What about a telescope aimed at the horizon?

Ok I am new to this site and I am intrigued with both sides of the argument. I am pretty open-minded until I get all the facts. I have one question that came to mind while reading some other threads.

My question is: If one were to aim a powerful telescope directly at the horizon to see the end of the earth, why would he not be able to do so? Also related to this is, why are ships on the ocean unable to see each other past a certain point (i.e. when land is invisible even by telescopes until reaching close enough proximity)?



Thanks!

Ok I am new to this site and I am intrigued with both sides of the argument. I am pretty open-minded until I get all the facts. I have one question that came to mind while reading some other threads.

My question is: If one were to aim a powerful telescope directly at the horizon to see the end of the earth, why would he not be able to do so? Also related to this is, why are ships on the ocean unable to see each other past a certain point (i.e. when land is invisible even by telescopes until reaching close enough proximity)?



Thanks!

I have asked the same question .

It's a little early for you to expect a reply from FE's , but here is the usual reply.:

1. It is a matter of perspective and the human eye  is limited in how far it can see. And also :The distance would be so great that the objects would be too small for the human eye to see. They also claim that you can not see because of the swells in the sea.
And the "Round Ocean" as you have shown on your diagram "would be like looking through a wall of water."

2.The distance you can see is limited by the thickness of the atmosphere. (They call it the atmolayer.)

Your diagram is based on a " round earth ", which of course is incorrect to the FE.

Be advised also that FE's also say that if a ship disappears over the horizon, you can "restore it" and see the whole ship again with a telescope. Supposedly - as one FE has stated - "This works on land, too", so you should be able to see land with a telescope after it has disappeared over the horizon, too.

It will be interesting to see the FE replies. I think this has been covered on other threads though. I shouldn't have intervened and left it to the FES, but I thought it might be interesting to see how FE replies compared to what I have seen on previous threads.

The air is not perfectly transparent.  Think about viewing mountains from a distance.  They appear to get more and more hazy with distance.  I have been to places where I could just barely see mountains off in the distance.  Not because the curvature of the Earth was hiding the mountain, but because the mountain fades into the color of the sky.  This is main reason that you can not see the other side of the Earth. 

when you look at the horizon with a nacked eye and you observe a ship disappearing!
try to use a telescope right after, the ship reappear! this is the proof that this has no relation
 with the earth being round but with men limited vision!

 :)welcome!

when you look at the horizon with a naked eye and you observe a ship disappearing!
try to use a telescope right after, the ship reappear! this is the proof that this has no relation
 with the earth being round but with men limited vision!

This erroneous claim is commonly quoted by the FEs, but in fact has no truth in a real-world scenario.  None of the FEs has ever provided video evidence to support the claim.

As has been proven by numerous real-world tests, the "sinking ship" effect is caused solely by the curvature of the planet's surface.

Check out this diagram showing an "invisible" 100-foot tall ship 15 miles from the observer:
 






 

This is one of the most common Flat Earth fallacies and the easiest to de-bunk. And of the hardest for Flat Earthers to prove with evidence.....Since there simply is no evidence.

Anyone who has ever been to  sea can attest to the fact that an object - whether it be a ship or land in the distance  -  will dissappear from view because of the curvature of the earth and not because "it will fade away due to the atmosphere."

Even if you should be in the crow's nest on a ship, a ship or land on the horizon will only be about 10 miles away and you can certainly see it clearly. You certainly can see clearly on a clear day for 10 miles.http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081212163227AAOMUFB

Further to my little line diagram (above) I thought I'd post this video, and see what sort of comments the FEs would have.  And please don't dismiss it as fake, because I know it isn't.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The earth is round DERP

Notice also how the rate of "disappearance" increase with time.  This further proves the curvature of the earth's surface dropping away more steeply the farther the ship travels from the observer.
 
 
 

Further to my little line diagram (above) I thought I'd post this video, and see what sort of comments the FEs would have.  And please don't dismiss it as fake, because I know it isn't.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The earth is round DERP

Notice also how the rate of "disappearance" increase with time.  This further proves the curvature of the earth's surface dropping away more steeply the farther the ship travels from the observer.

