Horizont?

Hey I'm new. I have read the FAQ. I'm ready to fight you guys. :p Allthough I probably can't win.. I'm a RE'er. I'll try to find some proofs. Guess you don't mind. You'll probably enjoy humiliating me...

Now. My first thread will be about this pic:



How will you explain that? If I had a big-ass telescope and I stood at the top of the Eifel Tower in Paris I would actually be able to see the whole world?

You would also have to arrange to remove the entire atmoplane.  At that level, the atmoplane would limit your range of vision.

We control the horizont.  We control the vertic.

Any reply to the picture?

Atmospheric density imposes a limit on how far you are able to see.

Any reply to the picture?

Was I invisible?

But how can it be that I can't see the boat from the shore but I can see it from the hill?

The atmosphere becomes less dense as you ascend in altitude, allowing you to see further.

Can you prove that?

But how can it be that I can't see the boat from the shore but I can see it from the hill?

Where is the hill? How high is this hill?  How far away was the boat?

Can you prove that?

Well, I can observe that when I stand on a hill I can see further than when I stand at sea level.  Since it's been proven that the earth is flat there must be some reason for that and this one seems most plausible.

Quote from: Fairenough on August 06, 2008, 02:38:10 PM

Can you prove that?

Well, I can observe that when I stand on a hill I can see further than when I stand at sea level.  Since it's been proven that the earth is flat there must be some reason for that and this one seems most plausible.

So all of this is based on the premise that the earth is flat? I thought I disproved FET already, though... I'm confused.

Quote from: Fairenough on August 06, 2008, 02:36:14 PM

But how can it be that I can't see the boat from the shore but I can see it from the hill?

Where is the hill? How high is this hill?  How far away was the boat?

And what was the compass heading of the boat?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 06, 2008, 02:40:06 PM

Quote from: Fairenough on August 06, 2008, 02:38:10 PM

Can you prove that?

Well, I can observe that when I stand on a hill I can see further than when I stand at sea level.  Since it's been proven that the earth is flat there must be some reason for that and this one seems most plausible.

So all of this is based on the premise that the earth is flat?

Of course.  What's this website called again? 

I thought I disproved FET already, though... I'm confused.

If you thought you disproved FET, you must be confused.

Quote from: mxmm on August 06, 2008, 02:42:04 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 06, 2008, 02:40:06 PM

Quote from: Fairenough on August 06, 2008, 02:38:10 PM

Can you prove that?

Well, I can observe that when I stand on a hill I can see further than when I stand at sea level.  Since it's been proven that the earth is flat there must be some reason for that and this one seems most plausible.

So all of this is based on the premise that the earth is flat?

Of course.  What's this website called again? 

Quote

I thought I disproved FET already, though... I'm confused.

If you thought you disproved FET, you must be confused.

Erm... I've posted and reposted my sunset/sunrise proof numerous times and have not yet gotten any scientific correction or responses from FE'ers. I assumed that inability to compensate for a major error (that would make the sun near invisible just an hour after noon) would imply that FET can no longer stand on any empirical, rational, or scientific basis.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 06, 2008, 02:43:20 PM

Quote from: mxmm on August 06, 2008, 02:42:04 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 06, 2008, 02:40:06 PM

Quote from: Fairenough on August 06, 2008, 02:38:10 PM

Can you prove that?

Well, I can observe that when I stand on a hill I can see further than when I stand at sea level.  Since it's been proven that the earth is flat there must be some reason for that and this one seems most plausible.

So all of this is based on the premise that the earth is flat?

Of course.  What's this website called again? 

Quote

I thought I disproved FET already, though... I'm confused.

If you thought you disproved FET, you must be confused.

Erm... I've posted and reposted my sunset/sunrise proof numerous times and have not yet gotten any scientific correction or responses from FE'ers. I assumed that inability to compensate for a major error (that would make the sun near invisible just an hour after noon) would imply that FET can no longer stand on any empirical, rational, or scientific basis.

I confess I have no idea what thread you're talking about, but I've always been of the opinion that any such observation can be explained in the FE framework just by reinterpreting the math a bit.  RE physicists do that on a regular basis to make their theories work with their observations, so what's the problem?

At any rate, bringing it up serves no purpose except derailing this thread... is that what you were going for?

One thing that does spring to mind that would be different is teh height of a mountain. If the Earth were curved then a mountain would appear to get taller as you got closer. I don't just mean through perspective, if you measured the height of the mountain using trigonometry it would get higher as more of the mountain comes above the horizon line. However if the Earth were flat then this value would not change as you got closer. Of course for this you would need a high mountain with a very dominating prominence.

