Undeniable Proof

Why is your ship hovering above the sea? Why isn't the sea a flat plane?

Quote from: Dog on January 29, 2013, 11:19:50 PM

Well we're talking about a gradual drop off, over minutes and minutes, with the tip of the mast being the last thing you see. If swells were to blame, then we would see the ship rapidly disappearing, then the swell would fall after a little bit and we would see the whole ship again, and then it would be covered again, etc. (before it went out of sight)

Two different scenarios, and while the second one does happen, so does the first. And if the first one happens, well, you're observing earth's curvature.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with rudimentary statistics and something known as a bell curve.  Any statistician will tell you that this is what you would expect to... sea.

Hold up, did everyone just ignore this post? Following a bell curve would mean there would be an equal(or at least close) number of people who see both, a ship disappearing in and out of a swell. Does it not seem odd to you that there are NO accounts of a ship rising out from behind the horizon?

Addition: Also how do you justify the fact that you can see the sunset twice if you lie down as the sun is setting and stand directly upright?

The height of waves fall along a bell curve, not the height of a ship.

The height of waves fall along a bell curve, not the height of a ship.

I was actually talking about the bell curve of the number of reports for each side, but all the same, wouldn't there be some accounts of ships reappearing above the horizon? As well as the fact that the horizon, instead of being clearly straight, would obviously be distorted by huge waves if you used an even semi-powerful telescope?
And again, how do you justify the fact that you can see the sunset twice if you lie down as the sun is setting and stand directly upright?

On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.

Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.

The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.

This is literally the stupidest thing I've ever seen in my entire life. I was taken aback by this.

Sceptimatic, if ever there was evidence that you don't understand anything about anything, this post is it.

This doesn't even do justice to just how stupid that was.

On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.

Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.

The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.

Dear god, can't believe I missed this...

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 30, 2013, 10:07:07 AM

On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.

Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.

The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.

Dear god, can't believe I missed this...

Pretty compelling evidence that Scepti is in fact a troll of epic proportions.  Literally no one on the internet is that stupid.  If someone is that stupid, the probably don't know how to join a forum, or really even feed themselves.

While we're all talking about roundness of Earth and Oceans I think its also worth pointing out that the circumference of the round earth is 24,901.5 miles. A complete circle is 360 degrees. This equates to a variance of a level angle of 1 degree every 69.17 miles. That would be nigh imperceptible by senses alone.

This equates to a variance of a level angle of 1 degree every 69.17 miles. That would be nigh imperceptible by senses alone.

Good observation. However, in the end what really matters is the distance of the horizon which can be much less than 70+ miles away. The formula for this is explained here:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/01/15/how-far-away-is-the-horizon/#.USWArKUqaE0

Distance of horizon = height^2 + 2 * Earth's Radius * height

According to this, the horizon is 3 miles away for a 6 foot man standing at sea level.

Hi Dudes!
I am surprised about this "swell-theory". The common explanations for the sinking ship effect are the good old "matter-of-perspective" - theory of Rowbothom and the "bendy-light" - theory of T. Bishop (?). Have they become obsolete?

is'nt  the "sinking-ship"- phenomenon categorically the same as the "sinking-sun"-phenomenon? shouldn't they have the same explanation, in FET as well as in RET?

Oh, and, Sceptimatic! you should hold lectures! would pay for it!!

Hi Dudes!
I am surprised about this "swell-theory". The common explanations for the sinking ship effect are the good old "matter-of-perspective" - theory of Rowbothom and the "bendy-light" - theory of T. Bishop (?). Have they become obsolete?

I could be mistaken, but I do believe that bendy light has fallen out of favor. The swell theory supplements the perspective theory.

Quote from: Homesick Martian on February 20, 2013, 06:59:18 PM

Hi Dudes!
I am surprised about this "swell-theory". The common explanations for the sinking ship effect are the good old "matter-of-perspective" - theory of Rowbothom and the "bendy-light" - theory of T. Bishop (?). Have they become obsolete?