Nice video, ausGeoff.  However, the person making the video did not try to resolve the sinking ship using optics, the video only shows that the ship appears to sink.  Near the end of the video, the ship just fades away.

Also, that ship is moving awfully fast for having all of its sails furled. 

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 09, 2014, 04:25:44 PM

Further to my little line diagram (above) I thought I'd post this video, and see what sort of comments the FEs would have.  And please don't dismiss it as fake, because I know it isn't.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The earth is round DERP

Notice also how the rate of "disappearance" increase with time.  This further proves the curvature of the earth's surface dropping away more steeply the farther the ship travels from the observer.

Nice video, ausGeoff.  However, the person making the video did not try to resolve the sinking ship using optics, the video only shows that the ship appears to sink.  Near the end of the video, the ship just fades away.

Also, that ship is moving awfully fast for having all of its sails furled.

True it did not try to resolve the ship.

However, maybe the boat that the video was being taken from was moving away from the ship.

It's simply optics. Water actually distorts light greater then a solid ship will so the water will appear higher and fade sooner then the boat will.

If you wear glasses try looking at a distant object. Take off your glasses. Notice that if the object was arcing down from your eyesight it moves upwards. Put your glasses back on then notice the object appears down more. Simple Field of Vision trick that has nothing to do with any sort of curve on the earth. A Telescope will indeed move downed objects upward again but this effect is limited to how powerful your telescope is but some can move faded objects into view up to 50 degrees away usually. More then that is possible but it's impossible to have a telescope restore more then 90 degrees of vision so even if you have a powerful Earth telescope seeing farther away then 90 degrees past 20/20 eyesight is impossible. (So the most powerful Earth telescope could theoretically see about 6 Thousand miles away even though the object you seen would only be 1 pixel at that distance )

the person making the video did not try to resolve the sinking ship using optics, the video only shows that the ship appears to sink.

If the light from the 'sunken' part of the ship isn't reaching the lens of the camera, increasing the magnification behind that piece of glass isn't going to change the properties of the light between it and the ship.  The ship would appear larger, more detailed, and still just as sunk with more magnification.

Near the end of the video, the ship just fades away.

Most likely lack of video resolution.  Probably some haze too.

Also, that ship is moving awfully fast for having all of its sails furled.

Quite possible that ship has a propulsion system besides sails.

Round Earthers , then why is it when you look at an island 15 to 20 km from the coastline on a day with zero wind, zero swell the island floats (fata morgana) .Then the wind picks up to 10 knots and the island sits on the water as it should. Then the wind picks up to 30 knots and the island sinks it completely vanishes.
Why is it you put video up of a sailing boat sinking with magnification when the reality is when you see sinking ship its with the naked eye. When you see sinking ship it is clear and very easy to see. The sea condition that causes this effect makes it happen close to shore you don't need magnification, people are not walking around with telescopes looking for sinking ship effect If people would wake up they would realise some days the ship is not sinking and it looks smaller on top of the water because its further away and some days it would be bigger, closer and half sunk.
Sinking ship does not prove shit!
You roundies will not even contemplate for one minute what you see could be affected by weather/sea conditions because your mathematics does not allow you to consider variables.
Time to let the cartoons and maths go, put down the computer and have a look at the real world.

Some Flat Earthers and Hollow Earthers will say a sufficiently powerful telescope will make the landscape reappear. I find this silly, but if they can do it themselves more power to them.

However, ignoring that, apparent curvature is predicted by Flat Earth Theories.

Also, that ship is moving awfully fast for having all of its sails furled.

looks like a time lapse video to me judging by the stuttering nature of the sea and sudden appearance/disappearance of the birds.

Some Flat Earthers and Hollow Earthers will say a sufficiently powerful telescope will make the landscape reappear. I find this silly, but if they can do it themselves more power to them.

