If the light bends how can you trust what you see?

So the main evidence for the flat earth is "look out your window". Then when someone points out that ships sink below the horizon the explanation is that light bends.
So, assuming light does really bend, that invalidates your "look out your window" argument, because you cannot trust what you see anymore.

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't believe that is the explanation of the sinking ship phenomenon at all. 

Moreover, it is ironic that the globularist retort to every observation that defies their model is that light bends...

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't believe that is the explanation of the sinking ship phenomenon at all. 

Moreover, it is ironic that the globularist retort to every observation that defies their model is that light bends...

It is also ironic how flatters use the bending of light to explain their theories.

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't believe that is the explanation of the sinking ship phenomenon at all. 

What is, then?

Moreover, it is ironic that the globularist retort to every observation that defies their model is that light bends...

Like when, exactly? Light is very well known to bend in some specific cases, none of which can account for the observations the FE hypothesis can't explain.

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't believe that is the explanation of the sinking ship phenomenon at all. 

Moreover, it is ironic that the globularist retort to every observation that defies their model is that light bends...

Have you ever seen a ship sail away till it is gone?

Quote from: Ski on May 06, 2014, 12:06:44 PM

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't believe that is the explanation of the sinking ship phenomenon at all. 

What is, then?

Perspective.

Quote from: Ski on May 06, 2014, 12:06:44 PM

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't believe that is the explanation of the sinking ship phenomenon at all. 

Moreover, it is ironic that the globularist retort to every observation that defies their model is that light bends...

Have you ever seen a ship sail away till it is gone?

Yes   

Light refraction in the air is negligible. Do you know what the refractive index of air is? It's 1.000277 (at 20° C and 1 atmosphere.) A vacuum is 1.0 and acrylic glass is around 1.5. Furthermore, the refractive index of air at 1.5 atmospheres and 20° C is 1.000407. The difference between 1.000277 and 1.000407 is negligible. Let's see if you can notice the difference in this image, generated using a Snell's Law refraction calculator.

I didn't think so. That is actually 10 times the observed effect, in that image.
It looks like your "Ferrari Effect" doesn't exist.
Q.E.D.

That's all swell and everything -- I'm sure it will come in handy the next time we all see something that is impossible on a globe, but I just said that I didn't think the sinking ship phenomenon was due to the bending of light.

www.rif.org

That's all swell and everything -- I'm sure it will come in handy the next time we all see something that is impossible on a globe, but I just said that I didn't think the sinking ship phenomenon was due to the bending of light.

www.rif.org

Did you see all the ship sail until it was gone? How far do you think it was?

Far enough away that perspective made the ships features indiscernible.

That's all swell and everything -- I'm sure it will come in handy the next time we all see something that is impossible on a globe

Good luck with that.

Far enough away that perspective made the ships features indiscernible.

Nope. You can clearly see the bottom part of the ship sink/rise on the horizon by changing your height.

That's all swell and everything -- I'm sure it will come in handy the next time we all see something that is impossible on a globe, but I just said that I didn't think the sinking ship phenomenon was due to the bending of light.

www.rif.org

If it is not due to the bending of light what is it?

Quote from: Ski on May 06, 2014, 12:37:02 PM

That's all swell and everything -- I'm sure it will come in handy the next time we all see something that is impossible on a globe

Good luck with that.

Quote from: Ski on May 06, 2014, 12:43:28 PM

Far enough away that perspective made the ships features indiscernible.

Nope. You can clearly see the bottom part of the ship sink/rise on the horizon by changing your height.

Of course, because by raising your height you have raised the eye-line and the ships hull is no longer indiscernible as it does not rest as near the eye-line.

Quote from: bravimone on May 06, 2014, 12:44:25 PM

Quote from: Ski on May 06, 2014, 12:37:02 PM

That's all swell and everything -- I'm sure it will come in handy the next time we all see something that is impossible on a globe

Good luck with that.

Quote from: Ski on May 06, 2014, 12:43:28 PM

Far enough away that perspective made the ships features indiscernible.

Nope. You can clearly see the bottom part of the ship sink/rise on the horizon by changing your height.

Of course, because by raising your height you have raised the eye-line and the ships hull is no longer indiscernible as it does not rest as near the eye-line.

Did you wait until it disappeared? If you did you see the bottom and top of the ship? By the way what type of ship was it?

Ah, so presumably the 'features' of the rest of Chicago have simply become 'indiscernible' in that picture? I did wonder because it looked a lot like it had begun to sink below the horizon. Thanks for clearing that up.

Ah, so presumably the 'features' of the rest of Chicago have simply become 'indiscernible' in that picture? I did wonder because it looked a lot like it had begun to sink below the horizon. Thanks for clearing that up.

Perspective laws. You're aware of them, right?
A ship (or anything really) on the "horizon" intersects with a vanishing point, causing it to appear as if it is sinking. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars.

Quote from: Goddamnit, Clown on May 06, 2014, 03:53:38 PM

Ah, so presumably the 'features' of the rest of Chicago have simply become 'indiscernible' in that picture? I did wonder because it looked a lot like it had begun to sink below the horizon. Thanks for clearing that up.

Perspective laws. You're aware of them, right?
A ship (or anything really) on the "horizon" intersects with a vanishing point, causing it to appear as if it is sinking. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars.

Maybe one day someone will actually back this claim up. As of now, not one single Fe'er has, yet they like to make this claim all the time.

Perspective laws. You're aware of them, right?
A ship (or anything really) on the "horizon" intersects with a vanishing point, causing it to appear as if it is sinking. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars.

Having a background in maths and physics and experience in 3D effects, I am acutely aware of perspective, yes Whatever you're describing doesn't sound like perspective though...

For example: that skyline is clearly already being viewed through a telephoto lens and yet the rest of the city has not reappeared.

Perspective laws. You're aware of them, right?

Yes, are you?

A ship (or anything really) on the "horizon" intersects with a vanishing point, causing it to appear as if it is sinking.

No, that isn't what perspective laws say.

There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars.

Are there any photographs to support these accounts?

So a vanishing point isn't involved with perspective any longer? Damn, things change so quickly these days.

Or are you all just uneducated liars?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_perspective

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point

Educate yourselves.




Also, I tried to take a picture through my binoculars, but it didn't turn out so well...



This is the best I could do. This is what you're seeing when you see "ships go over the horizon". They are just getting smaller.  (notice how there is a vanishing point? yeah, that's perspective. try again, RE'ers)

So a vanishing point isn't involved with perspective any longer? Damn, things change so quickly these days.

Or are you all just uneducated liars?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_perspective

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point

Educate yourselves.




Also, I tried to take a picture through my binoculars, but it didn't turn out so well...



This is the best I could do. This is what you're seeing when you see "ships go over the horizon". They are just getting smaller.  (notice how there is a vanishing point? yeah, that's perspective. try again, RE'ers)

Yeah... except the bottom vanishes first. Educate yourself.

Except the ship isn't "vanishing", it's sinking. you could have an object of infinite length, that would still dip below the horizon

I'm unclear about how perspective would make one object occlude another when they're distant but not when they're close. Things' angular diameter will shrink and parallel lines will converge and so on, but nothing (like lake Michigan) is going to jump in front of something (like Chicago) just because they're far away. One will still be above the other, just smaller.

Also, you said that this effect disappears when you look through a telescope, that picture is obviously taken using a telephoto lens from some distance away, why is the bottom half of the city still below the horizon? The top half seems distinct enough.

A telephoto lens is not a telescope, now is it? 

A telephoto lens is not a telescope, now is it?

So I was wondering, do you have a point?

Except the ship isn't "vanishing", it's sinking. you could have an object of infinite length, that would still dip below the horizon

Except, no. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars. What you are seeing with your naked eye is an optical illusion caused by a vanishing point.

Functionally? Yes, of course it is.

Is this seriously a claim from three people independently that if you magnify an image onto a film or a CCD then obviously half of Chicago will look like it's behind the horizon?

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 06, 2014, 04:50:44 PM

Except the ship isn't "vanishing", it's sinking. you could have an object of infinite length, that would still dip below the horizon

Except, no. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars. What you are seeing with your naked eye is an optical illusion caused by a vanishing point.

and there are many, many, many more first hand accounts, of it not.

and there are many, many, many more first hand accounts, of it not.

Pssh. Yeah.

From liars

Quote from: Vauxhall on May 06, 2014, 05:07:47 PM

Quote from: RandomREalist on May 06, 2014, 04:50:44 PM

Except the ship isn't "vanishing", it's sinking. you could have an object of infinite length, that would still dip below the horizon

Except, no. There are multiple first-hand accounts of the hulls of ships reappearing after the image is viewed through a telescope or binoculars. What you are seeing with your naked eye is an optical illusion caused by a vanishing point.

and there are many, many, many more first hand accounts, of it not.

You can perform the experiment yourself by going outside with binoculars. Stop being lazy and pedantic.