Sinking Ship in ENaG

  • 191 Replies
  • 35101 Views
*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Sinking Ship in ENaG
« on: December 23, 2010, 04:13:09 AM »
Food for thought:

Quote from: ENaG

3.--Any distinctive part of a receding body will be-come invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body.



Let A represent a disc of wood or card-board, say one foot in diameter, and painted black, except one inch diameter in the centre. On taking this disc to about a hundred feet away from an observer at A, the white centre will appear considerably diminished--as shown at B--and on removing it still further the central white will become invisible, the disc will appear as at C, entirely black. Again, if a similar disc is coloured black, except a segment of say one inch in depth at the lower edge, on moving it forward the lower segment will gradually disappear, as shown at A, B, and C, in diagram fig. 74. If the disc is allowed to rest on a board D, the effect is still more striking. The disc at C will appear perfectly round--the white segment having disappeared.




If the above were true, then this is what we would observe when seeing a ship sailing of into the distance:
   
   - The mast would disappear; it's the thinnest and most distinctive part of the ship.

   - The hull of the ship would get smaller and smaller until it becomes a mere dot on the horizon, then disappear.
 


However, what what is observed in the real world:

   - The mast sinks below the horizon last, after the hull, from the bottom of the mast to the top.

   - The hull disappears from the bottom of the hull to the top of the hull
      -  The hull does not appear to entirely shrink to a dot on the horizon, but rather appears to sink into the horizon.


*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2010, 07:00:49 AM »
Food for thought:

Quote from: ENaG

3.--Any distinctive part of a receding body will be-come invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig73.jpg

Let A represent a disc of wood or card-board, say one foot in diameter, and painted black, except one inch diameter in the centre. On taking this disc to about a hundred feet away from an observer at A, the white centre will appear considerably diminished--as shown at B--and on removing it still further the central white will become invisible, the disc will appear as at C, entirely black. Again, if a similar disc is coloured black, except a segment of say one inch in depth at the lower edge, on moving it forward the lower segment will gradually disappear, as shown at A, B, and C, in diagram fig. 74. If the disc is allowed to rest on a board D, the effect is still more striking. The disc at C will appear perfectly round--the white segment having disappeared.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig74.jpg


If the above were true, then this is what we would observe when seeing a ship sailing of into the distance:
   
   - The mast would disappear; it's the thinnest and most distinctive part of the ship.

   - The hull of the ship would get smaller and smaller until it becomes a mere dot on the horizon, then disappear.
 
http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h442/RyanHessy/ZeteticBoat.jpg

However, what what is observed in the real world:

   - The mast sinks below the horizon last, after the hull, from the bottom of the mast to the top.

   - The hull disappears from the bottom of the hull to the top of the hull
      -  The hull does not appear to entirely shrink to a dot on the horizon, but rather appears to sink into the horizon.

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/h442/RyanHessy/ObservedBoat.jpg

You know - Everyone who sails knows this - and nobody brought it up - Kudos to you.

Berny
Has sailed.
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2010, 09:34:24 AM »
You know - Everyone who sails knows this - and nobody brought it up - Kudos to you.

Berny
Has sailed.

Good to know my point made sense to someone, especially someone who's sailed.  To be honest, that was all just speculation on my part.  I'm glad it's as observable as I thought it was.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2010, 11:57:23 AM »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2010, 03:19:32 PM »
One problem with that is that going "past the horizon" is a RE phenomenon that is not possible on a flat earth (seeing as the FE horizon is infinitely far away).
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2010, 09:06:35 PM »
One problem with that is that going "past the horizon" is a RE phenomenon that is not possible on a flat earth (seeing as the FE horizon is infinitely far away).

In FET the horizon is on the Vanishing Point, a finite distance away from the observer.

See the link I've provided above.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2010, 09:34:51 PM »
One problem with that is that going "past the horizon" is a RE phenomenon that is not possible on a flat earth (seeing as the FE horizon is infinitely far away).

In FET the horizon is on the Vanishing Point, a finite distance away from the observer.

See the link I've provided above.