However, ignoring that, apparent curvature is predicted by Flat Earth Theories.

Like a few other persons, I once served in the U.S.Navy and I know for a fact the so-called "sinking ship" FE fantasy is just this. You can't do it.

However, as Username said "If they can do this themselves more power to them." I think if they could sell this just to U.S. Navy, they could make a fortune. Just think, it the earth was really flat, who needs Radar or Loran or GPS ?

I realised as I posted an actual, real-time video showing precisely the "vanishing ship" phenomenon that it would be countered by a barrage of non-scientific "logic" from the flat earthers.

To address a couple:  jroa said "the video only shows that the ship appears to sink".  Uh... that's precisely the purpose of the video—to show the ship visibly sinking below the horizon—and which it does.  Also "that ship is moving awfully fast for having all of its sails furled".  The ship's speed has nothing to do with it disappearing over the horizon—it's a simple matter of geometry.  (BTW, it's a actually engine-powered; the sails are auxiliary for ocean cruising only.)

Sculelos claims "It's simply optics" is superficially correct of course, but avoids addressing the real issue.  Also "water actually distorts light greater then a solid ship will so the water will appear higher and fade sooner then the boat will" is totally unsupported by light theory.  The light reflected from the ship is not passing through any water; only the air.  The tiny change in refractive index above the surface of the water is immaterial.

The repeated claims about "resolution" and "telescopes" etc are merely red herrings.  If one can't see something—like the hull and superstructure of this ship—with the naked eye at (say) a 5km distance, then the use of a telescope makes no difference at all.  The resolution of the camera's sensor obviously has no effect on the geometry of the image at this range either.

What the FEs are claiming is that if we were to view the final frames of my video (in real life) with a suitably powerful telescope, that the image of the ship would suddenly reappear!  This is demonstrably wrong, and I challenge any FE'r to prove this with two videos showing each scenario—one using a telescope, and one with only unaided eyesight.

It seems to me that the FEs are always eager to rebut any videos posted by REs, but then seldom, if ever, post their own videos supporting their claims.  Why is this?
 

I realised as I posted an actual, real-time video showing precisely the "vanishing ship" phenomenon that it would be countered by a barrage of non-scientific "logic" from the flat earthers.

To address a couple:  jroa said "the video only shows that the ship appears to sink".  Uh... that's precisely the purpose of the video—to show the ship visibly sinking below the horizon—and which it does.  Also "that ship is moving awfully fast for having all of its sails furled".  The ship's speed has nothing to do with it disappearing over the horizon—it's a simple matter of geometry.  (BTW, it's a actually engine-powered; the sails are auxiliary for ocean cruising only.)

Sculelos claims "It's simply optics" is superficially correct of course, but avoids addressing the real issue.  Also "water actually distorts light greater then a solid ship will so the water will appear higher and fade sooner then the boat will" is totally unsupported by light theory.  The light reflected from the ship is not passing through any water; only the air.  The tiny change in refractive index above the surface of the water is immaterial.

The repeated claims about "resolution" and "telescopes" etc are merely red herrings.  If one can't see something—like the hull and superstructure of this ship—with the naked eye at (say) a 5km distance, then the use of a telescope makes no difference at all.  The resolution of the camera's sensor obviously has no effect on the geometry of the image at this range either.

What the FEs are claiming is that if we were to view the final frames of my video (in real life) with a suitably powerful telescope, that the image of the ship would suddenly reappear!  This is demonstrably wrong, and I challenge any FE'r to prove this with two videos showing each scenario—one using a telescope, and one with only unaided eyesight.

It seems to me that the FEs are always eager to rebut any videos posted by REs, but then seldom, if ever, post their own videos supporting their claims.  Why is this?

I'm not as much of a veteran on this website as a lot of others, but one thing has become apparent.:
FE's are always asking for evidence from RE's but never posting anything of their own - anything of any remote sanity, that is. You get used to this ("It's Fake !!!!!") pretty fast if you've been   on this website for a while. There is a lot of LOL on this website as you may have noticed..

One of my threads, which jroa says is "god awful", got locked because FE's stopped posting. Why did they stop posting ? Simply because they had no answers to the facts of the matter, which is usually the case in those threads which have been locked or long abandoned.

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2014, 08:03:44 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 09, 2014, 04:25:44 PM

Further to my little line diagram (above) I thought I'd post this video, and see what sort of comments the FEs would have.  And please don't dismiss it as fake, because I know it isn't.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The earth is round DERP

Notice also how the rate of "disappearance" increase with time.  This further proves the curvature of the earth's surface dropping away more steeply the farther the ship travels from the observer.

Nice video, ausGeoff.  However, the person making the video did not try to resolve the sinking ship using optics, the video only shows that the ship appears to sink.  Near the end of the video, the ship just fades away.

Also, that ship is moving awfully fast for having all of its sails furled.

True it did not try to resolve the ship.

However, maybe the boat that the video was being taken from was moving away from the ship.

What difference would it make which ship was moving ?

For example the same effect of the "sinking ship" is observed when a ship is sailing away from land and the land begins to "sink" in the same manner as the ship. And you certainly can't "restore with a telescope" the land and make the shore  re-appear. On another thread Tom Bishop once said "It works for land, too."

FE's are always asking for evidence from RE's but never posting anything of their own - anything of any remote sanity, that is.
 

I've already noticed—even as a newbie—that it's only ever the REs that post actual real-time videos here.  And as you say, they inevitably heap scorn on our videos, without any really scientific rebuttals.  There's always something "wrong" with them—from the camera's resolving power, to a lack of focus, to lens distortion, to the optical depth of field, or even just being faked.

How many FE's videos do we ever see here?  A few?  None?

Quote from: Googleotomy on January 10, 2014, 09:33:00 PM

FE's are always asking for evidence from RE's but never posting anything of their own - anything of any remote sanity, that is.
 

I've already noticed—even as a newbie—that it's only ever the REs that post actual real-time videos here.  And as you say, they inevitably heap scorn on our videos, without any really scientific rebuttals.  There's always something "wrong" with them—from the camera's resolving power, to a lack of focus, to lens distortion, to the optical depth of field, or even just being faked.

How many FE's videos do we ever see here?  A few?  None?

As mentioned before that goes for "real time facts and evidence" too.

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 09, 2014, 08:08:28 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2014, 08:03:44 PM

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 09, 2014, 04:25:44 PM

Further to my little line diagram (above) I thought I'd post this video, and see what sort of comments the FEs would have.  And please don't dismiss it as fake, because I know it isn't.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The earth is round DERP

Notice also how the rate of "disappearance" increase with time.  This further proves the curvature of the earth's surface dropping away more steeply the farther the ship travels from the observer.

Nice video, ausGeoff.  However, the person making the video did not try to resolve the sinking ship using optics, the video only shows that the ship appears to sink.  Near the end of the video, the ship just fades away.

Also, that ship is moving awfully fast for having all of its sails furled.

True it did not try to resolve the ship.

However, maybe the boat that the video was being taken from was moving away from the ship.

What difference would it make which ship was moving ?

For example the same effect of the "sinking ship" is observed when a ship is sailing away from land and the land begins to "sink" in the same manner as the ship. And you certainly can't "restore with a telescope" the land and make the shore  re-appear. On another thread Tom Bishop once said "It works for land, too."

I was giving a plausible alternative to a ship moving with its sails furled.  Just pointing out that it doesn't matter what object is moving.

Nothing sinking here!

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LightHouse Rosslare. Panasonic HC-V520 Zoom Test.


#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nikon Coolpix P510 zoom test (ship at the sea)

So why don't you need magnification when sinking ship occurs?

So why doesn't  this effect happen in the previous 2 videos?


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Aground_Tauranga_Pukehina_5_Oct_11_4.jpg

So why doesn't  this effect happen in the previous 2 videos?


