What about a telescope aimed at the horizon?

Quote from: tappet on January 31, 2014, 10:11:10 PM

Do you believe it is possible to see sinking ship using nothing but the naked eye?

On a sufficiently clear day, if you're low down enough it is.

And how will this ship look at say 6ft ,will it be an unrecognisable dot on the horizon or will it be an easily identifiable half sunk ship on the horizon?

Quote from: Spank86 on January 31, 2014, 11:52:30 PM

Quote from: tappet on January 31, 2014, 10:11:10 PM

Do you believe it is possible to see sinking ship using nothing but the naked eye?

On a sufficiently clear day, if you're low down enough it is.

And how will this ship look at say 6ft ,will it be an unrecognisable dot on the horizon or will it be an easily identifiable half sunk ship on the horizon?

last one I saw was pretty easily recognisable, Of course it was a pretty big ship. I wouldn't claim to have been able to pick out fine detail like individual portholes or which ferry it was but I could certainly see it fine.

Quote from: tappet on February 01, 2014, 12:15:16 AM

Quote from: Spank86 on January 31, 2014, 11:52:30 PM

Quote from: tappet on January 31, 2014, 10:11:10 PM

Do you believe it is possible to see sinking ship using nothing but the naked eye?

On a sufficiently clear day, if you're low down enough it is.

And how will this ship look at say 6ft ,will it be an unrecognisable dot on the horizon or will it be an easily identifiable half sunk ship on the horizon?

last one I saw was pretty easily recognisable, Of course it was a pretty big ship. I wouldn't claim to have been able to pick out fine detail like individual portholes or which ferry it was but I could certainly see it fine.

Thank you for your honesty.
So now with a half sunk ship being easy to see with the naked eye, a camera at 6ft zooming in a lighthouse from nothing and at no stage being half sunk should be impossible. Would you agree?
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LightHouse Rosslare. Panasonic HC-V520 Zoom Test.

Quote from: Spank86 on February 01, 2014, 01:13:36 AM

Quote from: tappet on February 01, 2014, 12:15:16 AM

Quote from: Spank86 on January 31, 2014, 11:52:30 PM

Quote from: tappet on January 31, 2014, 10:11:10 PM

Do you believe it is possible to see sinking ship using nothing but the naked eye?

On a sufficiently clear day, if you're low down enough it is.

And how will this ship look at say 6ft ,will it be an unrecognisable dot on the horizon or will it be an easily identifiable half sunk ship on the horizon?

last one I saw was pretty easily recognisable, Of course it was a pretty big ship. I wouldn't claim to have been able to pick out fine detail like individual portholes or which ferry it was but I could certainly see it fine.

Thank you for your honesty.
So now with a half sunk ship being easy to see with the naked eye, a camera at 6ft zooming in a lighthouse from nothing and at no stage being half sunk should be impossible. Would you agree?
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LightHouse Rosslare. Panasonic HC-V520 Zoom Test.

After a cursory examination all I can say is for one It could be the camera but that doesn't look much like a clear day for one, and for two There's no way to tell if or what is sunken below what we can see of the rocks.

Quote from: tappet on February 01, 2014, 01:37:54 AM

Quote from: Spank86 on February 01, 2014, 01:13:36 AM

Quote from: tappet on February 01, 2014, 12:15:16 AM

Quote from: Spank86 on January 31, 2014, 11:52:30 PM

Quote from: tappet on January 31, 2014, 10:11:10 PM

Do you believe it is possible to see sinking ship using nothing but the naked eye?

On a sufficiently clear day, if you're low down enough it is.

And how will this ship look at say 6ft ,will it be an unrecognisable dot on the horizon or will it be an easily identifiable half sunk ship on the horizon?

last one I saw was pretty easily recognisable, Of course it was a pretty big ship. I wouldn't claim to have been able to pick out fine detail like individual portholes or which ferry it was but I could certainly see it fine.

Thank you for your honesty.
So now with a half sunk ship being easy to see with the naked eye, a camera at 6ft zooming in a lighthouse from nothing and at no stage being half sunk should be impossible. Would you agree?
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LightHouse Rosslare. Panasonic HC-V520 Zoom Test.

After a cursory examination all I can say is for one It could be the camera but that doesn't look much like a clear day for one, and for two There's no way to tell if or what is sunken below what we can see of the rocks.

That is the whole island.

