Things dissapearing behind the horizon - how?

Please do not make low content posts in the upper fora.  It is against the rules. 

More Evidence, I have found the exact position of where the ship photo is shot now so....



The crane looking structures on the left of the container ship is actually one of these...
(Suez shipyard wet dock)

or even more likely, due to the structure, this (Suez shipyard Dry dock)


more evidence that more is missing than the refracted light from the mirage accounts for

Oh, jroa, those "trees in the background" you refereed to are actually substantial 20 odd story buildings near the port of Suaz.
(Cruising from the port of Suez towards the canal)

This series of pictures shows ships between 15-25km from the observer, photographed from both sea level and 12m altitude.  Also included are pictures of the distant shoreline of the island that lies across the bay, from both sea level and 12m altitude.  There are examples of photos taken at magnifications of 1:1, 8:1 and 28:1. 

In these series are shown;

1. ships at 8 times magnification viewed from different elevations, the higher elevations revealing more of the hulls than are visible at sea level (0m)
2. Island coastland viewed at 8x magnification from different elevations, with more of the lower view of the coast visible from higher elevations
3. 28x telescope images of selected views of both coastal land and ships showing that higher magnification does not increase the proportion of the subject viewable but that higher elevation does increase the proportion of the subject that is visible.

Note: Some images have been reduced in size to make comparisons easier, the full view is available by cliking the image.


Ship 1, 1x mag. 12m alt. (enlarged to show detail)

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 1, 8x mag. 0m alt.  (note ship 2 behind ship1. The hull of ship 2 is not even visible)

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 2, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 2, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 3, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 3, 28x mag. 0m alt. 

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 2, 28x mag. 1.5m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Ship 2, 28x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Dune, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Dune, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Houses on hill, 8x mag. 0m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Houses on hill, 28x mag. 1.5m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Houses on hill, 8x mag. 12m alt.

Ships Below the Horizon by max_wedge, on Flickr

Please do not make low content posts in the upper fora.  It is against the rules.

I find it funny when you FE take pictures of mirages of cities across a lake and go "This is proof of flat Earth"

But when a picture turns up of a ship hidden behind the horizon, you go "That's a mirage"

Please do not make low content posts in the upper fora.  It is against the rules.

I would point out multiple low content posts in the upper fora made by you within last few days, but I will skip that.

Your sinking mirrage relies on ATMOSPHERIC CONDITION. What if no specific atmospheric conditions are met?

What about other surfaces? Not only water is what you have to take into account. And this thread covers all cases.

Well I guess due to the fact Flat Earthers have stopped responding.

Globe Earthers won this one.

Well I guess due to the fact Flat Earthers have stopped responding.

Globe Earthers won this one.

You don't think that people might possibly simply get bored discussing the same topic over and over? 

Quote from: yobbo on January 09, 2016, 09:40:34 PM

Well I guess due to the fact Flat Earthers have stopped responding.

Globe Earthers won this one.

You don't think that people might possibly simply get bored discussing the same topic over and over?

No I tend to think Flat Earthers got proven wrong, so stopped responding.

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 09:49:42 PM

Quote from: yobbo on January 09, 2016, 09:40:34 PM

Well I guess due to the fact Flat Earthers have stopped responding.

Globe Earthers won this one.

You don't think that people might possibly simply get bored discussing the same topic over and over?

No I tend to think Flat Earthers got proven wrong, so stopped responding.

Or, we simply get bored of threads that present dozens of pictures that use up the bandwidth on our portable devices for no gain of our own and start ignoring those threads. 

Quote from: yobbo on January 09, 2016, 09:52:28 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 09, 2016, 09:49:42 PM

Quote from: yobbo on January 09, 2016, 09:40:34 PM

Well I guess due to the fact Flat Earthers have stopped responding.

Globe Earthers won this one.

You don't think that people might possibly simply get bored discussing the same topic over and over?