Nope.  The horizon is the line (or curve) where earth appears to meet sky.  The vanishing point is just that, a point.  It's the point at which parallel lines receding from an observer seem to converge. This point is not necessarily on the horizon, rather it follows your line of sight.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2010, 09:49:46 PM »
Nope.  The horizon is the line (or curve) where earth appears to meet sky.  The vanishing point is just that, a point.  It's the point at which parallel lines receding from an observer seem to converge. This point is not necessarily on the horizon, rather it follows your line of sight.

In the Flat Earth model the horizon is where the Vanishing Point lies.

Please pick up a copy of Earth Not a Globe if you are interested in learning more about the topic.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2010, 10:54:23 PM »
Nope.  The horizon is the line (or curve) where earth appears to meet sky.  The vanishing point is just that, a point.  It's the point at which parallel lines receding from an observer seem to converge. This point is not necessarily on the horizon, rather it follows your line of sight.

In the Flat Earth model the horizon is where the Vanishing Point lies.

Please pick up a copy of Earth Not a Globe if you are interested in learning more about the topic.

So things don't vanish due to perspective above or below the FE horizon?  Interesting.  What about natural scenes that have no parallel lines and therefore no vanishing point?

By the way, I've seen Rowbotham's version of perspective.  It makes no sense whatsoever.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

doyh

  • 391
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #9 on: December 26, 2010, 12:16:42 PM »
I'd imagine that the reason that the mast doesn't disappear first is that the sail is so large on most sail boats. In many cases, it is as long as the boat, and is always much larger.
If we would all stop deflecting questions, maybe we could get somewhere.

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2011, 04:17:07 AM »
The sinking ship effect is described here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon

Quote from: Wiki
the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent on which the hull is so close to the surface of the ocean that the two are indistinguishable. The ship's hull gets so close to the surface of the water as it recedes that they appear to merge together. Where bodies get so close together that they appear to merge is called the Vanishing Point.

Not only is that a lot of speculation, but it would easily be remedied with a decent zoom/telescope.  Saying "they seem like they're the same because they're so far away" is a pretty bad answer to this problem.

Quote from: Wiki
However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations
Which is why we have telescopes.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2011, 05:11:42 AM »
ITT: Telescopes let you see infinity.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2011, 05:59:12 AM »
Quote
So things don't vanish due to perspective above or below the FE horizon?  Interesting.

Seeing as the horizon is always at eye level due to a matter of perspective, no, it's not so interesting.

Quote
By the way, I've seen Rowbotham's version of perspective.  It makes no sense whatsoever.

It makes perfect sense. Perhaps you should actually read the book rather than pretending you had.

Reading the material will help you understand perspective, why the horizon is always at eye level of the observer, and why the distance to the vanishing point is finite. It's a primer to the basics of natural perspective.

You can purchase a copy of the Earth Not a Globe at Amazon.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 06:17:34 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2011, 06:01:58 AM »
The sinking ship effect is described here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships+appear+to+sink+as+they+recede+past+the+horizon

Quote from: Wiki
the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent on which the hull is so close to the surface of the ocean that the two are indistinguishable. The ship's hull gets so close to the surface of the water as it recedes that they appear to merge together. Where bodies get so close together that they appear to merge is called the Vanishing Point.

Not only is that a lot of speculation, but it would easily be remedied with a decent zoom/telescope.  Saying "they seem like they're the same because they're so far away" is a pretty bad answer to this problem.

Quote from: Wiki
However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations
Which is why we have telescopes.

Did you read the link I provided? You quoted it. Why didn't you read it?

It says that a telescope can restore bodies disappeared by perspective and gives several accounts where they have.

ITT: Telescopes let you see infinity.

No one claimed infinitely.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 06:19:02 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2011, 07:47:18 AM »
I have personally verified that telescopes do not restore the lower parts of objects which have vanished below the horizon.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2011, 08:21:47 AM »
Quote
So things don't vanish due to perspective above or below the FE horizon?  Interesting.

Seeing as the horizon is always at eye level due to a matter of perspective, no, it's not so interesting.


False.
The horizon is only at eye level when you are at mean sea level.

Berny
Has been on a mountain
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

*

Hessy

  • 1185
  • My alts: Edgeworth, any/all spambots
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2011, 09:44:30 AM »
I have personally verified that telescopes do not restore the lower parts of objects which have vanished below the horizon.

