Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.

From what I ca understand from the wiki and some threads here it appears to me there is some optical illusion that happens when you see a ship or light house sink below the horizon. The Rowbotham effect as it might be called.

This seems to fly in the face of many personal experiences. I've been sailing different ships for over two decades. The Gulf of Mexico mostly and the south east coast of the US. In my small adventures I've used lighthouses, oil rigs and very tall radio towers as navigation points. Two friends and I taught an offshore sailing class (ASA 108 class, offshore. About 10 years ago). We did celestial navigation, which I would guess you believe is not correct, and other types of "how to get there" navigation.

I can tell you first hand you can sail past a very tall structure and sink all but the very tip below the horizon using only your eyes and then look with binoculars and see the exact same thing.

Now, this Rowbotham theory seems to be incredibly debunkable because of my experiences. Is there something I'm not understanding about his "Vanishing Point" idea?

No, you get it completely. Unfortunately, these so called Zetetics can't seem to do this very simple experiment, and take it on faith that a sinking object can be restored with a vision magnifier.

Y'know, despite the fact that they have eyes.

That is one of the funnier things about them, in my opinion - they claim that distant objects can be "recovered" with some magnification, like through binoculars or a telescope. Has any of them actually "recovered" an object hidden behind the horizon? I don't think so... It should be hilariously easy to prove if possible, but for some reason it seems like no one has ever done it... Weird, isn't it?

Unfortunately, these so called Zetetics can't seem to do this very simple experiment, and take it on faith that a sinking object can be restored with a vision magnifier.

This is a notion of the flat earthers I've never been able to comprehend.  That is, something that cannot be seen with the human eye can magically be seen by using a telescope.  This simplified diagram may clarify this for them:





The enlargement relies on the convex objective lens, and the concave eyepiece lens—which also produces a non-inverted image.  It's obvious from this diagram that the observer can't see "more" of the building by using the telescope.  And there's no refraction external to the telescope that changes the image in any way (or "bendy" light as it's often called by the flat earthers LOL).

ausGeoff, this is FE Q&A and is for flat Earth questions and answers.  If you want to explain RET or debate FET, please do it in the proper forum.  Thanks. 

ausGeoff, this is FE Q&A and is for flat Earth questions and answers.  If you want to explain RET or debate FET, please do it in the proper forum.  Thanks.

No probs jroa.  Read and noted.  Sorry.

ausGeoff, this is FE Q&A and is for flat Earth questions and answers.  If you want to explain RET or debate FET, please do it in the proper forum.  Thanks.

Would it be possible for the moderator to remove this topic to the debate section of the forum for continuation ?

That is one of the funnier things about them, in my opinion - they claim that distant objects can be "recovered" with some magnification, like through binoculars or a telescope. Has any of them actually "recovered" an object hidden behind the horizon? I don't think so... It should be hilariously easy to prove if possible, but for some reason it seems like no one has ever done it... Weird, isn't it?

I am a FEer and I have never claimed you can bring back sinking ship with a telescope.
So don't make out you are superior and group everybody as "them" thanks.

Taper, do you have another theory why ships at sea disappear below the horizon?

Quote from: jroa on July 20, 2014, 03:25:20 AM

ausGeoff, this is FE Q&A and is for flat Earth questions and answers.  If you want to explain RET or debate FET, please do it in the proper forum.  Thanks.

Would it be possible for the moderator to remove this topic to the debate section of the forum for continuation ?

Yes, it is possible, but it would be a whole lot easier if people just made threads in the debate section for themselves. 

Quote from: Macpie on July 20, 2014, 01:29:57 AM

That is one of the funnier things about them, in my opinion - they claim that distant objects can be "recovered" with some magnification, like through binoculars or a telescope. Has any of them actually "recovered" an object hidden behind the horizon? I don't think so... It should be hilariously easy to prove if possible, but for some reason it seems like no one has ever done it... Weird, isn't it?

I am a FEer and I have never claimed you can bring back sinking ship with a telescope.
So don't make out you are superior and group everybody as "them" thanks.

I served in the Navy and have observed many times that you can't bring back a ship that has sailed over the horizon....Either with binoculars or a telescope.So I have often wondered how that idea originated. Probably from Rowbotham ?
Tom Bishop has said "It works on land, too."

Taper, do you have another theory why ships at sea disappear below the horizon?

Sometimes sinking ship is closer sometimes its out further, sometimes they fly.

Taper, do you have another theory why ships at sea disappear below the horizon?


Here some, flying ships on a'flat world......

A Fata Morgana is an unusual and complex form of superior mirage that is seen in a narrow band right above the horizon...




—You're welcome.

Thank you,, Aussie, 'Could that also be the reason, for RE's optical illusionary curving of the earth..

A Fata Morgana is an unusual and complex form of superior mirage that is seen in a narrow band right above the horizon...

—You're welcome.

You have just killed of any global Earth argument about the sinking ship effect.

 You're welcome.

Thank you,, Aussie, 'Could that also be the reason, for RE's optical illusionary curving of the earth..

No, because it is exactly the opposite effect of what would be required.  It makes objects on the horizon appear to "float" and not "sink".

]You have just killed of any global Earth argument about the sinking ship effect.

Do keep up scepti....

Yea... Mirage effect could explain why a ship floats. What does the ship sink?

When I sail with the shoreline at my right I can sail away and make a very tall radio antennae sink below the horizon with just its blinking light visible. Naked eye, binoculars see the exact same thing. This navigation tool we used to determine our position. It works every time.

That is how Rowyourboat got his everdance from his expeyment that he used to start the Flat Brainless sussyotty.

The precise language and world of mathematics can be used to investigate this question.


A few formulas of interest.


CURVATURE

C = R(1 - cos[s/(2R)]) - angle measured in radians


R = 6378,164 km

s = distance


VISUAL OBSTACLE



BD = (R + h)/{RAD[2Rh + h^2](sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R

RAD = SQUARE ROOT OF THE EXPRESSION IN THE [ ] PARENTHESES


TERRESTRIAL REFRACTION

http://ireland.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/refract.htm (Calculating the effects of refraction on apparent altitude section)


LOOMING (THERMAL INVERSION)

http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/altitudes.html



Let us apply this mass of knowledge to a famous photograph taken by Mrs. Kerry Ann Lecky Hepburn in Grimsby.

The RE called her some years ago, they were informed that the elevation was 170 meters above sea level.

Since lake Ontario is itself some 75-80 meters above sea level, the following photograph was taken from 90 meters in height.

We will add 20 MORE METERS, to reach an elevation of 110 meters (highest point in Beamer Falls Conservation Area).


GRIMSBY - OSHAWA 97 KILOMETERS






VISUAL OBSTACLE: 278 METERS


Tallest building in Oshawa: Summit Place, 64.5 meters

Elevation of Oshawa above sea level: 106 meters

Substracting 80 meters (elevation of lake Ontario itself) from 106 and adding 64.5 meters we get: 90.5 meters


Using the refraction formula we see immediately that nothing from Oshawa could be seen/observed from a 97 km distance.


Let us now use the LOOMING formula.


http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/altitudes.html


THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN ON JUNE 10, 2004

http://climate.weather.gc.ca/climateData/dailydata_e.html?timeframe=2&Prov=ONT&StationID=4996&dlyRange=1840-01-01%7C2014-7-22&Year=2004&Month=6&cmdB1=Go#

OSHAWA: TEMP MAX 16.5 C - TEMP MIN 13.5 C

GRIMSBY: TEMP MAX 16.5 C - TEMP MIN 10 C

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/historical-weather/caon0281


We introduce the data:

EYE OBSERVER: 13.5 - 14.5 - 15.5 C (temperature)
HEIGHT 110 METERS


EYE TARGET: 13.5 C (temperature)
HEIGHT 90 METERS

DISTANCE 97 KM


Nothing, absolutely nothing could be seen from a distance of 97 km; moreover, as can be seen clearly, there are many buildings/lights observed in Oshawa, not necessarily the Summit Place building, therefore the elevation for those buildings can be reduced further.

You have just killed of any global Earth argument about the sinking ship effect.

Unfortunately for you sceptimatic, you've just killed off any misguided perception that you may know what you're talking about.  A Fata Morgana illusion has nothing to do with the "sinking ship" conundrum or the curvature of the earth's surface.