I could be mistaken, but I do believe that bendy light has fallen out of favor. The swell theory supplements the perspective theory.

I disproved the swell theory. Read my post history.

Yes he did. Either the earth curves or light bends. that's a matter of observation.

His refutation was rife with speculation and hypothetical conjecture.

No, it's simple logic. If the swell, that obscures the boat, is at the horizon, too, it must be as big as the boat to do so. If the swell is not at the horizon, but closer to the observer, a smaller swell would work as well, but it just wouldn't be in the line of sight between eye and boat. It would be below it, so how could it obscure the boat?

I can hear Richard Feynman cry out from the grave: "If you think you understand the sinking-ship- phenomenon, you don't understand sinking-ship - phenomenon". I suggest you to read both Rowbothom and Tom bishop's glittering works without those distored RE-glasses on the top of your nose, ET. You will see the light.

No, it's simple logic. If the swell, that obscures the boat, is at the horizon, too, it must be as big as the boat to do so. If the swell is not at the horizon, but closer to the observer, a smaller swell would work as well, but it just wouldn't be in the line of sight between eye and boat. It would be below it, so how could it obscure the boat?

So boats stay at a constant elevation while at sea? The billions of people worldwide who suffer from sea sickness while on the ocean will be glad to hear about this. We should let them know.

Why do debates with flat earthlings allways end up like that? I do not want to WIN in a discussion. I would LOVE it, if somebody could come up with a consistent flat earth theory. But Robotham was an imposter. I read his book. Did he believe, what he wrote? No one will ever know.
By the way, for me (as a Martian) it's no problem to conceive earth as flat and round at the same time. Some enlightened earthlings have developed the concept of many-valued logic. you should get your teeth into it.

Quote from: Homesick Martian on February 22, 2013, 08:52:34 PM

No, it's simple logic. If the swell, that obscures the boat, is at the horizon, too, it must be as big as the boat to do so. If the swell is not at the horizon, but closer to the observer, a smaller swell would work as well, but it just wouldn't be in the line of sight between eye and boat. It would be below it, so how could it obscure the boat?

So boats stay at a constant elevation while at sea? The billions of people worldwide who suffer from sea sickness while on the ocean will be glad to hear about this. We should let them know.

No, boats do not stay at a constant elevation while at sea. However, if you have a swell obscuring the boat from view while it's in the ocean, they would be able to notice this gigantic taller-than-the-boat swell, considering that they'd be at the bottom of a chasm from all directions (since this effect works from any/all directions).

This concept of a swell obscuring boats at a certain distance just doesn't *cough* hold water *cough*.

It's not one gigantic tsunami-like swell that obscures a boat, it's the average of many peaks (or swells) and their opposing troughs that over a distance obscure a boat. Think of it like this and don't take this learning example too literal. Imagine a boat is 100ft out to sea and there are 5 waves between you and the boat. Being that these are shallow and close to shore, they will obscure nothing, or nothing much. Move the boat to 200ft and now there are 10 waves. As the distance from the shore increases, so does the amount of waves and their amplitude, if you will. There is a greater chance that a swell, or crest, or peak will obscure part of the boat. Jump to 50,000ft and it's a statistical improbability that the ship won't be obscured by waves. 

aren't the waves diminishing in apparent amplitude by the same inverse square law that makes the boat's image itself diminish?

with increasing distance, they will have less ability to obscure the boat.

It's not one gigantic tsunami-like swell that obscures a boat, it's the average of many peaks (or swells) and their opposing troughs that over a distance obscure a boat. Think of it like this and don't take this learning example too literal. Imagine a boat is 100ft out to sea and there are 5 waves between you and the boat. Being that these are shallow and close to shore, they will obscure nothing, or nothing much. Move the boat to 200ft and now there are 10 waves. As the distance from the shore increases, so does the amount of waves and their amplitude, if you will. There is a greater chance that a swell, or crest, or peak will obscure part of the boat. Jump to 50,000ft and it's a statistical improbability that the ship won't be obscured by waves.

Given that, what you would see is that as the boat moves further and further away from the observer, it is obscured for more and more time. At distance X, it would be completely obscured 25% of the time, and at least somewhat visible 75% of the time. At distance 2X, it would be obscured 50% of the time, and so on. Until it reached the point at which is was statistically certain that it would be obscured 100% of the time.

But that is not what is observed. The boat is observed to disappear, from the bottom up, at a steady rate, until it is completely gone. At no point is it completely obscured before it disappears for good, and at no point does it reappear after it completely disappears, unless the observer increases elevation.

And regardless of sea state bar maby a huricane the ship always starts disappears at the same distance. Also try looking at it the other way. Try and island with a massive volcano on it. Take Tenerife for example. How does the wave effect work on a island many many thousnds of feet tall?

It's not one gigantic tsunami-like swell that obscures a boat, it's the average of many peaks (or swells) and their opposing troughs that over a distance obscure a boat. Think of it like this and don't take this learning example too literal. Imagine a boat is 100ft out to sea and there are 5 waves between you and the boat. Being that these are shallow and close to shore, they will obscure nothing, or nothing much. Move the boat to 200ft and now there are 10 waves. As the distance from the shore increases, so does the amount of waves and their amplitude, if you will. There is a greater chance that a swell, or crest, or peak will obscure part of the boat. Jump to 50,000ft and it's a statistical improbability that the ship won't be obscured by waves.

Hold on. To simplify this, if you take a section of a sine wave - as a simple "example" of the peaks and troughs - are you claiming that (assuming the peaks and troughs are semi-random), that there are going to randomly be sine waves taller than entire ships, and that none of them will be immediately next to the ship?

And regardless of sea state bar maby a huricane the ship always starts disappears at the same distance. Also try looking at it the other way. Try and island with a massive volcano on it. Take Tenerife for example. How does the wave effect work on a island many many thousnds of feet tall?

Stand on the beach in Los Angeles California.  What do you see?  Water?  What else.  Look hard and long.  Look all damn day if you want to.  Do you see that island out there about 20 miles west?  You don't?  Walk up into a nearby building about ten stories tall.  Now do you see that island.  Good!  Now stand there all damn day long and tell me if you ever see a swell that conceals that island even for an instant.

The sea is calm to the observer at the shore, but after miles and miles at sea, statistics dictate that you will encounter a swell that will block the ship.  The sea is never, never ever, calm for miles and miles, it's a constantly moving thing that never calms to the point of perfect flatness.  Personally, I wish it did calm like you seem to think it does.  It would be one of the most undisputed proofs of a flat-earth available.  Sadly, it does not.

A swell is a two way street which would mean it would be a case of peek-a-boo! but of course when a ship disappears over the horizon [curvature of the earth] even in mountainous seas you cant see it.
PS WHAT STOPS A SHIPS RADAR SEEING OTHER VESSELS ONLY SIXTEEN MILES AWAY?

On a round Earth, why the hell should water curve. I mean it's silly when you think about it.
Go and put a dent in a ping pong ball and fill the dent with water. The water will simply level off, (flat) and any excess poured in would simple cascade down the ping pong ball and off the bottom.

The only way it would go round and stay on is if it was immediately frozen as it moved.

Why?
It's this thing called gravity.
A ping-pong ball does not have enough gravity to hold the water on its surface.
Earth, however, has a much larger amount of mass, so it has much more gravity than a ping-pong ball, and can hold water on its surface.

What if instead of a ship sailing to the end of the earth a plane flies there and over the mountains then off the world and instantly seeing the end of the world and then die. Yeah, right. Seriously you get to the end of the world if it was flat ,but its not, its spherical.