What about a telescope aimed at the horizon?

And the good reasons are?

Funny how RE's say the FE's use the "look out your window" as evidence and yet you expect us to accept your "look at the ship vanish" as evidence.  I thought the curvature of the Earth wasn't visible on such a small scale.  Double standard if I ever saw one.

It was always in sight, that's not the question (whether you can see with your human eyes or not is irrelevant).

It's absolutely and positively and totally and utterly irrelevant. The limits of your eyesight do not change anything about the shape of the Earth, you know. That's why I say looking to the sea with a telescope (or zoomed camera, that you suppose will restore the ship's hull) and see for yourself that it doesn't. Because it does not. It's only a speculation that it does so.

You both miss the point. By increasing the resolution, you have brought the ship back into sight. It was never behind a wall of water, remember?

 

But nobody denying that magnification can bring a ship that's disappeared due to distance back into sight, we're specifically talking about the sinking ship effect where an object is over the other side of the horizon.

Something this is not an example of.

the ship disappears hull first, until the whole ship appears to be gone.

no it doesn't. On the very last frame fo the video you can see about 6 black(ish) pixels in a line, that's the ships hull.

It's simply that the ship gets to the stage where it's smaller than a pixel and so is very difficult to see, a higher resolution image even when not zoomed in would allow you to see the hull and the rest of the ship.

Double standard if I ever saw one.

I never treated and suggested this like that. All I say that you should take a zoomed camera, a telescope or whatever and look at the sea with it. Not to look for overcompressed videos on the net. If you look at a distant ship with that telescope, you'll see that you won't see what you suppose you'd see.

So in other words, you say there is no telescope available for amateurs that is created with a scope long enough to see the point where an object begins to go over the supposed curvature.  Am I correct?

Let me formulate it even more clearly:

Of course there are cases where an implement can give you better vision than your own eyes. There's no reason to call it "restoring", it just gives you a much clearer, more detailed view that you couldn't discern without the naked eye. I'm not speaking about this.

I'm speaking about the situation where the ship is already behind the horizon according to RE. Even if you don't believe it to be true, you can hopefully easily imagine it using the usual, rather simple diagrams of a rounded Earth. So, let's take a ship distant enough to be over the horizon in RE terms (but not much farther). What I say is that if you use a reasonable camera or telescope that is capable of bringing that ship into view such that the ship fills the viewfinder, you see details of the hull, board, whatever, you will experience that, in spite of the telescope you use, you will not see that part of the hull that RE predicts to be below the horizon. You will not, I repeat. If you doubt it, try it. It's that easy.

So in other words, you say there is no telescope available for amateurs that is created with a scope long enough to see the point where an object begins to go over the supposed curvature.  Am I correct?

I take it you mean the horizon, so I'll go with "no".

A ship that can be seen in sufficient detail that is 'sinking' over the horizon, is further than the horizon.

So yes, scopes are available that can "see the point where an object begins to go over the supposed curvature".

That lower part of a ship that is hidden beyond the horizon, cannot be restored to view by simply using more magnification, since the light from that part is not reaching the objective lens of the scope.

The boat in the video being discussed is closer than the horizon, is not very large, and therefore is merely becoming a blob of pixels at low power in the low resolution video versus actually disappearing from the bottom up.

Now if there's a video out there showing distinguishable features of a ship that is 'sinking beyond the horizon', and then appears to rise back up out of the horizon as the magnification is increased, well then you've got something. 

Can you show the right-hand-side of this picture, please?

Once again , I was looking at a sinking ship on the east coast of OZ today. No scope needed, not to far out and seen with clarity using only my naked eye. So how could it be possible to bring  into view with zoom or magnification a ship that is not there to begin with? At this level every ship would be half sunk
People who see sinking ship do so with the naked eye, that is fact!
Don't waste my time telling me to put video's of ships being zoomed in from nothing and not half sunk as there are plenty on youtube already.

Can you show the right-hand-side of this picture, please?

not anymore, I cropped it to save space and don't have the original, I'd have to load it again, essentially when the objects vanish they do so equally from all directions until they are represented by a small group of lightening pixels.

