sail boats

I was at the beach recently. While I was at the beach, I was watching a sail boat sail out to sea. This sail boat eventually reached the horizon, which was far away, so I the proceeded to watch the sail boat through binoculars. I watched the boat go even further. Suddenly, I realized I was looking at the top half of the sail. I was a bit perplexed. Finally, I watched the top of the sail mast dip below the horizon. Hours later, I watched this same sail boat come back over the horizon. Now I was very confused. I am a believer of a flat Earth, but it seems like this event could of only happened because either: the sail boat is also a submersible, or the Earth is curved(round). I was confused enough to ask the sailor of this boat if it was able to go underwater like a submarine. He laughed and said no. Why did this happen?

The Earth is round and light does not bend. It's very simple really.

The Earth is round and light does not bend..

Scratch that, reverse it.

You can't reverse what is already known.

I was at the beach recently. While I was at the beach, I was watching a sail boat sail out to sea. This sail boat eventually reached the horizon, which was far away, so I the proceeded to watch the sail boat through binoculars. I watched the boat go even further. Suddenly, I realized I was looking at the top half of the sail. I was a bit perplexed. Finally, I watched the top of the sail mast dip below the horizon. Hours later, I watched this same sail boat come back over the horizon. Now I was very confused. I am a believer of a flat Earth, but it seems like this event could of only happened because either: the sail boat is also a submersible, or the Earth is curved(round). I was confused enough to ask the sailor of this boat if it was able to go underwater like a submarine. He laughed and said no. Why did this happen?

Would you please fill out the following questionnaire:
Location of beach:
Description of beach:
Date:
Temperature:
Relative humidity:
Barometric pressure:
Sky conditions:
Time of first observation:
Time of last observation:
Size and type of boat/ship:
Number and type of other boats/ships in general area:
Position of boat/ship when first observed:
Coarse heading and speed of boat/ship when first observed:
Position of boat/ship when last observed:
Coarse heading and speed of boat/ship when last observed:
Description of binoculars, spyglass, or other optical devices:
Had you consumed alcohol and/or drugs within 8 hours before this observation?
Was this a nude beach?
Did you find this questionaire (1) helpful?  (2.)not helpful?  (3.)stupid?  (4.) insulting?  

Quote from: ROUND000 on September 19, 2008, 04:50:41 PM

The Earth is round and light does not bend..

Scratch that, reverse it.

Light does not bend and Earth is round.

Quote from: Oscar Wilde on September 19, 2008, 04:56:07 PM

Quote from: ROUND000 on September 19, 2008, 04:50:41 PM

The Earth is round and light does not bend..

Scratch that, reverse it.

Light does not bend and Earth is round.

Thanks, Wonka.

Quote from: Rig Navigator on September 19, 2008, 05:20:05 PM

Quote from: Oscar Wilde on September 19, 2008, 04:56:07 PM

Quote from: ROUND000 on September 19, 2008, 04:50:41 PM

The Earth is round and light does not bend..

Scratch that, reverse it.

Light does not bend and Earth is round.

Thanks, Wonka.

You look just like him.

Not a problem.  I couldn't resist.

I was at the beach recently. While I was at the beach, I was watching a sail boat sail out to sea. This sail boat eventually reached the horizon, which was far away, so I the proceeded to watch the sail boat through binoculars. I watched the boat go even further. Suddenly, I realized I was looking at the top half of the sail. I was a bit perplexed. Finally, I watched the top of the sail mast dip below the horizon. Hours later, I watched this same sail boat come back over the horizon. Now I was very confused. I am a believer of a flat Earth, but it seems like this event could of only happened because either: the sail boat is also a submersible, or the Earth is curved(round). I was confused enough to ask the sailor of this boat if it was able to go underwater like a submarine. He laughed and said no. Why did this happen?

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Which doesn't really explain why you can't see the hull of a sailboat when it is viewed over seawater instead of a British canal.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2008, 05:37:43 PM

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Which doesn't really explain why you can't see the hull of a sailboat when it is viewed over seawater instead of a British canal.

ENAG gives describes two effects. On a very calm body of water like a lake or a canal the disappearance of distant bodies from the bottom us is a perspective effect. Bodies which should be mathematically behind the curvature of the earth can be restored by looking at them through a telescope. There are many accounts from multiple observers who have restored distant bodies with a telescope.

Hulls of ships restored by telescope on Lake Michigan proves not really behind a 'hill of water'

The second effect described in ENAG for why a distant body might be obscured is that there might physically be an imperfection on the earth's surface which creates an area behind which bodies can shrink behind. The disappearance of ships at sea is described in Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe. At sea there are swells and waves which distant ships can shrink behind as they recede from the observer. In the case with obscured hulls at sea, the observer is often not able to restore the hull with a telescope since the ocean's surface terrain is in the way. Only in very calm conditions can the observer restore a hull.

The sail boat is bent.  Light is submersible.  Earth is flat.

Quote from: Rig Navigator on September 19, 2008, 05:59:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 19, 2008, 05:37:43 PM

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Which doesn't really explain why you can't see the hull of a sailboat when it is viewed over seawater instead of a British canal.