The only part of the hull that you will not see is that part that is submerged in water.

What about the video from page 1 of this thread?

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

40 seconds in, the only thing visible is the upper portion of the mast. Note: the magnification and resolution at this point are sufficient for individual yards to still be distinguishable, so I don't see how the hull (which is substantially larger than the yards) could have become indistinguishable from the water. Also note: the whole ship appears to be descending relative to what most people would refer to as the horizon.

Like I keep saying some sea conditions support sinking ship, but guess what some don't.

So now with a half sunk ship being easy to see with the naked eye, a camera at 6ft zooming in a lighthouse from nothing and at no stage being half sunk should be impossible. Would you agree?

You are speculating. There is no mentioning of camera height whatsoever with that video. This is Tuskar Rock lighthouse, situated only 11 km from the shore. Without specifying the exact altitude of the camera (and not only the height of the tripod but the altitude with respect to the altitude of the lighthouse), you can prove nothing. A difference of as small as 4 meters in height would make this video completely useless for your demonstration purposes and four meters are nothing that you can determine without exact instruments.

Quote from: tappet on February 01, 2014, 01:56:58 AM

So now with a half sunk ship being easy to see with the naked eye, a camera at 6ft zooming in a lighthouse from nothing and at no stage being half sunk should be impossible. Would you agree?

You are speculating. There is no mention of camera height whatsoever with that video. This is Tuskar Rock lighthouse, situated only 11 km from the shore. Without specifying the exact altitude of the camera (and not only the height of the tripod but the altitude with respect to the altitude of the lighthouse), you can prove nothing. A difference of as small as 4 meters in height would make this video completely useless for your demonstration purposes and four meters are nothing that you can determine without exact instruments.

I suppose your DERP video is all good though, is it?

Like I keep saying some sea conditions support sinking ship, but guess what some don't.

Okay, I've asked this question before, and it has also been asked recently in this thread, but here it is again in another form:

How can (I'll be generous here) 4ft waves hide 30ft worth of a 50ft ship (30ft and 50ft being guesstimates) from and observer 10-20ft above the water line? (Referring to the point about 40 seconds in, it's obviously a different amount of the ship at other times)

Okay, all my figures are best guess, but the waves are clearly a lot smaller than the ship, and the observer is clearly well above the waves, so how do the sea conditions obscure the ship? Feel free to accompany your answer/explanation with a diagram or other illustration.

I suppose your DERP video is all good though, is it?

I don't have videos, DERP or not DERP. I replied with a specific criticism to your post, so it would be nice of you to address that, if you please.

Quote from: tappet on February 01, 2014, 02:34:23 AM

I suppose your DERP video is all good though, is it?

I don't have videos, DERP or not DERP. I replied with a specific criticism to your post, so it would be nice of you to address that, if you please.

OK you got me, the video it's just not scientific enough to be of any use to anyone. I will see if I can get all the data. Unlike the data supplied with all of the only round earth video of all of their " sinking ships prove round earth"

Quote from: tappet on February 01, 2014, 02:19:46 AM

Like I keep saying some sea conditions support sinking ship, but guess what some don't.

Okay, I've asked this question before, and it has also been asked recently in this thread, but here it is again in another form:

How can (I'll be generous here) 4ft waves hide 30ft worth of a 50ft ship (30ft and 50ft being guesstimates) from and observer 10-20ft above the water line? (Referring to the point about 40 seconds in, it's obviously a different amount of the ship at other times)

Okay, all my figures are best guess, but the waves are clearly a lot smaller than the ship, and the observer is clearly well above the waves, so how do the sea conditions obscure the ship? Feel free to accompany your answer/explanation with a diagram or other illustration.

Oh man not you again
Its not just the waves . In my mind it would also be swell, swell size, swell direction ,wind , wind speed, wind direction, light, angle of light, currents temp etc...
To claim sinking ship proves round earth, does not sit well from my perspective. It may just be enough for you.

OK you got me, the video it's just not scientific enough to be of any use to anyone.

Scientific is not a sarcasm, actually. But it doesn't have to be scientific, we just want to know what we are staring at, that's all.

Are you by any chance living by the shore?

All that "DERP" (whatever the heck that means  ) video shows is a ship moving away from the observer.  If the video showed the observer zooming in as the ship moved away, it would show the entire ship.

All that "DERP" (whatever the heck that means) video shows is a ship moving away from the observer.  If the video showed the observer zooming in as the ship moved away, it would show the entire ship.

Nope.  It wouldn't.  Even a 1,000x telescope can't magnify something that's out of its line of site.
 

The REs are definitely more easily convinced (duped) than FEs.  Their mindset is the reason why this deception goes on.

Can you explain exactly why this RE "mindset" is inferior to the FE mindset?  Are you suggesting that the REs lack the scientific, logical, and philosophical skills needed to formulate a working model of the planet?

And why is it that the mindset of a few hundred FEs is so superior to that of the billions of REs on the planet?  Wouldn't Occam's Razor indicate the opposite to what you're claiming?

So now with a half sunk ship being easy to see with the naked eye, a camera at 6ft zooming in a lighthouse from nothing and at no stage being half sunk should be impossible. Would you agree?
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LightHouse Rosslare. Panasonic HC-V520 Zoom Test.

Both the ship and lighthouse in that video are not being zoomed in from nothing.  They're both visible at the very beginning, and at the midway point when the camera is again zoomed out completely.  Nothing is being restored, just enlarged.

Doing a google image search of "Stena Europe" will bring up images of that ship.  A little bit of the bottom appears to be cut off, but there also appears to be a bit of a mirage affecting things.

Anyway, the zoom is just enlarging what is already visible.

It is quite obvious that this place we exist in is a mystery to us.

 

Nope.  Neither is it "obvious" that the place we exist in (earth) is a "mystery" nor is it a mystery in and of itself to me.  I'm quite comfortable living on the planet as I perceive it to be, and have absolutely no reason to believe it's anything other than what my perception of it is.  Why should I?  My perception satisfies all the tenets of science—physics, astronomy, biochemistry, geophysics etc.

if you're (apparently) confused by your existence on the planet, then I might suggest that it's you that needs to reconsider your perspective on the sciences—and also the geometry of the planet.

Your confusion may be arising from your attempts to make RE geophysics and/or astrophysics fit a FE model.

We are all (or should all be) searching for answers that lead us to the truth.

Couldn't agree more.

You say that the boat disappears because hull first because of the undulating water between it and the observer.  In my example, the observer, with a powerful enough scope, could see the entirety of the ship except for the bottom 3 feet obscured by the waves.  The observer is not changing height, yet the boat still disappears hull first.  It is not a matter of resolution at all.

You have to understand what resolution is. It is the ability to distinguish between two objects that appear merged into one.

When the boat is far enough away, it becomes more and more difficult to identify the hull as being distinct from the water line of your 'horizon'.

We have already agreed on this thread that the naked-eye observer has a different 'horizon' to that of a telescopically-enhanced observer at the same altitude. Increase the power of the telescope up to a certain limit and you increase the distance to the horizon still farther.

So if I see a ship 'disappearing' hull first it does not prove the Earth's alleged rotundity, because I can restore the image via a telescope whose 'horizon' is different to mine, simply because the telescope optics resolve the hull from the water line.

...
You are speculating. There is no mentioning of camera height whatsoever with that video. This is Tuskar Rock lighthouse, situated only 11 km from the shore. Without specifying the exact altitude of the camera (and not only the height of the tripod but the altitude with respect to the altitude of the lighthouse), you can prove nothing. A difference of as small as 4 meters in height would make this video completely useless for your demonstration purposes and four meters are nothing that you can determine without exact instruments.

This is exactly the point I was making about the original video from the Planetary Physics Department of the University of California, so will you now agree that that video is useless in proving anything, too?

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 31, 2014, 08:23:51 PM

You say that the boat disappears because hull first because of the undulating water between it and the observer.  In my example, the observer, with a powerful enough scope, could see the entirety of the ship except for the bottom 3 feet obscured by the waves.  The observer is not changing height, yet the boat still disappears hull first.  It is not a matter of resolution at all.

You have to understand what resolution is. It is the ability to distinguish between two objects that appear merged into one.

When the boat is far enough away, it becomes more and more difficult to identify the hull as being distinct from the water line of your 'horizon'.

We have already agreed on this thread that the naked-eye observer has a different 'horizon' to that of a telescopically-enhanced observer at the same altitude. Increase the power of the telescope up to a certain limit and you increase the distance to the horizon still farther.

So if I see a ship 'disappearing' hull first it does not prove the Earth's alleged rotundity, because I can restore the image via a telescope whose 'horizon' is different to mine, simply because the telescope optics resolve the hull from the water line.

The thing is, why does the largest part of a ship, the hull, disappear before a thinner part, the masts without sails open?  Logically, these would disappear first, and they probably do, however, these can be restored with a scope after the hull cannot.

So if I see a ship 'disappearing' hull first it does not prove the Earth's alleged rotundity, because I can restore the image via a telescope whose 'horizon' is different to mine, simply because the telescope optics resolve the hull from the water line.

No, you can't. You obviously never tried this for yourself. All you do is accepting hearsay, although this is among the easiest things to check out for yourself.

The thing is, why does the largest part of a ship, the hull, disappear before a thinner part, the masts without sails open?  Logically, these would disappear first, and they probably do, however, these can be restored with a scope after the hull cannot.

The hull hasn't disappeared at all, it has just become indistinguishable from the 'horizon' water line.

The masts, too, eventually merge in with the water line as the ship continues to sail away from the observer.

Eventually a limit is reached where a more powerful telescope will be unable to resolve anything.

We have already agreed on this thread that the naked-eye observer has a different 'horizon' to that of a telescopically-enhanced observer at the same altitude. Increase the power of the telescope up to a certain limit and you increase the distance to the horizon still farther.

Uh... no, we haven't "agreed" on the telescopic view versus naked-eye view at all.

Exactly the same rays of light are travelling from exactly the same horizon line independent of whatever means you're retina is accepting and registering them.  A telescope can not make visible things which simply aren't there—like the hull of a ship that's over the horizon.  The apparent line of the horizon never varies—it can't move closer, nor can it recede.  It's fixed absolutely relative to your eyes.

Hopefully, this site will clarify things a bit more:  http://bit.ly/1kt9s8d
 

Exactly the same rays of light are travelling from exactly the same horizon line independent of whatever means you're retina is accepting and registering them.  A telescope can not make visible things which simply aren't there—like the hull of a ship that's over the horizon.  The apparent line of the horizon never varies—it can't move closer, nor can it recede.  It's fixed absolutely relative to your eyes.

The horizon is a FLAT line.  So by saying it is over that line is saying the object is past your visibility.  The observer doesn't have to physically move forward to see past that line.  The lens brings the object closer to the observer.  That is what magnification is.  And when you magnify the object, it indeed DOES extend the horizon because it has brought it closer to you, making more distance visible.  What is there, is there, whether you can see it or not.  If you see a wall of water blocking something, it means there is something wrong with your settings on your visual aid or you need to point the dang thing at the object instead of the water. 

We know the earth is round because of how broadcast tv and gps satellites work, they prove it.

The observer doesn't have to physically move forward to see past that line.

The laws of physics say the observer does have to move closer.  Think of looking over your neighbour's 1.5m fence from 30m distant and then from 1m away.  You'll see different stuff in his yard (closer to the fence).

The lens brings the object closer to the observer.

Nope.  It only enlarges the image of the object.  The object itself (obviously) stays where it is.  Think of your neighbour's fence again.  From 30m away, you won't be able to see his pooch sitting on the ground 2m from the base of the fence.  Nor will a telescope bring him into view.  Move up to the 1m distance though, and of course you'll see his pooch.

Hope this top-of-the-fence example helps with the horizon issue, as they're identical scenarios as far as the optical paths go.
 

We know the earth is round because of how broadcast tv and gps satellites work, they prove it.

We all know this, but I have to admit, seeing you attempt to derail every thread by bringing this up is a little irritating. The argument has lost any chance it might have had simply because you've made it acceptable to ignore it.

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 01, 2014, 10:40:56 AM

The thing is, why does the largest part of a ship, the hull, disappear before a thinner part, the masts without sails open?  Logically, these would disappear first, and they probably do, however, these can be restored with a scope after the hull cannot.

The hull hasn't disappeared at all, it has just become indistinguishable from the 'horizon' water line.

The masts, too, eventually merge in with the water line as the ship continues to sail away from the observer.

Eventually a limit is reached where a more powerful telescope will be unable to resolve anything.

That is the thing.  The masts should reach the limit first as these parts of the ship are smaller than the hull.  The masts should become indistinguishable from the sky because they get to a point which they are smaller than the resolution our eyes can pick up.  Since the masts are smaller than the hull, this point should be reach before the hull.  Yet it is not.