Sinking Ship experiment Results

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.



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.

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?

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Not just "Moderator", but "Global Moderator"

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.

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.

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.

Guesses? No. Tentative estimates? Certainly.

Estimates with no data to back it up?  Certainly.

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.

Key word:  Global.  Sorry, I'm kinda tired and punchy.

Key word:  Global.  Sorry, I'm kinda tired and punchy.

I got it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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, 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.

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.

Robosteve's ideas are the wave of the future, Tom.  Ride it.

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.

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.

Quote from: 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.

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.

Um, a recent forum experiment showed a telescopic view to restore such an object. Please make use of our search.

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?

Yes, he does.  Check again.

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.

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.

The second picture is wrong.  It's from altitude.  The correct picture from ground is http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg.

The ship still appears sunk.

The second picture is wrong.  It's from altitude.  The correct picture from ground is 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 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

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.