No I tend to think Flat Earthers got proven wrong, so stopped responding.

Or, we simply get bored of threads that present dozens of pictures that use up the bandwidth on our portable devices for no gain of our own and start ignoring those threads. 

Dozens of pictures that support Globe Earth.

Quote from: yobbo on January 09, 2016, 09:40:34 PM

Well I guess due to the fact Flat Earthers have stopped responding.

Globe Earthers won this one.

You don't think that people might possibly simply get bored discussing the same topic over and over?

If you could, for once, provide a valid explaination of the effect, without hand-waving, without a link where the reader has to guess how to apply the effect, without changing the topic etc, then we would not have to discuss the same topic over and over.

This is yet another thing I do not understand in FE model. FE has to explain how ships, buildings etc dissapear always starting from the bottom.

Here are three most common "explainations", that are in my opinion wrong.

1. Refraction.

Here, we have a mirage. The mirage that could bend the light so the bottom is invisible would require specific distribution of air's density/layers. This happens only due to specific atmospheric conditions such as temperature/preassure. Since things dissapear at any wather conditions, refraction cannot be the case.

2.  Large things can be hidden behind small things.

While this is true in general (you can cover the Moon with your thumb), it stops working on oceans.

See this picture:

and the math I made few weeks ago:

Quote from: Brouwer on November 21, 2015, 01:00:03 AM

What can hide the base of buildings from the OP? The only reasonable thing that comes to the mind is a wave.

Lets say that the eye-level is 2m above the sea level. The highest building is ~300m tall (seems reasonable for such buildings), half of it is hidden, and the distance is ~30km.

Lets look at the image once again. The top of the wave (which is the only reasonable thing that could cover the building) seems to be few km away. Lets say 5km (even if it was "only" 2km, it would still cause massive problem, see later).

Then it turns out that the top of the wave is around 26.69m (around 10m tall for 2km distance) above the actual see level.

The image does not show that, but I bet you will not see this wave moving at all. Also, almost 27m tall wave would be a massive danger for all people living near the coast. Tsunami are deadly.

It is obvious that the further the wave (or whatever blocking the building is), the taller it has to be to block proper amount of the view.

So this argument falls apart.

Let me add that it is impossible for the wave to stant still 10m above the sea level while maintaining the distance to the observer while the time passes. This would also imply that such wave would have to be visible from any given point on the ocean, which is impossible.

3.  Perspective

I find this my favourite, as it is inlcuded in wiki, which copies Rowbotham's work (see his book). I have no words to express myself,
but whoever copied that to wiki, made an error. When you explain something, make sure you explain it in a correct way...

Anyway, here is my comment:

Quote from: Brouwer on November 07, 2015, 10:49:31 PM

Perspective makes object moving away from you smaller. [...]

Perspective does not make one object above the other object hide behind.

Perspective does not make one object partially dissapear by the other when moving away if the moving object is constantly above.

Finally, perspective wouldn't make a Sun near as close to the horizon as the picture shows. With current numbers (diameter of the disk and the distance to the Sun), the Sun would always be at least 10 angular degrees over the horizon. The horizon is at 0 degress (eye level), so the mostleft Sun would be the lowest possible position of the Sun in FE model.

Comments are in relation to this picture:


Further comments concerning perspective:
1. Your vanishing point is not a single point. It varies depending on the size of objects. Small objects are "invisible" for naked eye quicker than large objects.
2. Two objects of the same size should "disspaer" due to the perspective (distance) ~at the same time. It is impossible that the roof of the building will stand there while the base will dissapear.
3. While you claim vanishing point to be just a few miles away, you can at the same time see things that are 50-100+miles away. This makes no sense. See point 1.


I put into serious discussion the following: what causes things to dissapear? If you have serious ideas including explainations, please share.

A note for brainless people - this thread is related to FE model and is not supposed to prove that FE is wrong. It is supposed to clarify an optical event withing FE model.

It's because the Earth is round, not flat.