Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.

  • 51 Replies
  • 17399 Views
*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #30 on: July 23, 2014, 06:45:27 AM »
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.

The photo may even have been taken from purposefully from an elevation to eliminate obstructions.  Is any of this information available?  It is crucial.  Elevation information crushed Sandokhan's photos taken from the Escarpment.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #31 on: July 23, 2014, 06:45:44 AM »
The Lights of Oshawa
I've noted the caption accompanying this image, but that's only a handful of words.  It certainly doesn't prove that the subject of the photo is what it claims to be.  It could easily be an image of something entirely different (as I suggested above as an example).

If I posted a really blurry image of Donald Duck, and captioned it "Mickey Mouse" would you simply take my word for it?  Of course not.

« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 06:49:25 AM by ausGeoff »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #32 on: July 23, 2014, 07:02:10 AM »
Somebody wrote:  Elevation information crushed Sandokhan's photos taken from the Escarpment.

No such thing ever happened.


To remove all doubts, let us ascend to 110 meters (in Hamilton).

Let us reduce the distance to 52.8 km.

Then, the visual obstacle would measure 18.5 meters.


But we can see clearly all the details from the opposing shoreline, with no 59 meter curvature whatsoever.




The caption reads clearly: taken on the Hamilton beach (the other photographs from the same collection show the author right on the beach itself).


Question: HOW would the water of lake Ontario stay curved, according to your theory?

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #33 on: July 23, 2014, 07:16:33 AM »
Somebody wrote:  Elevation information crushed Sandokhan's photos taken from the Escarpment.

No such thing ever happened.


To remove all doubts, let us ascend to 110 meters (in Hamilton).

Let us reduce the distance to 52.8 km.

Then, the visual obstacle would measure 18.5 meters.


But we can see clearly all the details from the opposing shoreline, with no 59 meter curvature whatsoever.




The caption reads clearly: taken on the Hamilton beach (the other photographs from the same collection show the author right on the beach itself).


Question: HOW would the water of lake Ontario stay curved, according to your theory?

I don't know how you get 18.4 meters. With the numbers you just put forth, I'm getting .73 meters.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #34 on: July 23, 2014, 07:24:27 AM »
There is a very precise formula in my first message here: use it.

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3350/figuratangentaew0.gif


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

R = 6378.164 km
s = 52.8 km
h = 0.11 km (that is, 110 meters)

Then, BD = 18.5 meters
Here are two more photographs taken by Mrs. Lecky Hepburn:



No 59 meter curvature whatsoever.


Using a reflector telescope (from the very same spot as here: http://web.archive.org/web/20120322012615/http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg ):



Each and every detail from the other shoreline, distance of 55 km, no 59 meter curvature whatsoever.



*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6758
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #35 on: July 23, 2014, 07:29:34 AM »
This is a good example of a Q&A thread turning into a debate.   I'm moving it to the Debate forum.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61846.0#.U8_GYONdWGc

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7138
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #36 on: July 23, 2014, 07:32:11 AM »
No curvature across the strait of Gibraltar, no ascending slope, no midpoint 3.5 meter visual obstacle, a perfectly flat surface of the water all the way to Africa:

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Barbarians - The End of The World

38:28 to 38:35


From the same spot, a splendid photograph:




http://www.flickr.com/photos/carlosromero/130948289#

No curvature whatsoever, just like the image in the video itself.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #37 on: July 23, 2014, 07:39:47 AM »
There is a very precise formula in my first message here: use it.

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3350/figuratangentaew0.gif


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

R = 6378.164 km
s = 52.8 km
h = 0.11 km (that is, 110 meters)

Then, BD = 18.5 meters
Here are two more photographs taken by Mrs. Lecky Hepburn:



No 59 meter curvature whatsoever.


Using a reflector telescope (from the very same spot as here: http://web.archive.org/web/20120322012615/http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg ):



Each and every detail from the other shoreline, distance of 55 km, no 59 meter curvature whatsoever.

You only calculate the amount of drop from the arc beginning at the horizon point to the subject. Nothing is obscured until the horizon.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #38 on: July 23, 2014, 08:21:28 AM »
There is a very precise formula in my first message here: use it.

http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/3350/figuratangentaew0.gif


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

R = 6378.164 km
s = 52.8 km
h = 0.11 km (that is, 110 meters)

Then, BD = 18.5 meters
Here are two more photographs taken by Mrs. Lecky Hepburn:



No 59 meter curvature whatsoever.


Using a reflector telescope (from the very same spot as here: http://web.archive.org/web/20120322012615/http://www.weatherandsky.com/Mirages/TorontoDay.jpg ):



Each and every detail from the other shoreline, distance of 55 km, no 59 meter curvature whatsoever.

You only calculate the amount of drop from the arc beginning at the horizon point to the subject. Nothing is obscured until the horizon.

Exactly.

The horizon in this case is 47.6 km away. Meaning that we only calculate for a distance of 5.2 km to get the drop.

Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #39 on: July 23, 2014, 02:42:22 PM »
Here is another photograph taken by Mrs. Lecky Hepburn:

Taken from a high elevation.

TWO PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN IN HAMILTON, RIGHT ON THE BEACH:


What part of Toronto?  Where are some of Toronto's recognizable buildings?  There are plenty of locations along the shore much closer that those could be.


Another taken from a high elevation.

Viewing distant objects from any sort of elevation greatly reduces the amount of obstruction Earth's curvature will have.

Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #40 on: July 23, 2014, 02:52:47 PM »
The photos are seemingly from her ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENA page.  The last one, at least, is apparently showing a mirage.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2014, 03:05:29 PM »
The photos are seemingly from her ATMOSPHERIC PHENOMENA page.  The last one, at least, is apparently showing a mirage.
Fe'ers like to post pictures of mirages to claim great distances can be seen.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2014, 06:33:43 PM »
I'd still love to see actual imagery or video of restoration that some claim.

?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #43 on: July 23, 2014, 11:08:16 PM »

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.

If certain air conditions can make a boat fly, then maybe different ones can make a boat sink. ;)
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 11:10:48 PM by tappet »

Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #44 on: July 24, 2014, 12:25:55 AM »
If certain air conditions can make a boat fly, then maybe different ones can make a boat sink. ;)
Innuendo is not an argument.  What conditions do you think will cause the boat to appear to sink?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #45 on: July 24, 2014, 02:02:09 AM »
If certain air conditions can make a boat fly, then maybe different ones can make a boat sink. ;)
  What conditions do you think will cause the boat to appear to sink?
I don't know.
How about you explain to me why you are happy to believe certain air conditions can make a boat rise, but you do not believe certain air conditions can make a boat appear to sink.

?

Goth

  • 220
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #46 on: July 24, 2014, 02:21:33 AM »
If certain air conditions can make a boat fly, then maybe different ones can make a boat sink. ;)
Innuendo is not an argument.  What conditions do you think will cause the boat to appear to sink?



?

rottingroom

  • 4785
  • Around the world.
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #47 on: July 24, 2014, 06:16:40 AM »
If certain air conditions can make a boat fly, then maybe different ones can make a boat sink. ;)
  What conditions do you think will cause the boat to appear to sink?
I don't know.
How about you explain to me why you are happy to believe certain air conditions can make a boat rise, but you do not believe certain air conditions can make a boat appear to sink.

From this thread, I already linked to my thread where this was demonstrated.

Refraction occurs when a subject, such as light, goes from one type of medium into a lighter or denser medium. If it goes from a lighter medium to a denser medium, the light refracts toward the normal (in the atmosphere's case this would be downward), which in turn makes the object we are viewing appear to be higher. On the other hand, if it goes from a denser medium to a lighter medium, the light refract refracts away from the normal (in this atmosphere's case this would be upward), which in turn makes the object we are viewing appear to be lower.

Nevermind the fact that a sinking ship will happen every single time but the earths atmosphere is always denser the lower you go. There are times, on the earths surface, where there can be subrefraction over land because land can heat up and cool down very quickly but this is NOT the case with water. Over water there is ALWAYS a dense duct directly over the waters surface which causes trapping and typically above that exists a super refractive layer of air.

I have empirical proof of this. I launch weather balloons all the time. The air gets less dense the higher you go. I graph these findings and determine just how much refraction occurs and how that refraction will affect the propagation of a radar. In the Navy, surface search radars absolutely depend on utilizing the fact that radars will always perform better there than above the surface. We can see a target that is further away because the target is actually appearing to be higher than it really is, every single time.

The funny thing is, that in all these sinking ship pictures, the ship we are viewing is most likely behind the water obstruction and should not be viewable whatsoever, but because of the properties of water and how water affects the air directly above it, we can see some of the object we intend to view. Thanks to refraction, which again, does work both ways and sometimes can work the opposite way that I've explained here over land, but over water? NEVER.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #48 on: July 24, 2014, 09:10:28 AM »

I don't know.
How about you explain to me why you are happy to believe certain air conditions can make a boat rise, but you do not believe certain air conditions can make a boat appear to sink.

There's a lot you "don't know" isn't there?

To address your question:  Whilst it's solely the atmospheric conditions that cause the boat appear to "rise", the state of the atmosphere has nothing to do with the boat "sinking" and/or disappearing into the distance.  That's caused solely by the curved geometry of the earth's surface.

The boat will eventually disappear over the horizon regardless of the humidity, the ground level temperature, upper atmospheric temperature, or with a temperature inversion or the absence of one.


?

tappet

  • 2162
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #49 on: July 24, 2014, 01:35:27 PM »


There's a lot you "don't know" isn't there?

I agree, there is a lot I "don't know"
I put it down to my round earth indoctrination.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #50 on: July 25, 2014, 03:46:37 PM »

I agree, there is a lot I "don't know"
I put it down to my round earth indoctrination.

To be honest, I'd have to agree that there's a lot I don't know either.  Particularly about astrophysics and quantum mechanics and stuff like that.

Which is why I'm more than happy to accept—at first viewing—the research papers and theories of the scientists who have the intellectual prowess, and the academic qualifications, and the on-job experience who do know about this sort of stuff.  Things like "string theory" are way above my levels of comprehension;  my field was civil and structural engineering, so I know a lot about Newtonian physics, surveying, mechanics, hydraulics, structures etc.

I know a lot of flat earthers use the term "indoctrination" when talking about astrophysics and geophysics and the wider population.  The way you're using the word means to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief, theory or viewpoint.  Are you now going to tell me that every high school science teacher and every university lecturer is teaching from some as-yet undefined partisan or biassed perspective, all over the planet, in thousands of learning institutions?  Seriously?

Can you tell me why that'd be the case?  What particular advantages would you suggest this would give these teachers of the sciences?  Or are you maybe claiming that they'd be earning less money if they taught flat earth "theory", or are being paid more by some secret organisation to only teach round earth theory?


*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Ships at sea. The sinking below the horizon thing.
« Reply #51 on: July 26, 2014, 04:41:58 AM »
Our education in science is biased, but it is reasonably biased.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.