Of course another way to do this would be to fire a beam of particles into the Earth and look for their re-emergence at another point. This has actually been done and is being done with neutrinos by a number of experiments with more under construction. Their purpose is not to show the world is round but they would not work if it weren't. The other advantage of using neutrinos is that their path is not affected by EM fields or even gravity to any meaningful degree (they have ALMOST no mass) I posted the proof but was not really engaged on it. I guess because it is direct proof of a curved surface.

Quote from: Fairenough on August 06, 2008, 02:38:10 PM

Can you prove that?

Well, I can observe that when I stand on a hill I can see further than when I stand at sea level.  Since it's been proven that the earth is flat there must be some reason for that and this one seems most plausible.

But how can it be that whenever you get higher you'll start by seeing the sails and then slowly see the rest of the boat? The boat won't get easier to spot, you'll just see it from the top and slowly downwards. Then your theory doesn't fit in but if we conclude that the earth is round it would make perfect sense.

One thing that does spring to mind that would be different is teh height of a mountain. If the Earth were curved then a mountain would appear to get taller as you got closer. I don't just mean through perspective, if you measured the height of the mountain using trigonometry it would get higher as more of the mountain comes above the horizon line. However if the Earth were flat then this value would not change as you got closer. Of course for this you would need a high mountain with a very dominating prominence.

Of course another way to do this would be to fire a beam of particles into the Earth and look for their re-emergence at another point. This has actually been done and is being done with neutrinos by a number of experiments with more under construction. Their purpose is not to show the world is round but they would not work if it weren't. The other advantage of using neutrinos is that their path is not affected by EM fields or even gravity to any meaningful degree (they have ALMOST no mass) I posted the proof but was not really engaged on it. I guess because it is direct proof of a curved surface.

If you ask the FE's they''ll say that the thing with the beams is made up by the american government but the thing with the mountain is true. I have tried it myself.

When you increase your altitude you are changing your perspective lines in relation to the earth, pushing back your vanishing point. The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see. If you increase your height you are changing your perspective lines and thus can see further before all sight is lost to the vanishing point.

Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:



However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:



The vanishing point acts as the liming point of all vision, as all bodies beyond it are too small and squished to see with the naked eye.

The same effect is found on a 3D video game which assumes a flat surface. When you increase your altitude you can see farther because you are so much higher than everything else. Your computer's resolution is better able to see something below you than off on the horizon where the pixels are linearly squished.

When you increase your altitude on a plane you have broadened your perspective lines and have pushed your vanishing point back.

Tom, I have never understood your explanation of this.

What do each of those lines in the diagrams represent?

The vanishing point acts as the liming point of all vision, as all bodies beyond it are too small and squished to see with the naked eye.

And this is where your take on the argument is exposed as the nonsense it is.  It's a simple matter of logic that if this was the whole explanation we wouldn't go from seeing a whole boat on the horizon to half a boat on the horizon to no boat on the horizon the way we do.  The boat would continually appear to shrink until it is just too small to see.  Sorry, Tom, but there has to be some kind of atmospheric distortion effect at work here too.

What do each of those lines in the diagrams represent?

They're perspective lines from a side view.

Here are some perspective lines from a front view:

http://www.ider.herts.ac.uk/school/courseware/graphics/one_point_perspective.html

And this is where your take on the argument is exposed as the nonsense it is.  It's a simple matter of logic that if this was the whole explanation we wouldn't go from seeing a whole boat on the horizon to half a boat on the horizon to no boat on the horizon the way we do.  The boat would continually appear to shrink until it is just too small to see.  Sorry, Tom, but there has to be some kind of atmospheric distortion effect at work here too.

On the topic of the sinking ship effect: As the boat recedes into the distance its hull is gradually and perceptively appearing closer and closer to the surface of the sea. At a far off point the hull of the ship is so close to the sea's surface that it is impossible for the observer to tell ocean from hull. According to the angular limits of the human eye, the two appear merged.

While the sails of the ship may still be visible while the hull is perceptively merged, it's only a matter of time before they too shrink into the vanishing point which rests on the surface of the sea and becomes indescribable from the surface.

Quote

What do each of those lines in the diagrams represent?

They're perspective lines from a side view.

Here are some perspective lines from a front view:

http://www.ider.herts.ac.uk/school/courseware/graphics/one_point_perspective.html

Quote

And this is where your take on the argument is exposed as the nonsense it is.  It's a simple matter of logic that if this was the whole explanation we wouldn't go from seeing a whole boat on the horizon to half a boat on the horizon to no boat on the horizon the way we do.  The boat would continually appear to shrink until it is just too small to see.  Sorry, Tom, but there has to be some kind of atmospheric distortion effect at work here too.

On the topic of the sinking ship effect: As the boat recedes into the distance its hull is gradually and perceptively appearing closer and closer to the surface of the sea. At a far off point the hull of the ship is so close to the sea's surface that it is impossible for the observer to tell ocean from hull. According to the limits of the human eye, the two appear merged.

