games, open a big empty map, spawn a NPC at one end of the map, move to the opposite end and tell us if it appears above the horizon. Then ascend in altitude and tell us if the NPC can still appear above the horizon.

This should be a pretty easy claim to test if what you are saying is accurate and true.



The following is a test that what Gulliver is saying is accurate and true.

I present to you, tom bishop, an infinite horizon, with receding prisms of different lengths.

What you will notice is that the only one that appears above the horizon is the one that is already above the viewer.

All three others, below the viewer, never break the horizon.



Please promptly shut the hell up.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 11:55:43 AM by Ferruccio »
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18029
  • +2/-4
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #24 on: July 05, 2007, 11:55:38 AM »
Quote
I present to you, tom bishop, an infinite horizon, with receding prisms of different lengths.

What you will notice is that the only one that appears above the horizon is the one that is already above the viewer.

All three others, below the viewer, never break the horizon.



Please promptly shut the hell up.

Now back up a little and watch as the small prism breaks the horizon line.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 12:00:26 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

Ferruccio

  • 348
  • +0/-0
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2007, 11:56:21 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 05, 2007, 11:55:38 AM
Quote
I present to you, tom bishop, an infinite horizon, with receding prisms of different lengths.

What you will notice is that the only one that appears above the horizon is the one that is already above the viewer.

All three others, below the viewer, never break the horizon.



Please promptly shut the hell up.

No back up a little and watch as the small prism breaks the horizon line.

No, that is not true.  It does not break the horizon.  Shut the hell up.
Logged
*

General Douchebag

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 10957
  • +0/-0
  • King of charred bones and cooked meat
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #26 on: July 05, 2007, 11:59:18 AM »
Don't bother. Tom can't see his own scientific failings, so you'll never convince him.
Logged
Quote from: Baseball4Life on April 16, 2010, 09:54:41 AM
No but I'm guess your what? 90? Cause you just so darn mature </sarcasm>
?

Ferruccio

  • 348
  • +0/-0
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #27 on: July 05, 2007, 12:00:30 PM »
It's unfortunate.  I have just proven to TB, with an infinite plane, that the objects will never break the horizon as they recede.

I gave you the freaking test, and you have just been proven wrong.  Now concede.


Anyone else with a rendering program can quite easily reproduce this.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 12:02:01 PM by Ferruccio »
Logged
*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #28 on: July 05, 2007, 12:03:28 PM »
Logged
Quote from: wise on August 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
?

Ferruccio

  • 348
  • +0/-0
Re: Sinking Ships
« Reply #29 on: July 05, 2007, 12:05:49 PM »
Additionally, if TB isn't up to speed with how virtual reality works, let's delve into the realm of two point perspective, which defines a vanishing line, I.E. horizon on an infinite plane!



Bam, the object below the viewer recedes into the horizon without breaking it.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
« previous next »