What about a telescope aimed at the horizon?

The horizon will forever increase as long as the scope increases.  Therefore, the horizon is relative.

that's not consistent with what we know of optics.

If you believe that to be the case I'd love to know how you think a telescope works, drawings would probably be helpful.

The horizon will forever increase as long as the scope increases.  Therefore, the horizon is relative.

The horizon itself as a notion has no real meaning whatsoever in a FE hypothesis. It's only meaningful in RE.

Can you describe it?  Did they already have the sun in the scope for you to view?  How long were you able to watch the sun on the horizon?  What did it look like?  If sunspots can be seen on the sun through a cell phone/digital camera, I suspect you could see solar flares and details that resemble the solar satellite images.

I would imagine it would be a wobbly mess from all the atmospheric distortion. I'll have to give it a go myself and see.

You can see flares/prominences etc from Earth but you'll need a telescope that filters out all light except for that in the Hydrogen Alpha frequency.

You can see flares/prominences etc from Earth but you'll need a telescope that filters out all light except for that in the Hydrogen Alpha frequency.

All telescopic images used some sort of filtering back then, otherwise you could only look into the telescope once in your life. 

Today, it's different, of course.

that's not consistent with what we know of optics.

Besides, it's absolutely not consistent with what anybody can easily experience when using a telescope and viewing in any other direction than the horizon. It's an unfounded claim that a telescope would in any respect work differently when directed at the horizon.

Quote from: dephelis on January 29, 2014, 08:17:44 AM

You can see flares/prominences etc from Earth but you'll need a telescope that filters out all light except for that in the Hydrogen Alpha frequency.

All telescopic images used some sort of filtering back then, otherwise you could only look into the telescope once in your life. 

Today, it's different, of course.

It's not different at all, at least with optical telescopes. You still need a full aperture filter to cut down the amount of light entering the telescope, or your telescope turns into a solar furnace.

If you're interested in sunspots then a white light filter on the front will suffice, for atomspheric phenomena, like prominences,  you'll need Ha.

It's not different at all, at least with optical telescopes.

Yes, sure, I was referring to the fact the those telescopes whose recorded images we can see are not optical ones in their backend. But they do need some filtering to make sure the recording elements have a chance of recording something of interest.

Personally, I reckon this thread has gone way beyond any degree of logical or scientific-based debate.

I can only assume that EarthIsASpacesip is being willfully disingenuous simply to have a bit of fun at the expense of the REs who've already explained numerous times the theory of optics and the propagation and transmission of light.

Anybody with such an apparent childlike "grasp" of modern physics must simply be taking the piss.
 

Personally, I reckon this thread has gone way beyond any degree of logical or scientific-based debate.

This thread only? 

If the ship is restored to view by use of a telescope at the same altitude as the observer’s eye then it is not proof at all.

I guess we need a video that actually shows a ship rising out of the water as the zoom is increased.  I have yet to see this with my own eyes, or on video.

In the following video, posted again by EarthIsASpaceship,
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

The naked-eye observer corresponds to the time of 24s into the video, when the ship appears on the horizon. Watching to the end of the video, we see the ship disappear ‘over the horizon’, hull first.

No.  The ship isn't even at the horizon to begin with.  It's well below it.  I captured a still shot at 24 seconds, enlarged it, and compared it to the opening shot.  Aside from being heavily pixelated, it's dimensions are still the same and it's still below the horizon.

The other object to the side which is on the horizon (or maybe already 'sinking' below the horizon, who knows) is simply too small to for the camera resolution as it zooms out.  The light is still reaching the lens however.

Personally, I reckon this thread has gone way beyond any degree of logical or scientific-based debate.

I can only assume that EarthIsASpacesip is being willfully disingenuous simply to have a bit of fun at the expense of the REs who've already explained numerous times the theory of optics and the propagation and transmission of light.

Anybody with such an apparent childlike "grasp" of modern physics must simply be taking the piss.
 

Indeed, Sceptimatic has taught her well.

I guess we need a video that actually shows a ship rising out of the water as the zoom is increased.  I have yet to see this with my own eyes, or on video.

And I can tell you right now that no flat earther will be able to produce one himself in real time, or will even be able to link to one already in existence.

—I await any flat earther proving me wrong.

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 29, 2014, 08:41:52 AM

Personally, I reckon this thread has gone way beyond any degree of logical or scientific-based debate.

I can only assume that EarthIsASpacesip is being willfully disingenuous simply to have a bit of fun at the expense of the REs who've already explained numerous times the theory of optics and the propagation and transmission of light.

Anybody with such an apparent childlike "grasp" of modern physics must simply be taking the piss.
 

Indeed, Sceptimatic has taught her well.