None of them disappear or reappear over any horizons.

Once again , I was looking at a sinking ship on the east coast of OZ today.

You always were a strange bunch of people, down under. Maybe OZ is on a round Earth but the rest of the planet isn't? Oh, no, that would mean you really hang upside down. Well...   

Not a video, but my pet peeve of FE, a single zoomed photo would be nice, if you just happen to be there once more and you have the rig at hand. Although, it will be dismissed as fake immediately, no doubt.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

clearly showing the last bit to disappear is the HULL.

Also showing the horizon not moving in relation to the ship no matter the zoom amount, If telescopes and magnification really moved the horizon we ought to be able to see the horizon move back relative to the size of the ship, however the two ratios remain constant.

No, if that observer had zoomed in even closer to the ship, you would have seen the horizon increase in distance (see more of the ocean/ocean behind the ship).  Like this video shows:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

No, if that observer had zoomed in even closer to the ship, you would have seen the horizon increase in distance (see more of the ocean/ocean behind the ship).  Like this video shows:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

but not relative to the size of the ship, that's what you're missing. For the horizon to actually move the distance would have to increase by more than the increase in ship size

I'm genuinely surprised at the number of flat earthers who seem to have such a poor understanding of even basic optical theory.

This is from the US Historic Naval Ships Association site, and clearly indicates the trajectory correction required for ship to ship ballistic missiles fired at sea.

 

Factors Affecting the Flight of the Projectile

Because the earth's surface is curved, the target is not in the horizontal plane which is tangent to the earth at the gun. The greater the range, the farther the target falls below the horizontal and the line of sight is depressed below the horizontal. If the elevation angle were set to hit a target at the measured range in the horizontal plane, the projectile would fall beyond the target. Hence the elevation angle must be slightly reduced (depending on range) to correct for curvature of the earth.

—Is any flat earther confident enough (or silly enough) to tell us that the US Navy has had this wrong for 217 years?  Go for it.

Once again , I was looking at a sinking ship on the east coast of OZ today. No scope needed, not to far out and seen with clarity using only my naked eye.

So when do we get to see your non-zoomed, personally taken picture of this?

 

So how could it be possible to bring  into view with zoom or magnification a ship that is not there to begin with?

That's what I keep asking too.

At this level every ship would be half sunk

Level of what, and how much?

People who see sinking ship do so with the naked eye, that is fact!

Yes.  I've done so myself.

Don't waste my time telling me to put video's of ships being zoomed in from nothing and not half sunk as there are plenty on youtube already.

Yes, plenty of videos showing a ship that is too small for the resolution, growing bigger and more detailed as the zoom is increased, but remaining either 'sunk' or in full view depending on it's visual relation with the horizon.

Quote from: Novice on January 30, 2014, 05:53:53 PM

Can you show the right-hand-side of this picture, please?

not anymore, I cropped it to save space and don't have the original, I'd have to load it again, ...

A pity you chose to crop it just there, I'd really like to see the area to the right of the ship rather than all that wasted area to the left.

THE PROJECTILE IN FLIGHT-EXTERIOR BALLISTICS

The projectile drop increases as the distance increases.  Why?  Because of gravity.  Not because of any curvature of Earth.

Novice, Earthisaspaceship, I have a question for you given the following scenario.

Let's say you're about 200 meters from a structure.  There's a regular walk-through door that is open, and it's illuminated inside.

From 200 meters, you can only see a little bit of the inside, mainly a small section of the opposite wall, so you move up to 1 meter from the door, and now you can see much more of the interior.

Now if you're 200 meters away and have a telescope, and you zoom in so that the door takes up the entire eyepiece, are you (A) still seeing only that small section of the opposite wall, or are you (B) able to see the wider inside view such as when you were physically closer?

A or B?

Novice, Earthisaspaceship, I have a question for you given the following scenario.

Let's say you're about 200 meters from a structure.  There's a regular walk-through door that is open, and it's illuminated inside.

From 200 meters, you can only see a little bit of the inside, mainly a small section of the opposite wall, so you move up to 1 meter from the door, and now you can see much more of the interior.