ENAG gives describes two effects. On a very calm body of water like a lake or a canal the disappearance of distant bodies from the bottom us is a perspective effect. Bodies which should be mathematically behind the curvature of the earth can be restored by looking at them through a telescope. There are many accounts from multiple observers who have restored distant bodies with a telescope.

Hulls of ships restored by telescope on Lake Michigan proves not really behind a 'hill of water'

The second effect described in ENAG for why a distant body might be obscured is that there might physically be an imperfection on the earth's surface which creates an area behind which bodies can shrink behind. The disappearance of ships at sea is described in Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe. At sea there are swells and waves which distant ships can shrink behind as they recede from the observer. In the case with obscured hulls at sea, the observer is often not able to restore the hull with a telescope since the ocean's surface terrain is in the way. Only in very calm conditions can the observer restore a hull.

So why is it that when I conduct the same experiment I come up with different results.
Today's optics are much more advanced than they were in the 1900's and I see only half a ship at the same distances as the people that claim they see the whole ship.

ENAG gives describes two effects. On a very calm body of water like a lake or a canal the disappearance of distant bodies from the bottom us is a perspective effect. Bodies which should be mathematically behind the curvature of the earth can be restored by looking at them through a telescope. There are many accounts from multiple observers who have restored distant bodies with a telescope.

This explanation is flawed. If you look in the text, the OP claims to have been able to see the top of the sail. Does this mean the top of the sail is larger than the bottom? Remember, sails are triangular with the larger part at the bottom.

This explanation falls down, even if you accept its distorted logic.

Hulls of ships restored by telescope on Lake Michigan proves not really behind a 'hill of water'

No proof offered, inadmissable as evidence. Please stop wasting everyone's time.

The second effect described in ENAG for why a distant body might be obscured is that there might physically be an imperfection on the earth's surface which creates an area behind which bodies can shrink behind. The disappearance of ships at sea is described in Chapter 14 of Earth Not a Globe. At sea there are swells and waves which distant ships can shrink behind as they recede from the observer. In the case with obscured hulls at sea, the observer is often not able to restore the hull with a telescope since the ocean's surface terrain is in the way. Only in very calm conditions can the observer restore a hull.

This explanation also fails. If both the boat and the observer were higher than the wave tops (the OP didn't mention the waves being >2m high) then there is no way a wave can intercept the line of sight between the observer and the boat. Unless, of course, the Earth is curved.

The man in the boat was part of teh conspiracy, and he use his special submersible conspiroboat to try and fool you.  All sail boat owners are in on teh conspiracy. 

The sinking hull effect is certainly one favored by primary school textbook writers.  However, the diminution of the hull by distance, atmosphere, and wave action would be greater than any disappearance due to a supposed bulge in the water

Would you please fill out the following questionnaire:
Location of beach:
Description of beach:
Date:
Temperature:
Relative humidity:
Barometric pressure:
Sky conditions:
Time of first observation:
Time of last observation:
Size and type of boat/ship:
Number and type of other boats/ships in general area:
Position of boat/ship when first observed:
Coarse heading and speed of boat/ship when first observed:
Position of boat/ship when last observed:
Coarse heading and speed of boat/ship when last observed:
Description of binoculars, spyglass, or other optical devices:
Had you consumed alcohol and/or drugs within 8 hours before this observation?
Was this a nude beach?
Did you find this questionaire (1) helpful?  (2.)not helpful?  (3.)stupid?  (4.) insulting?  

You forgot to mention the data from your laser/fibre ring gyroscope to measure your absolute rotation, the observed (and calibrated) fringe shifts of your vacuum-tubed Michelson interferometer to observe any light bending effects and the results of comparative LIDAR/RADAR observations of the boat to observe any frequency-dependency of light bending at your test location. Oh, plus these readings must have been performed at every Planck length between you and the boat at every Planck time interval in order to avoid distortive effects caused by localised folds in space-time. And video of you and the boat from at least 3 different vantage points for the entire duration of your experiment.

THEN you might have a body of evidence sufficient to begin arguing for your clearly unsupported 'round Earth' hypothesis.

THEN you might have a body of evidence sufficient to begin arguing for your clearly unsupported 'round Earth' hypothesis.

I don't have a round earth hypothesis, supported or unsupported. 

I don't have a round earth hypothesis, supported or unsupported. 

I was talking about the OP'er who you were submitting a questionnaire to... sorry for not specifying, thought it was implied 

The sinking hull effect is certainly one favored by primary school textbook writers.  However, the diminution of the hull by distance, atmosphere, and wave action would be greater than any disappearance due to a supposed bulge in the water

The height of waves does not explain the disappearance of the hulls of ships.  We are talking vessels with hulls that are tens of feet high.  The seas are rarely high enough to obscure the hulls of ships because of their height, and would definitely be visible as a part of photograph.

As for "diminution of the hull by distance" and "atmosphere", that doesn't explain why we are still able to see the mast of the sailboat through the telescope when we can't see the hull.