Says the photographer that uses throwaway Walmart camera's as proof of a globe. 

... there is absolutely no need to check this out both with and without zooming, and make comparisons. It is of absolutely no importance what you can see with the naked eye and whether your eyesight is good or bad in this respect. You would be completely free to observe the movement of the ship fully and totally with an already zoomed camera (telescope, whatever) and still see the phenomenon. Actually, it would be more than recommended to do so because, I repeat, this is not a question of eyesight.

The angular resolution I quoted for the human eye is the generally accepted average, but whatever your own figure is, you will have a horizon.

The receding ship disappears over your horizon, hull first. Is this proof of the World's rotundity? No. Why not? Because the ship can be restored to view with a telescope at the same altitude as your eye was at.

This is, I thought, what this whole thread was about, ever since the OP referenced a video that is apparently used by the Planetary Physics department at the University of California, despite the video itself being scientifically worthless and factually misleading.

Indeed, Sceptimatic has taught her well.

Of course, he or she became fully suspectable when started to mention Felix Baumgarnter's jump and the photos showing it. Apart from showing beautiful and unmistakable images of the Earth as a globe, it deals with imagery and space that is supposed to be forbidden territory for any FEer. 

I'll have to give it a go myself and see.

You would have to use the huge telescopes at the observatory.  That's the whole point I'm trying to make.  In order to see the sun move farther and farther away, you need to most powerful scope you can get.

I guess we need a video that actually shows a ship rising out of the water as the zoom is increased.  I have yet to see this with my own eyes, or on video.

You only need to run the video backwards from 24s or thereafter.

No.  The ship isn't even at the horizon to begin with.  It's well below it.  I captured a still shot at 24 seconds, enlarged it, and compared it to the opening shot.  Aside from being heavily pixelated, it's dimensions are still the same and it's still below the horizon.

The other object to the side which is on the horizon (or maybe already 'sinking' below the horizon, who knows) is simply too small to for the camera resolution as it zooms out.  The light is still reaching the lens however.

I don't think that you understand the comparison I am trying to make. The image at 24s is through a lens, yes, but it could just as easily be someone's eyesight view. Running the video backwards from this eyesight view would then demonstrate the fact that 'sunken' ships can be restored with a telescopic lens.

Personally, I reckon this thread has gone way beyond any degree of logical or scientific-based debate.
I can only assume that EarthIsASpacesip is being willfully disingenuous simply to have a bit of fun at the expense of the REs who've already explained numerous times the theory of optics and the propagation and transmission of light.
Anybody with such an apparent childlike "grasp" of modern physics must simply be taking the piss.

It would be absolutely WONDERFUL if you could keep your opinion of others' intentions to yourself.  Thank you and have a GREAT day!

The receding ship disappears over your horizon, hull first. Is this proof of the World's rotundity? No. Why not? Because the ship can be restored to view with a telescope at the same altitude as your eye was at.

If it was so, you would be right. But this is not the case.

As I said a couple of times already, there is no restoration and, moreover, there is no need for restoration. Forget eyesight. It might have been interesting in the era of that Parallax guy but not any more. Everybody for a small amount of cash can have a binocular or a camera that is perfectly capable of demonstrating this phenomenon. Don't compare eyesight and zoom, there is need for that, I repeat (if you do, you decide nothing about the shape of the Earth, just about your own eyesight; that might be interesting for your ophthalmologist but not for our discussion). Check the movement of a ship inside the distance zone interesting for us with zoom, from start to end, and you'll see it sink. You'll see it sink in a distance when you're still completely able to see every single detail with your fixed zoom and there is no need to zoom any closer.

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 29, 2014, 08:58:21 AM

I guess we need a video that actually shows a ship rising out of the water as the zoom is increased.  I have yet to see this with my own eyes, or on video.

You only need to run the video backwards from 24s or thereafter.

what you're missing is that the video doesn't show the sinking ship effect in the first place.

If it did then it would be good evidence but since it shows an object disappearing whilst being in front of the horizon (as viewed with the naked eye) it can't possibly be a case of a telescope resolving something which is OVER that horizon.

what you're missing is that the video doesn't show the sinking ship effect in the first place.

If it did then it would be good evidence but since it shows an object disappearing whilst being in front of the horizon (as viewed with the naked eye) it can't possibly be a case of a telescope resolving something which is OVER that horizon.

Question 1: Does the ship disappear, hull first? Yes or no, please.

Question 2: Has it really disappeared?

No.  The ship isn't even at the horizon to begin with.  It's well below it.  I captured a still shot at 24 seconds, enlarged it, and compared it to the opening shot.  Aside from being heavily pixelated, it's dimensions are still the same and it's still below the horizon.