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Aground_Tauranga_Pukehina_5_Oct_11_4.jpg

Could it be that neither the lighthouse or the ship is moving away from the observer?

For the object in the distance to appear to pass earths curvature it would have to... you know, move past it.

Nothing sinking here!

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LightHouse Rosslare. Panasonic HC-V520 Zoom Test.


#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nikon Coolpix P510 zoom test (ship at the sea)

Nothing moving either...

So why don't you need magnification when sinking ship occurs?

How many times does it have to be pointed out? If the ship appears to be sinking (as in, part of it is obscured), magnification will not restore it. The tall ship going over the horizon was actually videoed at quite a high magnification, and yet it still 'sank'.

And again, I will also point out that the horizon appears closer than both the ship and the rock in this image:



Impossible on a flat earth.

Quote from: tappet on January 10, 2014, 10:11:44 PM

Nothing sinking here!

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LightHouse Rosslare. Panasonic HC-V520 Zoom Test.


#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Nikon Coolpix P510 zoom test (ship at the sea)

Nothing moving either...

Quote from: tappet on January 10, 2014, 10:11:44 PM

So why don't you need magnification when sinking ship occurs?

How many times does it have to be pointed out? If the ship appears to be sinking (as in, part of it is obscured), magnification will not restore it. The tall ship going over the horizon was actually videoed at quite a high magnification, and yet it still 'sank'.

And again, I will also point out that the horizon appears closer than both the ship and the rock in this image:



Impossible on a flat earth.

You can point it out as often as you like! But point it out to someone else.
If you go and read my posts you will see I don't believe you can bring back a sinking ship with a scope, so don't come at me with that crap.
You don't need a scope to see sinking ship they are easy to see and not too far away.
According to you it would be impossible to see a ship on the horizon so far away it looks small, in your world they cannot look small. Every boat on earth would have to half sink before it looks small.

According to you it would be impossible to see a ship on the horizon so far away it looks small, in your world they cannot look small. Every boat on earth would have to half sink before it looks small.

Not true. From a suitable (high) vantage point, and/or given favourable atmospheric conditions (I think they're referred to as 'ducts'?), a ship could easily become too small to see with the naked eye before passing over the horizon. I'm just saying that the 'sinking ship effect', where part of a distant ship is obscured by the horizon, is a result of the earth's curvature.

Quote from: tappet on January 11, 2014, 02:27:15 PM

According to you it would be impossible to see a ship on the horizon so far away it looks small, in your world they cannot look small. Every boat on earth would have to half sink before it looks small.

Not true. From a suitable (high) vantage point, and/or given favourable atmospheric conditions (I think they're referred to as 'ducts'?), a ship could easily become too small to see with the naked eye before passing over the horizon. I'm just saying that the 'sinking ship effect', where part of a distant ship is obscured by the horizon, is a result of the earth's curvature.

Are you saying variables can affect what you see?

Are round earthers trying to tell me that no weather conditions can affect what you see on the ocean? Are you trying to tell me what you see will be the same whether its zero wind with zero swell, 6 meter sea's with 50 knot winds a cloudy day verses a sunny day. Who knows how many variables there could really be?
Does your mathematics have variations for different atmospheric conditions or does one calculation cover all conditions?
Is this why you can't understand what I am saying?
Is It just because your maths does not agree with me?

tappet, I'm pretty sure you're talking from the perspective of someone who has been sitting very close to water level when they have seen ships 'sink' close up (which would be correct, especially when there was any kind of swell), and higher up when seeing ships as a small dot on the horizon (please note: it is geometrically impossible for anything to be 'on' the horizon of a flat earth, let alone 'beyond' the horizon).

As for variables, the main ones are viewer height and atmospheric conditions. Visibility will be better on a clear day vs a hazy day, obviously. Under certain conditions, refractive effects producing a superior mirage can make otherwise obscured objects visible. In rough sea conditions, the view could be obstructed by waves. Finally, the height of the viewer will also affect how far they can see, with greater height affording more distant views.