Now if you're 200 meters away and have a telescope, and you zoom in so that the door takes up the entire eyepiece, are you (A) still seeing only that small section of the opposite wall, or are you (B) able to see the wider inside view such as when you were physically closer?

A or B?

A

Novice, Earthisaspaceship, I have a question for you given the following scenario.

Let's say you're about 200 meters from a structure.  There's a regular walk-through door that is open, and it's illuminated inside.

From 200 meters, you can only see a little bit of the inside, mainly a small section of the opposite wall, so you move up to 1 meter from the door, and now you can see much more of the interior.

Now if you're 200 meters away and have a telescope, and you zoom in so that the door takes up the entire eyepiece, are you (A) still seeing only that small section of the opposite wall, or are you (B) able to see the wider inside view such as when you were physically closer?

A or B?

A
Reason being that the glass lens magnifies the view.  It's like your eyes ARE physically there.  This is why the horizon is relative to what your eyes can see.

A
Reason being that the glass lens magnifies the view.

Yep, That's all it does.  Magnify what you can see from your perspective.

It's like your eyes ARE physically there.  This is why the horizon is relative to what your eyes can see.

If it were like having your eyes physically there, wouldn't you be able to see more of the inside like in answer 'B'? 

The projectile drop increases as the distance increases.  Why?  Because of gravity.  Not because of any curvature of Earth.

Uh... yeah... we all know why the projectile drops.  But that's not the point of the diagram.  It's showing how naval gunners have to adjust the trajectory of the missile to allow fro the curvature of the earth.  The LoF's angle of elevation has to be decreased (as compared to firing it on a theoretical flat earth).

If it were like having your eyes physically there, wouldn't you be able to see more of the inside like in answer 'B'?

And this is the very point that EartIsASpaceship can't seem to grasp.  He obviously doesn't understand the simple principles of optical magnification—or parallax for that matter.

... naval gunners have to adjust the trajectory of the missile to allow fro the curvature of the earth.  ...

The ship is bobbing up and down, rolling from side to side and rocking from stem to stern. The reality is that, before guided missiles, firing was very much trial and error (as it is on land, by the way).

On a flat earth, the horizon is relative, depending upon the device used to view it. This is because, as the vanishing point moves farther away, resolving it requires more resolution.

An optical device with circular entrance pupil, such as the eye, or a telescope, has an angular resolution, theta, given by the formula,
                    theta = 1.22 x lambda / D
where
                    lambda is the wavelength of the light and D is the diameter of the entrance pupil.

On a bright sunny day, the pupil of the human eye has a diameter of about 3 mm. Let's take the wavelength of the light to be around 510 nm (the mid-point for green, off the top of my head, I haven't looked it up in a while).

theta (eye) = 1.22 x 510 x 10^(-9) / (3 x 10^(-3)) = 0.0021 rad (~ 7 arcminutes)

Take a telescope of primary diameter 10 cm,

theta (telescope) = 1.22 x 510 x 10^(-9) / 10^(-1) = 0.00006 rad (~ 13 arcseconds)

The 10-cm telescope is thus 35x better at resolving the image being viewed than is the eye on a bright sunny day.

Quote from: Spank86 on January 31, 2014, 02:20:27 AM

Quote from: Novice on January 30, 2014, 05:53:53 PM

Can you show the right-hand-side of this picture, please?

not anymore, I cropped it to save space and don't have the original, I'd have to load it again, ...

A pity you chose to crop it just there, I'd really like to see the area to the right of the ship rather than all that wasted area to the left.

I thought we were interested in the ship and the video time, that's what i left in. I don't recall anything at all showing to the right.

Uh... yeah... we all know why the projectile drops.  But that's not the point of the diagram.  It's showing how naval gunners have to adjust the trajectory of the missile to allow fro the curvature of the earth.  The LoF's angle of elevation has to be decreased (as compared to firing it on a theoretical flat earth).

Uh... no.  The angle has to be decreased so it travels more distance before gravity makes it drop.  No curvature.