The other object to the side which is on the horizon (or maybe already 'sinking' below the horizon, who knows) is simply too small to for the camera resolution as it zooms out.  The light is still reaching the lens however.

See you aren't getting it.  The horizon will change as the object's distance changes.  To the observer on the shore, that ship IS on the horizon.  But depending on how far the ship is from the shore and the distance the scope will reach, determines what the horizon is.

You would have to use the huge telescopes at the observatory.  That's the whole point I'm trying to make.  In order to see the sun move farther and farther away, you need to most powerful scope you can get.

That doesn't change a thing in what I asked and what you haven't answered yet. I'm not that much interested in seeing the sun move farther in the first place. Whether it goes farther or not, it's bright enough for me to see its light during the day. Before sunset, its brightness diminishes slowly. Around sunset, there is a comparatively very sudden change in brightness. We haven't yet heard any credible (or, at least, somewhat coherent) suggestion as to why.

Quote from: 29silhouette on January 29, 2014, 09:02:30 AM

Indeed, Sceptimatic has taught her well.

Of course, he or she became fully suspectable when started to mention Felix Baumgarnter's jump and the photos showing it. Apart from showing beautiful and unmistakable images of the Earth as a globe, it deals with imagery and space that is supposed to be forbidden territory for any FEer. 

I have no clue what you are saying.  And 29, keep up the sarcasm...you'll just be blocked.

Quote from: Spank86 on January 29, 2014, 09:19:02 AM

what you're missing is that the video doesn't show the sinking ship effect in the first place.

If it did then it would be good evidence but since it shows an object disappearing whilst being in front of the horizon (as viewed with the naked eye) it can't possibly be a case of a telescope resolving something which is OVER that horizon.

Question 1: Does the ship disappear, hull first? Yes or no, please.

no.

Question 2: Has it really disappeared?

no.

It disappears from all angles at once, because it gets too small for the camera to represent it. It does at first instance appear to vanish hull up but if you view it on a decent size screen you can clearly see it getting smaller in all directions.

Added to that you can clearly see both in the non zoomed in AND fully zoomed in sections that it's not over the horizon (until such time as you can no longer see it at all of course).

...
If it did then it would be good evidence but since it shows an object disappearing whilst being in front of the horizon (as viewed with the naked eye) it can't possibly be a case of a telescope resolving something which is OVER that horizon.

You see, the point that you are missing is that the naked eye view of the ship will not be as clear as the telescopic one, so when you say "as viewed with the naked eye," it is actually the reverse, i.e., that is the view as seen by the zoom lens, not the naked eye.

Quote from: Novice on January 29, 2014, 09:21:07 AM

Question 1: Does the ship disappear, hull first? Yes or no, please.

no.

No?! But at 25s in the hull has vanished. And by the end of the video, the whole ship has gone.

It disappears from all angles at once, because it gets too small for the camera to represent it. It does at first instance appear to vanish hull up but if you view it on a decent size screen you can clearly see it getting smaller in all directions.

Added to that you can clearly see both in the non zoomed in AND fully zoomed in sections that it's not over the horizon (until such time as you can no longer see it at all of course).

I'm not claiming that it doesn't get smaller in each direction, only that the hull has disappeared before the top of the ship - this is the whole point of the main rotundity 'proof', that the disappearing hull is caused by the alleged wall of water.

Novice,
I'm glad to see you have the ability to understand the truth.  It is so frustrating trying to get it into these people's heads.  It's as if they are mentally INCAPABLE of comprehending it.  I find that very strange.

Says the photographer that uses throwaway Walmart camera's as proof of a globe. 

Nope.  I think we have different definitions of "point and shoot".  Actually I'm looking at lower end DSLRs at the moment.  Something I can get different lenses and filters for, and have RAW and 'bulb' capability.  You probably don't even understand those last two terms anyway.

Anyway, your post is funny considering you have never taken and posted a picture on this site in support of anything (if you did I guess I missed it), and also considering you don't seem to understand even the basics of camera operation (video or still) or imagery analysis.

That doesn't change a thing in what I asked and what you haven't answered yet. I'm not that much interested in seeing the sun move farther in the first place. Whether it goes farther or not, it's bright enough for me to see its light during the day. Before sunset, its brightness diminishes slowly. Around sunset, there is a comparatively very sudden change in brightness. We haven't yet heard any credible (or, at least, somewhat coherent) suggestion as to why.

The brightness of the sun changes for the same reason it does in the RE model, because you are viewing it through thicker atmosphere as it moves farther away.  Same with sunrise as it moves closer to you.  I don't notice it occurring any faster than would be expected when it goes from thinner atmosphere to thicker.  Can you provide some evidence for that?