And that statement defies logic.  There has to be more to it than that.

And that statement defies logic.  There has to be more to it than that.

Lets imagine a bird flying overhead into the distance. The bird is flying off into the horizon. According to basic perspective the bird will appear to descend and approach the horizon despite being at the same altitude above the surface of the earth throughout his journey.

At a far off point the bottom of the bird will approach the angular limits of the human eye and become perceptually merged with the horizon line. As the bird recedes farther eventually the whole of its body will become so close to the horizon that it would be impossible to tell horizon from bird.

The bird apparently sinks into the horizon from the bottom up.

Quote

And that statement defies logic.  There has to be more to it than that.

Lets imagine a bird flying overhead into the distance. The bird is flying off into the horizon. According to basic perspective the bird will appear to descend and approach the horizon despite being at the same altitude above the surface of the earth throughout his journey.

At a far off point the bottom of the bird will approach the angular limits of the human eye and become perceptually merged with the horizon line. As the bird recedes farther eventually the whole of its body will become so close to the horizon that it would be impossible to tell horizon from bird.

The bird apparently sinks into the horizon from the bottom up.

Just multiplying the examples of nonsense does not make it any less nonsense. 

Quote

What do each of those lines in the diagrams represent?

They're perspective lines from a side view.

Here are some perspective lines from a front view:

http://www.ider.herts.ac.uk/school/courseware/graphics/one_point_perspective.html

Quote

And this is where your take on the argument is exposed as the nonsense it is.  It's a simple matter of logic that if this was the whole explanation we wouldn't go from seeing a whole boat on the horizon to half a boat on the horizon to no boat on the horizon the way we do.  The boat would continually appear to shrink until it is just too small to see.  Sorry, Tom, but there has to be some kind of atmospheric distortion effect at work here too.

On the topic of the sinking ship effect: As the boat recedes into the distance its hull is gradually and perceptively appearing closer and closer to the surface of the sea. At a far off point the hull of the ship is so close to the sea's surface that it is impossible for the observer to tell ocean from hull. According to the limits of the human eye, the two appear merged.

While the sails of the ship may still be visible while the hull is perceptively merged, it's only a matter of time before they too shrink into the vanishing point which rests on the surface of the sea and becomes indescribable from the surface of the sea.

Tom. I live close to the sea on top of a height. I watch the horizon every day. We also have islands and such. And I do a lot of sailing. I own binoculars. I can testify that the horizon does not look like its dissapearing into distance evenly. It really looks like dissapears due to curvature. This also applies when im looking in my binoculars.
When looking at an island that is "halfway over the horizon", it does NOT change when im looking at it binoculars. It is still half dissapeared over the horizon. It does however look much closer, and the perspective is decreased, but thats the point of binoculars. Adding to the case: The optics change the perspective, shouldnt that change how far you could look into and vanishing point? At least the magnification would.. 
I have also watched a lot and lot of sunsets all year round, where they both go down "in the sea" and over land. Same thing there.
Please explain.

Well, I'm going to stick my neck out and say that without magnification, what Tom is saying is correct. I mean, at open sea, I imagine a boat would become imperceptable through the limits of the human eye before it would vanish due to any curvature in the earths surface.

When looking at an island that is "halfway over the horizon", it does NOT change when im looking at it binoculars. It is still half dissapeared over the horizon.

Have you studied the views of the island between the eye and binoculars closely? It's often difficult to tell how much of an island is covered up unless you were specifically looking for it. Much of the distant foliage of an island is featureless and hard to discern.

Adding to the case: The optics change the perspective, shouldnt that change how far you could look into and vanishing point? At least the magnification would..

It has been found that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. The fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read the following:

http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/ships/index.html

There have also been experiments on Lake Michigan where the hulls of half-sunken ships have been restored by looking at it through a telescope:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

The above accounts prove that the hulls are not really behind "hills of water" and act as evidence that the dissappearance of the hull is due to the limits of the human eye.

Well, I'm going to stick my neck out and say that without magnification, what Tom is saying is correct. I mean, at open sea, I imagine a boat would become imperceptable through the limits of the human eye before it would vanish due to any curvature in the earths surface.

I too agree that on a perfectly flat surface, you can se further by being higher from the surface. As it, in theory, wouldnt be able to see more than nothing away when being exact level with the surface..

But, as you said, visual aid changes the distance you can see in such a world. So does how sharp ones eyesight are.

Can someone that are more skilled than me in math, physics and optical knowledge calculate how far one could see with the naked eye on a flat surface? From fex 3m height. To see if that distance is the same as the distance to the horizon from the same height.

I like the explanation with the bent light better. Its more theoretical and not as easy to puncture as bishops explanation.