1m Wave block 100m building

Quote from: zorbakim on October 13, 2018, 05:59:22 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on October 11, 2018, 01:17:07 AM

Keep looking.  << I've swapped the video for the original source video >>

Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... by MCtheEmcee1

But look from 0:15 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little closer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.

There is no way that waves can be hiding that ship. Look at these two screenshots:

The curvature of the earth cannot be so small.

What do you mean by "the curvature of the earth cannot be so small"?

Quote from: zorbakim

That's just the waves and swell.

There is no sign of significant swell in that video. The camera height is not given but one comment (by a flat-earther) is that it's about 33 ft (or 10 m).
This would make the (refracted) horizon about 12 km away with the nearer ship a little closer.

Waves would be visible along the sides of the nearer ship and any long period swell would lift the ships and none of that is visible.

I suggest you try again.

The sea is very different from the ground.
If the land is ideally flat, we can see very far.
But the sea isn't ideally flat.
The sea has wave and swell and much more refraction of light.

In short, The obscured height depends on eye level and wave height and horizon distance.
Horizon distance depends on the resolution and ID curve accuracy.
Reflection of light should also be considered.
So it is complex visual phenomena.

In short, The obscured height depends on eye level and wave height and horizon distance.
Horizon distance depends on the resolution and ID curve accuracy.
Reflection of light should also be considered.
So it is complex visual phenomena.

Stop just repeating the same nonsense.
The wave height is negligible. Yes, the horizon distance is important. For a FE, that should be infinitely far away. But for a RE it is dependent upon the eye height.
Resolution has no bearing on the distance to the horizon. All it does is make it difficult/impossible to resolve objects. That doesn't magically bring the horizon forward or move it backwards. Resolution is clearly not an issue as the boat is clearly resolvable.
Yes, refraction should be considered for a rigorous analysis. The refraction, especially over water, will make the horizon more distant for a RE, allowing you to see more than what you normally would. You should also be aware of mirages, but again, that clearly isn't an issue here.

It is far simpler than you are making it out to be.
The only reason you are pretending it is complex is because it shows Earth to be round.

Now, explain how the deck of the boat is under the horizon, which only makes sense for a FE if the boat is literally under water.

Zorbakim they never give you alone till you left this forum. You have not to reply them. Their only aim is either demotivate you, or if they can not achieve then insult you. So that, I recommend you continue your workings without affected by daninoz and jack, and others.

Your explanation is perfect if someone wants to get it. But whatever you do, can't stop them to target you mercilessly. As how While NASA doing chemtrails has nomercy to human beings, this team has nomercy to believers. No different.

Zorbakim they never give you alone till you left this forum. You have not to reply them. Their only aim is either demotivate you, or if they can not achieve then insult you. So that, I recommend you continue your workings without affected by daninoz and jack, and others.

Your explanation is perfect if someone wants to get it. But whatever you do, can't stop them to target you mercilessly. As how While NASA doing chemtrails has nomercy to human beings, this team has nomercy to believers. No different.

You're right.

Quote from: wise on October 15, 2018, 05:42:06 AM

Zorbakim they never give you alone till you left this forum. You have not to reply them. Their only aim is either demotivate you, or if they can not achieve then insult you. So that, I recommend you continue your workings without affected by daninoz and jack, and others.

Your explanation is perfect if someone wants to get it. But whatever you do, can't stop them to target you mercilessly. As how While NASA doing chemtrails has nomercy to human beings, this team has nomercy to believers. No different.

You're right.

I want to show everybody how a "positive critism" has to be as follow.

I have two point to submit your review.

The first one; perspective. Far objects shrinks when they go further away. It makes easier their stay behind os a small wave. You can consider this perspective then the small wave completely covers the high object behind it. I mean, you can show the ship far smaller than you show in drawing.

Another point, refractive index of water. Air is heavy near sea level. Has more water near the sea level. So that, the refractive index of air near sea level and high altitudes are different. So that, light refraction inside ocean. In other say, whether if there was no any wind and eave, you would not seen the ship because of refraction index of water.

Another point, refractive index of water. Air is heavy near sea level. Has more water near the sea level. So that, the refractive index of air near sea level and high altitudes are different.

The relationship between air density and index of refraction is well known. Air at lower altitudes has a greater index or refraction than air at higher altitudes because air is denser at lower altitudes. This will cause objects at low elevation angles to appear higher than they actually are.

What is less well known is the relationship between the density of humid and dry air. Water-saturated air is less dense than dry air at the same temperature and pressure. Why? Because water molecules (H₂O) are lighter (~18 grams/mole) than diatomic nitrogen (N₂; ~28 g/mol) or diatomic oxygen (O₂; ~32 g/mol). N₂ and O₂ molecules make up about 99% of air. Since water vapor is only a small constituent of air, it has a very minor effect, but the effect is there.

So that, light refraction inside ocean. In other say, whether if there was no any wind and eave, you would not seen the ship because of refraction index of water.

Are you talking about liquid water (which has a very high index of refraction compared to air) or the water vapor in humid air (which has an index of refraction less^[1] than dry air)?

Presuming you're talking about humid air, the effect you're claiming is opposite what actually happens. At any rate, the effect of air humidity on atmospheric refraction is tiny; objects at low elevation angles still appear higher than they actually are, only a tiny amount less than if the air were dry (all else the same). The presence of high humidity in the atmosphere not cause objects to appear to sink below the surface.

1. http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_5/2_5_7.html

[edit] correct typos

You have not to reply them.

If they want people to take them seriously, they would need to respond to the numerous flaws pointed out.

Their only aim is either demotivate you, or if they can not achieve then insult you.

You seem to be projecting. That is your aim, to demotivate or insult anyone that challenges you so you can pretend your nonsense is justified.
Even in this post of yours you are insulting those challenging your worldview.

My aim here is to stand up for the truth, pointing out garbage when I see it and explaining what the problem is.

Your explanation is perfect if someone wants to get it.

You mean if someone wants to believe that Earth is flat and is willing to believe any nonsense required to pretend it works.
However for those which actually care about the truth and having explanations which match and can explain reality, it is abysmal.
It fails in almost every respect, and he has continually avoided these issues.

If you truly thought it was perfect in the sense of explaining reality you would have explained away all these issues, yet they remain.
There is still no explanation for why the further ship appears to have its deck below water, nor how a wave would be able to obscure the view to a distant object when you are above the wave.

If you need a simple example for a comparison, go find a tall building and stand some distance away. Now close one eye. Now hold your thumb over your eye. Notice how your thumb blocks the view of the building?
Now lower your thumb, but still keep it in front of you. Notice how now when it is below your eye level it no longer obstructs the view of the building?
The nonsense in the OP is claiming that your thumb is still blocking the building, even though it isn't in the way at all and you can still clearly see the building. i.e. it completely fails.

Another point, refractive index of water. Air is heavy near sea level. Has more water near the sea level. So that, the refractive index of air near sea level and high altitudes are different.

The refractive index of water and water vapour are vastly different. Ignoring pressure differences, air vapour and air rich in water vapour has a lower refractive index than dry air. Water vapour (and air rich in water vapour) is less dense than dry air.

However this causes the air to rise as it is less dense, and the pressure gradient remains.

In other say, whether if there was no any wind and eave, you would not seen the ship because of refraction index of water.

If what you were saying is true, with the refractive index higher the lower you go (which it generally is except in rare cases where there are obvious distortions), you would see further around the curve and around obstructions like hills.
It causes light to bend downwards. So no, that doesn't explain why objects are hidden.

Quote from: zorbakim on October 08, 2018, 06:46:48 AM

1m high wave at eye level can cover 100m building.
Because the waves are near but the building is far from.

This is true. I have a working about it, that somewhere in here or another website.

In the simplest term, Although the sight distance is much shorter in a rough sea, you can visually follow a ship up to tens of kilometers in the sea without wind. this may extend equal to the distance to the horizon on the land; if there is no wind.

The first inherent problem is that your eyes would need to be level with the base of the wave, meaning that you would have be in the water, otherwise your eye level will be above a 1M wave (assuming an average height of a person).  So your 1M wave would have to be 1M above your eyesight, which depending on your height would make the wave quite large and noticeable.

I want to show everybody how a "positive critism" has to be as follow.

I have two point to submit your review.

The first one; perspective. Far objects shrinks when they go further away. It makes easier their stay behind os a small wave. You can consider this perspective then the small wave completely covers the high object behind it. I mean, you can show the ship far smaller than you show in drawing.

Another point, refractive index of water. Air is heavy near sea level. Has more water near the sea level. So that, the refractive index of air near sea level and high altitudes are different. So that, light refraction inside ocean. In other say, whether if there was no any wind and eave, you would not seen the ship because of refraction index of water.

You claim that "The first one; perspective. Far objects shrinks when they go further away. It makes easier their stay behind os a small wave."
But if the observer or camera is well above wave height that is irrelevant! Look at the ships in this video and screenshots!

Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... by MCtheEmcee1

But look from 0:15 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little closer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.

There is no way that waves can be hiding that ship. Look at these two screenshots:

There are no waves there obscuring the view!

Then you claim "Another point, refractive index of water. Air is heavy near sea level."

But no again.
That is totally incorrect! Water might be much heavier that air but water vapour is lighter that air and has a lower refractive index.
So humid air is both lighter and has a lower refractive index than dry air.

For comparison at various levels of humidity (for red light):
R.H. %     Ref Index
    0        1.0002729
  50        1.0002725
100        1.0002434 

So, no the humid air over water does not refract light more than dry air.
I do wish you flat-earthers would stop making silly excuses for such obvious evidence of water curving over the Globe!

Interesting how some people claim light bends over water when it suits their needs, and insist it goes straight over water when defending Rowbotham/Bedford.

Interesting how some people claim light bends over water when it suits their needs, and insist it goes straight over water when defending Rowbotham/Bedford.

And how their refraction is "upside down" making the sun appear to set  behind the horizon and hiding ships as they go "past the horizon".

I don't know which fits flatardians more aptly:

• "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing" or
• "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise".

Zorbakim if you look above so see many posts target me mercilessly. Look what I'll do about them: nothing. Because these are just a bunch  of angry globarists, and whichever I put forward perfect evidences they will deny them all.

Anyway I'm still waiting for your review about my points.

Zorbakim if you look above so see many posts target me mercilessly.

Have you ever wondered why?
Perhaps it is because you continually spout crap and refuse to back it up?
Perhaps because, unlike you, some people care about the truth and will call out falsehoods?

You say you have no interest in debate yet continually post in a debate forum.
If you don't want to defend your isane claims stay in the preaching section of the fora.

No, I don't wonder why.

No, I don't wonder why.

So you know why? You know that what you are spouting is garbage, just like that horribly incorrect picture?
You don't have a short person standing in the water getting their feet wet with a small part of a small ship being obscured.

Focus on the video Rab provided.
You have 2 cargo ships, one nice and close (in front of the horizon) where you can see all the way to the water level on the ship.
You then have a ship further away where all the way up past the deck of the ship is below the horizon.
No wave can explain that.

Your picture is also horribly wrong. You go from a 5m tall ship to a tiny ship. Here is a more accurate version, which is too scale, and the ship doesn't magically shrink.

Notice that no more than 1 m is ever obscured?
Notice that it only blocks a tiny portion of the near ship?
Notice that it doesn't block any of the distant ship?
So no, waves can't explain how the ship is hidden, and your picture is pure nonsense.

Rab is a racist in my ignore list. So I can not focus on it. So that I've lost my motivate on your post. Please take care do not mention racists. There are many here. You are an angry globarist but not a racist, at least till now.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67361.msg2109199#msg2109199

Getting a racist as an adress makes us to look your claims doubtful. You are not sincere when you mention a racist as an adress.

Now his time to cry to the admins: "wise said me racist, wise said me racist". Did I forced him to insult my race?

Rab is a racist in my ignore list.

In other words, you cannot refute my posts so you ignore my posts. Not very honest is it, Mr UnWise?

Rab is a racist in my ignore list.

And there you go ignoring the point yet again, even when I was nice and didn't split your post to try and make you happy. Thanks for showing you don't really care how people respond to you; if they challenge you you will come up with some BS to dismiss their post.

Now how about you act like a rational adult for once and actually address the point?

If you are above a 1 m tall wave on a flat surface, then the most that can be obscured of a distant object is 1 m.
If this object is right next to the wave, almost that full 1 m will be obscured. If the object is much further away, then far less than 1 m will be obscured.

As such, WAVES CANNOT EXPLAIN DISAPPEARING SHIPS!

Now, can you address this?

If not, run back to your preaching safe space.

The earth has considerable contradictions.
We know it by intuition but are deceived by concept.
The earth is a just concept, especially a mathematical concept.
The reality is not mathematics at all.

Wise, I appreciate your advice and will be careful.

The earth has considerable contradictions.
We know it by intuition but are deceived by concept.
The earth is a just concept, especially a mathematical concept.
The reality is not mathematics at all.

Wise, I appreciate your advice and will be careful.

Just to clear up one important point.
Your "1m Wave block 100m building" is based on the incorrect assumption that the eye-height Is at sea-level but it never can be.

Now you say that "reality is not mathematics" but mathematics can be used to explain reality. Here is the relevant scene from your video:Now for brevity let:
      the eye height above sea-level be called h_eye,
      the wave height above sea-level be called h_wave,
      the distance to the wave be called d_wave and
      thedistance to the object be called d_object.

Now, on the flat earth it is easy enough to show that the hidden height cannot be more than h_wave + (h_wave - h_eye) × (d_object - d_wave)/d_wave

Now in your drawing eye-level is right at sea-level so
      if the distance from the wave to the object is 100 times the distance to the wave then you will get your 100 m hidden by a 1 m wave.

But in the video I showed, the camera is about 10 m above sea-level and the first ship is roughly 10 km away.
Hence, as an example, a 5 m wave 5 km away would hide no more than 5 + (5 - 10)×(10 - 5)/5 = 0 m of the nearer ship.

To put it simply, if the eye-height Is greater than the wave-height the line-of-sight is looking down and the wave blocks nothing past a certain distance.

---

This post is sort of a "work in progress" and I will check it more when I get the chance.

The earth has considerable contradictions.

Not really. There are just lots of things which people don't understand and lots of thing which are complex which simple analysis incorrectly predicts.

The earth is a just concept, especially a mathematical concept.

No, Earth is a physical object existing in reality. Math is just used to describe it.

Wise, I appreciate your advice and will be careful.

His advice is only relevant for those with no interest in the truth.
If you wish to follow in his footsteps then this is not a forum for you as this forum is for debate.

Now how about you respond to all the issues raised?
Why don't you tell us why in the video you plot a diagonal line corresponding to the angular size of the wave magically increasing when you focus on a more distant object, even though it must remain constant?
Why don't you tell us how a wave, completely below you and the object, can magically obstruct the view to that object?
While you are at it, why don't you also tell us how our thumbs magically don't do this, even though I can easily block any object from view using my thumb?

Do you actually care about the truth and want to find a model that works, or do you just want to pretend Earth is flat and use whatever nonsense you can to pretend it works?

No it isn't, not in the slightest.
If you wish to claim it is true, deal with all the problems already pointed out with it, don't just spout the same garbage.

Speaking of spouting the same garbage . . .   

The earth has considerable contradictions.
We know it by intuition but are deceived by concept.
The earth is a just concept, especially a mathematical concept.
The reality is not mathematics at all.

Wise, I appreciate your advice and will be careful.

From Table at 1:59 - The claim is “Then only 0.47m high wave can cover about 70% of the 10m high building”.

I’m not seeing it. That little speck in the image below just to the bottom right of the 10m building is the 0.47m wave at the visible distance you cite of 7.4km.

Parameters (Using a Flat Earth Simulator):

Table First Row (1:59)
2m Observer Height
10m tall object - 10km distance
0.47m wave - 7.4km in front of the Observer (Visible Distance)
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator

From Table at 1:59 - The claim is “Then only 0.47m high wave can cover about 70% of the 10m high building”.

I’m not seeing it. That little speck in the image below just to the bottom right of the 10m building is the 0.47m wave at the visible distance you cite of 7.4km.

You are confusing the numbers. The 7.4 km distance is meant to be where the horizon is. There is no basis for that number at all, it is just where he wants it to be.

But there are so many issues with that table it isn't funny.
To start with, the wave which is below your eye level (as the wave is 0.47 m and you are 2 m) yet it is magically obscuring several m?
Then to make it worse, the further away objects have even more obscured, even though the wave being below you means less is obscured. Additionally, this doesn't even follow the simple linear trend expected if your eye height was 1 m.

You are confusing the numbers. The 7.4 km distance is meant to be where the horizon is. There is no basis for that number at all, it is just where he wants it to be.

But there are so many issues with that table it isn't funny.
To start with, the wave which is below your eye level (as the wave is 0.47 m and you are 2 m) yet it is magically obscuring several m?
Then to make it worse, the further away objects have even more obscured, even though the wave being below you means less is obscured. Additionally, this doesn't even follow the simple linear trend expected if your eye height was 1 m.

How about this:

On a flat earth assuming 2m observer height, to obscure 70% of the 10m tower 10km away, if I put the wave at the midpoint (5km), the wave would have to be 4.66m tall:



On a flat earth assuming 2m observer height, to obscure 70% of the 10m tower 10km away, if I put the wave at 2.5km it would have to be 3.35m tall:



On a flat earth assuming 2m observer height, to obscure 70% of the 10m tower 10km away, if I put the wave at 500m it would have to be 2.27m tall:



Lastly, on a flat earth assuming 2m observer height, I couldn’t get a 0.47 wave to obscure anything at any distance. To be expected.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 18, 2018, 12:10:39 AM

You are confusing the numbers. The 7.4 km distance is meant to be where the horizon is. There is no basis for that number at all, it is just where he wants it to be.

But there are so many issues with that table it isn't funny.
To start with, the wave which is below your eye level (as the wave is 0.47 m and you are 2 m) yet it is magically obscuring several m?
Then to make it worse, the further away objects have even more obscured, even though the wave being below you means less is obscured. Additionally, this doesn't even follow the simple linear trend expected if your eye height was 1 m.

How about this:

On a flat earth assuming 2m observer height, to obscure 70% of the 10m tower 10km away, if I put the wave at the midpoint (5km), the wave would have to be 4.66m tall:

On a flat earth assuming 2m observer height, to obscure 70% of the 10m tower 10km away, if I put the wave at 2.5km it would have to be 3.35m tall:

On a flat earth assuming 2m observer height, to obscure 70% of the 10m tower 10km away, if I put the wave at 500m it would have to be 2.27m tall:

Lastly, on a flat earth assuming 2m observer height, I couldn’t get a 0.47 wave to obscure anything at any distance. To be expected.

So 1m high wave at eye level cannot cover a 100m building unless I am underwater with my eyes right at water level.
Should we insist that zorbakim show us his photographs taken under these conditions .
After all I showed a video of ships off Woollongong taken from about 10 m above sea-level that clearly showed an almost hidden ship.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 18, 2018, 12:10:39 AM

You are confusing the numbers. The 7.4 km distance is meant to be where the horizon is. There is no basis for that number at all, it is just where he wants it to be.

But there are so many issues with that table it isn't funny.
To start with, the wave which is below your eye level (as the wave is 0.47 m and you are 2 m) yet it is magically obscuring several m?
Then to make it worse, the further away objects have even more obscured, even though the wave being below you means less is obscured. