As the Ships Come Sailing In...

Look, I'm not really well-versed in science, but I do know empirical data when I see it.  Yes, it's interesting that light rays seem to shine down in a wide spread (though I have seen brilliant explainations for this that I'd need to look up, and it's not my argument anyway), but there's something I can't explain with the flat-earth theory.  I've seen it at the beach more than once, with the naked eye and with the zoom on my camera.  This isn't just the fact that the water looks to have a noticable curve when you look out at the ocean, but more to do with ships sailing out near the horizon.  I've seen ships pop up and down over the horizon before.  They're relatively close since I can still make out that they're ships, and see them get covered up by the water.  Looks almost like they're sinking.  Now, wouldn't something fade slowly as it gets further and further away if distance was the reason they disappeared?
Anyway, I may not even come back to check any replies to this, just thought I'd spark it up as a discussion topic.  

I'd love to be able to take a picture of the stars moving in a circle, but I don't have an SLR, and my digital only takes a grand total of 15 seconds worth of exposure. One of the limitations of even higher-end point 'n shoots.

The distance you can see is a function of the weather.  On a clear day, you can see Calais from Dover, a distance of some 20 miles.

The distance you can see is a function of the weather.

Not true, it is a result of the earth's curvature. The FE does not offer a valid explanation for this. Please see below for proof of a curvature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon
http://newton.ex.ac.uk/research/qsystems/people/sque/physics/horizon/

I believe the term is "0wn3d"

Quote from: "Sara H B Ranson"

The distance you can see is a function of the weather.

Not true, it is a result of the earth's curvature.

Did you misunderstand the proposition?

Have you not noticed you can see further on a clear day, than in the rain?

Did you misunderstand the proposition?

Have you not noticed you can see further on a clear day, than in the rain?

Yes, you can see further on a clear day than in the rain.
Do you have a point?

Yes, you can see further on a clear day than in the rain.

Hence, the distance you can see is a function of the weather.

Quote from: "bibicul"

Yes, you can see further on a clear day than in the rain.

Hence, the distance you can see is a function of the weather.

Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the initial question posed... I thought you were attempting to answer it, not start a new topic in an already-defined thread.

FFS Sara H B Ranson, just for you we will assume that it is a clear day.

Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the initial question posed....

Yes it does.  It's the reason you cannot see an infinite distance over the sea - water wapour in the air.

Quote from: "bibicul"

Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the initial question posed....

Yes it does.  It's the reason you cannot see an infinite distance over the sea - water wapour in the air.

Clearly it doesn't, since the initial question did not refer to infinite distances over the sea. It made reference to ships disappearing beyond the horizon and to the horizon line being curved.

I'd really hoped for a thoughtful answer to the question.  Though, in a sense, part of my question set was somewhat answered.   The noticable curvature of the earth on even a perfectly clear day is explained here as being water vapor over the ocean obscuring your view.  And if you know anything about three-dimensional viewing, you will recognize that sight is radial.  Now, I'm not going to put too much effort into this theory (I'll leave the flowering of it to the FE'rs), but the distance you can see would be slightly lessened to the left and right of dead center.  Imagine a completely dark room with a single, sharply-focussed light shining down, centered on you.  All you see is white, and at the edge, black.  The light's circle defines your depth of vision.  You wouldn't see it as a circle looking straight ahead.  It would look somewhat like the curved edge of a sphwere, I imagine.  Even more so if the spotlight was enormous and you were still standing there in the center.

Of course, this is all speculation as I've never done the experiment.  It'd be interesting to try.  Anything to further playful debate.

Though, none of this answers the second part of my post: Why do boats appear to bob in and out of the sea at the horizon?  Don't even think you can explain that one with visibility issues.  I have clearly seen ships sink below the horizon line.  And I damn well know they didn't fall off the side.

Ships disappear beyond the horizon due to the fact that the earth is curved. That's precisely what I stated initially.

Sh.  Trying to get an explaination out of those who don't foolishly believe that gravity naturally makes spheres due to its omnidirectional effect.

Ships disappear beyond the horizon due to the fact that the earth is curved. That's precisely what I stated initially.

Ships disappear because water saturation of the air prevents you seeing that far.

Ships disappear because water saturation of the air prevents you seeing that far.

That has already been refuted in the initial post:

They're relatively close since I can still make out that they're ships, and see them get covered up by the water.

Since it is stated that they are "relatively close" and that their shape can still be observed, that means they do not disappear because of eye-sight hindrance, but another reason (curved horizon). You are going around in circles.

That'd be a fine explaination if I could see the ship gradually fading out at the horizon.  Hell, it'd even work (poorly) if I saw them just blink out of view.  But I SEE THEM SINK UNDER THE HORIZON LINE.  Just like when the moon goes down and you see that magical white circle slowly sink below the horizon as though it's going underneath the earth.

Stop avoiding the question.

That'd be a fine explaination if I could see the ship gradually fading out at the horizon.  Hell, it'd even work (poorly) if I saw them just blink out of view.  But I SEE THEM SINK UNDER THE HORIZON LINE.  Just like when the moon goes down and you see that magical white circle slowly sink below the horizon as though it's going underneath the earth.

Stop avoiding the question.

I understand that's not addressed to me.  

Musta posted at about the same time.  No, not directed at you.

But I SEE THEM SINK UNDER THE HORIZON LINE.

Having worked at sea I can only say I do not think you do.

On a clear day you can see over 20 miles.  That's a bit far to determine if the largest super tanker is falling or fading.

Most days you cannot see 20 miles, or even 10.  So ships fade, not fall, under both RE and FE theory.

Quote from: "DragonXero"

But I SEE THEM SINK UNDER THE HORIZON LINE.

Having worked at sea I can only say I do not think you do.

On a clear day you can see over 20 miles.  That's a bit far to determine if the largest super tanker is falling or fading.

Most days you cannot see 20 miles, or even 10.  On most days, the ships fade under both RE and FE theory.

At this point of time you can use binoculars or a telescope; obviously a ship sinking beyond the line of horizon is governed by the same property as the sun sinking beyond the line of horizon. Thus, you only see part of it "sinking", not the entire object. In conclusion, sea vapors are still not a valid point.

Well, what you think I've seen and what I think I've seen seem to be out of phase here.
I'll trust my eyes and binoculars and not yours on this one.

As for atmosphere, where do you live?  I live in Northern California, where the water is extremely cold as it is flowing down (or out, depending on your worldview) from alaska.  Now, maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but I believe I've read that cold air provides a better medium of travel for light.  So I'd venture a guess that cold air/water = Greater distance of sight.

Well, what you think I've seen and what I think I've seen seem to be out of phase here.
I'll trust my eyes and binoculars and not yours on this one.

As for atmosphere, where do you live?  I live in Northern California, where the water is extremely cold as it is flowing down (or out, depending on your worldview) from alaska.  Now, maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but I believe I've read that cold air provides a better medium of travel for light.  So I'd venture a guess that cold air/water = Greater distance of sight.

Again, directed at Sara H B Ranson (I noticed he/she is a little confused on who the replies are written to).

Well, what you think I've seen and what I think I've seen seem to be out of phase here.
I'll trust my eyes and binoculars and not yours on this one.

You should not trust me at all.  You must work things out for yourself, as you've said.

So I'd venture a guess that cold air/water = Greater distance of sight.

Ice gives off water vapour, so you'll never get 100% clarity at sea.  Telescopes and binoculars cannot penetrate water vapour.

I dunno what the arguments are for camels in the desert.

I didn't say ice, I said extremely cold water.  Above 0C, but still cold enough to put someone into hypothermia.
I have never been in a large, featureless desert before, so I can't attest to the same phenomena occuring there.  I'd assume it does though.  

And going to a large, featureless desert would certainly show an interesting amount of earth curvature, unexplainable by water mist.

Here's an interesting view...
http://www.duck.org/flatearth/ships.asp

Interesting but just from a quick estimate (I'd need someone with some real math skills and a lot of knowledge of physics to back this up) I would say that it's not satisfactory.
Though, at least it's a solid, real answer to my question.  A refutable answer is still an answer.
Why refutable?  The theory of "gravity lenses", or gravity bending light, is in reference to celestial bodies over millions of miles, and the light is bent very little even over these astronomical distances.
In fact, the theory has a lot of evidence to support it.  We see certain things we really shouldn't see in space.  They really should be behind other things.  (sorry I'm not being too technical, can't be arsed to look up the names and such right now)  Yet, we see them.  The theory is that gravity is slightly bending the lightwaves/particles, which ends up letting us on Earth have a peek around the corner, so to speak.

Still, thanks for providing some kind of answer, finally.

Still, thanks for providing some kind of answer, finally.

It's the only respectable attempt at an answer that I was able to find...
Anyone else have any links?

Hey, you did good.  It's certainly convincing at first glance.  When I first hit the page I was like "well, hell, that's pretty good".

One little note.  This question is one of the reasons Aristotle first suspected something might be amiss with the flat earth cosmology.  I had completely forgotten about that.
Some of the others have to do with mathematics, so I'm sure this was what started his insane rush for a round earth.
That crazy old coot with his golf cart and buffet meal ticket.