Please look again at my diagram and try and understand what it's showing.  The "duct" is actually a layer of air whose density varies continuously from top to bottom, and acts similarly to a refracting lens.  It's also necessary for there to be a phenomenon known as a temperature inversion, wherein the upper air layer is warmer and the lower air layer is cooler (or inverted from the normal scenario).

The "sinking ship" has nothing to do with a Fata Morgana.

Quote from: ausGeoff on July 23, 2014, 01:38:23 AM

A Fata Morgana is an unusual and complex form of superior mirage that is seen in a narrow band right above the horizon...

—You're welcome.

You have just killed of any global Earth argument about the sinking ship effect.

 You're welcome.

It's baffling that FE'rs still don't get this. Refraction near the surface, and especially over the water causes object to appear HIGHER than they actually are. I went into detail about this in this thread. With the facts there in mind, it is possible for an object to appear to float above the horizon and it is never possible for an object to appear below the horizon unless it ACTUALLY IS below the horizon.

Nothing, absolutely nothing could be seen from a distance of 97 km; moreover, as can be seen clearly, there are many buildings/lights observed in Oshawa, not necessarily the Summit Place building, therefore the elevation for those buildings can be reduced further.

Sorry, but that image looks—to my photographer's eye—to be totally inconclusive.  It shows nothing more than a line of fuzzy coloured dots on a black background.  Obviously this could be explained easily by any one of a dozen scenarios.  You've relied solely on the unevidenced word of Kerry-Ann Lecky Hepburn, which is unacceptable on any scientific-style forum.

Unless you captured this image yourself—which you admit to not doing—I suspect it's Photoshopped anyway.  Posting somebody else's images carries no weight on any flat earth forum—according to numerous flat earthers here.

It is not photoshopped in any way.

Mrs. Kerry Ann Lecky Hepburn is a world famous photographer, who had not one, but several webpages on professional photography.

The photograph, showing the lights from Oshawa, a distance of 97 km, is true, you can call Mrs. Lecky Hepburn yourself!

Here is another photograph taken by Mrs. Lecky Hepburn:



No 59 meter curvature whatsoever.


TWO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN IN HAMILTON, RIGHT ON THE BEACH:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream






The visual obstacle between Hamilton and Lakeshore Blvd. West measures over 200 meters, no curvature whatsoever.

It's baffling that FE'rs still don't get this. Refraction near the surface, and especially over the water causes object to appear HIGHER than they actually are. I went into detail about this in this thread. With the facts there in mind, it is possible for an object to appear to float above the horizon and it is never possible for an object to appear below the horizon unless it ACTUALLY IS below the horizon.

LOL.  You've really tied yourself up in knots here sceptimatic.  And you still don't get it do you?  Fata Morgana and "sinking ships" have NO connection.  Two totally different optical theories apply for each.  I'll say it again; ZERO connection.

It is not photoshopped in any way.

Mrs. Kerry Ann Lecky Hepburn is a world famous photographer, who had not one, but several webpages on professional photography.

The photograph, showing the lights from Oshawa, a distance of 97 km, is true, you can call Mrs. Lecky Hepburn yourself!

Here is another photograph taken by Mrs. Lecky Hepburn:



No 59 meter curvature whatsoever.


TWO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN IN HAMILTON, RIGHT ON THE BEACH:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream






The visual obstacle between Hamilton and Lakeshore Blvd. West measures over 200 meters, no curvature whatsoever.

Um, yes. An object that is usually obstructed by the sea can be unobstructed because of refraction. Thanks for pointing that out.

Also, needless to say, it is obvious that these photos are not taken from the surface.

It is not photoshopped in any way.

Whether or not that image is Photoshopped or not is ultimately immaterial to your argument.  The simple fact is that the coloured orbs could be any one of a dozen things.  Think of a woman's necklace of gemstones laid on black velvet, illuminated from the side, and captured with a macro camera lens.  A bit of blur in Photoshop, and bingo!

The image proves nothing.  Sorry.

The photograph taken at night shows the skyline of Oshawa; no orbs.


The photographs in Hamilton WERE TAKEN RIGHT ON THE BEACH ITSELF.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/#

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/#in/photostream


READ THE CAPTION:

Looking from the beach in Hamilton across Lake Ontario towards Toronto

Looking from the beach in Hamilton across Lake Ontario towards Toronto

Does this caption do anything to reveal the elevation of the shot? Beaches typically slope. I hope you are aware of this.