Sinking Ship experiment Results

Thread resurrection for consideration of newbie members as topic was raised again.

NGreat, do not try these things with me here; I will punish you.

HERE IS THE BEAMER FALLS CONSERVATION AREA:



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.





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.

That's barrel distortion.

The earth isn't even curved from the altitude of an international flight.

That's barrel distortion.

The earth isn't even curved from the altitude of an international flight.

Barrel distortion? What are you talking about?

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.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


Since you did mention planes not being able to see a curvature of Earth.

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.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


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.

Quote from: The Earth is ROUND!!!!!!! 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.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


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?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2009, 01:49:02 AM

Quote from: The Earth is ROUND!!!!!!! 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.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


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.

Quote from: The Earth is ROUND!!!!!!! on December 06, 2009, 02:01:54 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2009, 01:49:02 AM

Quote from: The Earth is ROUND!!!!!!! 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.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


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.

Stop talking until you figure out what barrel distortion is and apologize.

Quote from: The Earth is ROUND!!!!!!! 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.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">


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.

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.

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?

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.

Quote from: 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.

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."

Tom, do you still have that link to the page that has example photos of barrel distortion?

Quote from: 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.

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.

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 02:53:39 PM

Quote from: 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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Quote from: 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.

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.

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!

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

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?

Quote from: 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.

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.