Sinking Effect 2

  • 109 Replies
  • 23294 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #30 on: October 12, 2007, 08:37:07 AM »
Quote
Utter BS as usual. The diagrams in EnaG used to demonstrate these perspective effects are obviously not correct representations of what happens. They have to rely on the ground not appearing flat due to a specious argument about the ground rising to the horizon line, which is obvious bollocks. The ground does not in any way actually rise up. If you show us a diagram in which this happens, then you are full of ****. Thank you.

The Horizon Line sits at eyelevel, so yes, the ground does seem to rise up with distance.

Quote
Tom, could you further explain how a ship seems to dissappear (what kind of perspectove phenomenon is this?) and how you can see it again with a telescope.

It's all explained in Earth Not a Globe and the Flat Earth Literature.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #31 on: October 12, 2007, 08:46:26 AM »
Yes the ground seems to rise, but the ship rises also, toward your eye level.

It won't work.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #32 on: October 12, 2007, 08:48:16 AM »
EVERYTHING rises toward the vanishing point.  Nothing will appear to be blocked.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #33 on: October 12, 2007, 01:49:25 PM »
bump

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #34 on: October 12, 2007, 02:37:22 PM »
Quote
Yes the ground seems to rise, but the ship rises also, toward your eye level.

Well yes, if the sea were perfectly flat and it rose up to the  eye level of the observer, the bottom of the ship would be at all times visible as it recedes. However, as we all know, upon the sea exists a series of waves which can add a layer to the eye level sea, blocking the hull as it recedes and shrinks into the distance. The hull effectively appears to be sinking into the ocean.

Whatever mechanism is true, we know that the effect is purely perceptual, an intermingling of hull and sea at long distances where the lines of perception intersect. The effect is optical, not physical, which is why the ship's hull can be restored with the aid of a telescope.

If the effect were caused by a physically convex sea, how does your Round Earth model explain the accounts I've given on page one? How did my sources see through the hill of water?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2007, 02:40:36 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #35 on: October 12, 2007, 03:36:52 PM »
Wrong.  A telescope wouldn't work.  Prove a telescope would work with some diagrams, anything.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #36 on: October 12, 2007, 05:06:08 PM »
Please explain how perspective can cause a wave shorter than the:
- bottom red line to obscure the ship.
- top red line to block the ship.




Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #37 on: October 12, 2007, 05:29:20 PM »
The Communist = a troll

I gave you some mathematical proof.  Yet, you claim that I am trolling?

You did not provide mathematical proof. You provided BS that had some numbers in it.

How is it BS?  It follows the curvature predicted by RE:


Earth radius (average) = 3956.545 miles
Theta = arcsin(36.9miles / 3956.545 miles) = .53437 degrees
3956.545 * cos (.53437) = 3956.373 miles
3956.545 - 3956.373 = .172 miles = 908.5 ft.

edit - swapped the 36 and 3956 mile figures around

Alright I checked your math and it's right. Sorry for calling it BS. However, you are still a troll for claiming there's a conspiracy.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #38 on: October 12, 2007, 06:15:44 PM »
Alright I checked your math and it's right. Sorry for calling it BS. However, you are still a troll for claiming there's a conspiracy.

Another REer is a troll? Oh dear.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

The Communist

  • 1217
  • Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #39 on: October 12, 2007, 06:15:47 PM »
The Communist = a troll

I gave you some mathematical proof.  Yet, you claim that I am trolling?

You did not provide mathematical proof. You provided BS that had some numbers in it.

How is it BS?  It follows the curvature predicted by RE:


Earth radius (average) = 3956.545 miles
Theta = arcsin(36.9miles / 3956.545 miles) = .53437 degrees
3956.545 * cos (.53437) = 3956.373 miles
3956.545 - 3956.373 = .172 miles = 908.5 ft.

edit - swapped the 36 and 3956 mile figures around

Alright I checked your math and it's right. Sorry for calling it BS. However, you are still a troll for claiming there's a conspiracy.

But the picture was taken from the coast when the curvature suggests it be taken from the ocean.  I can find no explanation except conspiracy in order to explain this paradox.
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.

Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #40 on: October 12, 2007, 06:47:46 PM »
I know nothing about that geography. If you can find a link or something that gives the dimensions of that body of water and where these landmarks are located, and it doesn't work out, then I'll admit the pic must be faked. However, there's no conspiracy to to fool people into believing the world is round. Why? Because it is round.  ;)

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #41 on: October 12, 2007, 06:53:20 PM »
In order for half the tower to be obscured or desend 907.5ft via curvature, the observer has to be 36.9 miles away from the CN Tower.  To observe the tower directly, as shown in the image you would have to be in an area 36.9 miles south, or 3/4 of the sea width from Toronto.  In other words, this image would have to be taken from the sea and yet it has been taken on a coast.  This image must therefore be planted by the conspiracy.

No, it's 30 miles across a lake.  There's a google map image of the lake somewhere on the forums.  (I think it's Wave Crests and Sunsets)

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #42 on: October 12, 2007, 07:07:27 PM »
This line is about 35 miles long.

You must have been using the average width.


Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #43 on: October 12, 2007, 07:10:19 PM »
Looks like it all works out after all. Pic is real. No conspiracy.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #44 on: October 13, 2007, 02:33:16 AM »
Please explain how perspective can cause a wave shorter than the:
- bottom red line to obscure the ship.
- top red line to block the ship.





*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #45 on: October 13, 2007, 03:31:55 AM »
You can't accurately make a picture that showcases perspective properly without a lot more work, and a non-sideways picture. These sideways pictures show nothing of the horizon or vanishing point.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #46 on: October 13, 2007, 07:08:57 AM »
You need to edit your calculations to include the elevation of Lake Ontario

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #47 on: October 13, 2007, 09:25:42 AM »




*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #48 on: October 13, 2007, 09:34:02 AM »




The first image is useless to prove its point.  The blocks are uniform color and appearing in an unnatural way.   You would not be able to determine whether or not part of it looks to be underneather the ground or not.   Furthermore, without having a file or any sort of data, there is no proof that in fact is a sufficiently long plane to simulate a flat earth.  Third, you cannot show that it accurately simulates real perspective.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #49 on: October 13, 2007, 09:43:17 AM »
In the first image, the blocks are each 1 unit apart and are equal height.  They are on a plane.

How would this not simulate perspective unless there were some magical phenomenon called the Bishop Effect.

Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #50 on: October 13, 2007, 11:05:21 AM »
You cannot prove that you have a brain. However, you make a convincing case that you don't.

Quote
The first image is useless to prove its point.  The blocks are uniform color and appearing in an unnatural way.   You would not be able to determine whether or not part of it looks to be underneather the ground or not.   Furthermore, without having a file or any sort of data, there is no proof that in fact is a sufficiently long plane to simulate a flat earth.  Third, you cannot show that it accurately simulates real perspective.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2007, 01:24:36 PM by emailking »

?

Torn Bishop

Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #51 on: October 13, 2007, 11:13:56 AM »
You cannot prove that I can use the bb quote function. However, you make a convincing case that I can't.

[ /quote ]
The first image is useless to prove its point.  The blocks are uniform color and appearing in an unnatural way.   You would not be able to determine whether or not part of it looks to be underneather the ground or not.   Furthermore, without having a file or any sort of data, there is no proof that in fact is a sufficiently long plane to simulate a flat earth.  Third, you cannot show that it accurately simulates real perspective.
[ /quote ]
Fixed.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #52 on: October 13, 2007, 02:33:14 PM »
Your Majesty, your "Good telescope sinking ship" theory is bollocks. If the reason the ship appears to sink is a wave near to you blocking it, then it doesn't matter like shit whether you are using the naked eye or a telescope powerful enough to resovle a single moth on the surface of pluto. Want to know why? Because the telescope works in the same way as the eye, it only effects the light rays once they enter it. Using a telescope does not change your perspective, it just magnifies the image you see. So, if the reason the ship is sinking is due to a wave between the ship's hull and your eye, using a telescope will only give you a magnified view of guess what; a ship with it's hull blocked by a wave, so it still seems to be dipping below the waves.

 The only telescope that would give you the desired effect would be one that is long enough to collect light from a point beyond the wave, or one that magically bends light as it is en route to the telescope and before it enters it.

Even if you have such a telescope, if the FE "Sinking ship" theory is true then as you saw the ship sink, with your magic telescope you would see water behind it. This is not what you see, because the water's surface bends away from you with the curvature of the earths surface, and the ship follows this curvature and appears to sink.

Also, if indeed you live on the coast Your Majesty, do you not see a definite line where the ocean meets the sky? In FE theory, if things in the distance fade away because of the dirty air then wouldn't the ocean slowly fade into the sky? I believe it would.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #53 on: October 13, 2007, 02:35:48 PM »
His perspective thing is shit too.  The vanishing point in itself is a perspective effect, but I can't make it go away with binoculars or a telescope.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #54 on: October 13, 2007, 02:37:15 PM »
You don't make the vanishing point go away, you just change the distance at which it is viewed.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #55 on: October 13, 2007, 02:37:48 PM »
Also, if indeed you live on the coast Your Majesty, do you not see a definite line where the ocean meets the sky? In FE theory, if things in the distance fade away because of the dirty air then wouldn't the ocean slowly fade into the sky? I believe it would.

No, it would fade exactly at your eye level.  If we are on an infinite plane, space shuttles should see the horizon exactly where we see it.

Now, TOM!!!  Explain the perspective thing.  It make no sense.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #56 on: October 13, 2007, 02:38:22 PM »
You don't make the vanishing point go away, you just change the distance at which it is viewed.

Wrong.  You magnify what you are seeing.  You don't change your distance.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #57 on: October 13, 2007, 02:42:22 PM »
Aha, I didn't mean it like that. When you look at a certain place, there is a vanishing point where everything converges. When you magnify it, the vanishing point is no longer that spot you saw before, but it is pushed a much further distance due to the magnification.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #58 on: October 13, 2007, 02:47:01 PM »
Aha, I didn't mean it like that. When you look at a certain place, there is a vanishing point where everything converges. When you magnify it, the vanishing point is no longer that spot you saw before, but it is pushed a much further distance due to the magnification.

Yes, you are right, I'm sorry.

What I mean is that if there a perspective phenomenon where it makes water appear to rise up in front of a ship, then if you magnify it, the water will still be in front of the ship.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Sinking Effect 2
« Reply #59 on: October 13, 2007, 02:59:06 PM »
Precisely. Unless of course the laws of physics only obey His Majesty's will.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.