That was more the point that I was getting at; telescopes do not restore parts of objects which have vanished below the horizon, which blows up your speculative theories.

And by the way, Tom, you stated here that the body shrinks in proportion.  As I demostrated in the OP, that's not what's observed in the real world.  All the garbage Rowbotham threw out about infinity and perspective are irrelevant; given a plane, the body should shrink proportionally while all parts of it remain visible; this should be the same when looking through a telescope, only the body is magnified.  However, what's observed in real life is a ship shrinking proportionally, but "sinking" below the horizon before becoming a spec too small to see with the human eye / a telescope.

Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #17 on: January 03, 2011, 10:25:16 AM »
It says that a telescope can restore bodies disappeared by perspective and gives several accounts where they have.

Your link does state this, but it simply doesn't happen outside of your wiki.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #18 on: January 03, 2011, 12:03:27 PM »
Quote
So things don't vanish due to perspective above or below the FE horizon?  Interesting.

Seeing as the horizon is always at eye level due to a matter of perspective, no, it's not so interesting.


False.
The horizon is only at eye level when you are at mean sea level.

Berny
Has been on a mountain


Incorrect. The horizon is also at your eye level when you are on a mountain.

Please read http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Basic+Perspective

----------

A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. This will help us understand how viewing distance works, in addition to the sinking ship effect.

Have you ever noticed that as you climb a mountain the line of the horizon seems to rise with you?

This is because the vanishing point is always at eye level with the observer. This is a very basic property of perspective. From a plane or a mountain, however high you ascend - the horizon will rise to your eye level. The next time you climb in altitude study the horizon closely and observe as it rises with your eye level.

The horizon will continue to rise with altitude, at eye level with the observer, until there is no more land to see.

From Chapter 5 from the Perspective Handbook we read:

Quote
Horizon Line and Eye level

Anyone who has ever been to the seaside will have seen a horizon (as long as it wasn't foggy). This is the line you see far away, out to sea. It's the line where the water stops and the sky starts. There are horizon lines everywhere, but usually you don't see them because something like a hill or a tree or a house is in the way.

You always see the horizon line at your eye level. In fact, if you change your eye level (by standing up, or sitting down) the horizon line changes too, and follows your eye level. Your eye level always follows you around everywhere because it's your eye level. If you sit on the floor the horizon is at your eye level. If you stand up, it's at your eye level. If you stand on top of a very tall building, or look out of the window of an aeroplane, the horizon is still at your eye level. It's only everything else that appears to change in relation to your eye level. The fact is, that everything looks the way it does from your point of view because you see it in relation to yourself. So if you are sitting looking out of the window of an airliner everything is going to look shorter than you because at this moment you are taller (or higher) than everything else.


One easy experiment you can do for yourself is find a computer game which can render large 3D maps. Move your character to one end of the map, center your crosshair on the line of the horizon, and turn on noclip. Without moving the mouse, ascend in height and notice how the line of the horizon will stay centered on the crosshair until you run out of land to see.

While a game is not comparable to life, this easily observable perspective effect is enough to satisfy the observer as to its workings and should be apparent and visible in most modern computer games.

----------
« Last Edit: February 15, 2011, 11:46:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #19 on: January 03, 2011, 12:07:51 PM »
ITT: Tom Bishop lies and thinks video games are an accurate representation of reality.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2011, 12:15:41 PM »
ITT: Tom Bishop lies and thinks video games are an accurate representation of reality.

This particular perspective effect of the horizon always being at the level of the eye, from the surface of the earth to the top of a mountain, is definitely apparent in large 3D games.

Even so, the FEW excerpt I prodived clearly disclaims:

While a game is not comparable to life
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 12:18:09 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #21 on: January 03, 2011, 12:18:02 PM »
Yet there you are, comparing them to life.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2011, 12:23:22 PM »
Yet there you are, comparing them to life.

I am only comparing the perspective effect to reality.

The video game itself is not comparable to reality, as the excerpt disclaims.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2011, 12:31:44 PM »
The thing is: your "perspective effect" does not compare to reality. I verified this myself.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2011, 12:32:48 PM »
ITT: Tom Bishop lies and thinks video games are an accurate representation of reality.

Well both you ninja's me about the game...

But for TB...

Your eyes are drawn to the horizon.  As you rise you will look downwards ever so slightly (as in the ocean the horizon becomes the ONLY point of interest).  Now if you were to climb a high mountain - using a level and straight edge peering straight alongside said level you will be focusing at a point higher than the horizon.
Without a leveling device it is difficult - because you are always drawn to the horizon.

Actually I think TD and GD have ninja'd me 4 times or so.

Berny
Throwing in before ninja'd again.
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2011, 12:36:23 PM »
Yet there you are, comparing them to life.

I am only comparing the perspective effect to reality.

The video game itself is not comparable to reality, as the excerpt disclaims.

Then why include it?

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #26 on: January 03, 2011, 12:41:01 PM »
Yet there you are, comparing them to life.

I am only comparing the perspective effect to reality.

The video game itself is not comparable to reality, as the excerpt disclaims.

Then why include it?


Because we all have computers and a vid game is easily accessible although a vid game has no parallel to real life.  On the other hand solarium programs are also available and show where mars was on Dec 31st 2010 and have you paid up TB?

Berny
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=43090.msg1069436#msg1069436
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #27 on: January 03, 2011, 05:01:25 PM »
ITT: Tom Bishop lies and thinks video games are an accurate representation of reality.
Your eyes are drawn to the horizon.  As you rise you will look downwards ever so slightly (as in the ocean the horizon becomes the ONLY point of interest).  Now if you were to climb a high mountain - using a level and straight edge peering straight alongside said level you will be focusing at a point higher than the horizon.
Without a leveling device it is difficult - because you are always drawn to the horizon.

Quite wrong. When you ascend in altitude the horizon line follows the level of your eye. And if you ascend in height rapidly, the horizon line will appear stationary with the eye while the entire earth grows smaller below you.

The horizon does not drop as you ascend in height. The horizon line remains stationary with the eye as new and distant lands come into view.
 
From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read:

    AERONAUTICS.

    If the world be a ball, as Sir R. Ball gravely informs us,
    the aeronaut should be one of his most ardent supporters, as
    the highest part of the "surface of the globe" would be
    directly under the car of a balloon, and the sides would fall
    away or "dip" down in every direction. The universal
    testimony of aeronauts, however, is entirely against the
    globular assumption, as the following quotations show. The
    London Journal 18th July, 1857, says: --

    "The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a con-
    siderable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained
    practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two
    miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead
    of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the
    horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary."
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 05:06:36 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2011, 05:08:28 PM »
ITT: Tom Bishop lies and thinks video games are an accurate representation of reality.
Your eyes are drawn to the horizon.  As you rise you will look downwards ever so slightly (as in the ocean the horizon becomes the ONLY point of interest).  Now if you were to climb a high mountain - using a level and straight edge peering straight alongside said level you will be focusing at a point higher than the horizon.
Without a leveling device it is difficult - because you are always drawn to the horizon.

Quite wrong. When you ascend in altitude the horizon line follows the level of your eye. And if you ascend in height rapidly, the horizon line will appear stationary with the eye while the entire earth grows smaller below you.

The horizon does not drop as you ascend in height. The horizon line remains stationary with the eye as new and distant lands come into view.
 
From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read:

    AERONAUTICS.

    If the world be a ball, as Sir R. Ball gravely informs us,
    the aeronaut should be one of his most ardent supporters, as
    the highest part of the "surface of the globe" would be
    directly under the car of a balloon, and the sides would fall
    away or "dip" down in every direction. The universal
    testimony of aeronauts, however, is entirely against the
    globular assumption, as the following quotations show. The
    London Journal 18th July, 1857, says: --

    "The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a con-
    siderable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained
    practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two
    miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead
    of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the
    horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary."


Start quoting stuff that's not from 2 centuries ago, maybe it will give it a little bit more credit.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« Reply #29 on: January 03, 2011, 05:10:33 PM »
Start quoting stuff that's not from 2 centuries ago, maybe it will give it a little bit more credit.

- 1857 wasn't 2 centuries ago.

- Truth does not have an expiration date
« Last Edit: January 03, 2011, 05:18:47 PM by Tom Bishop »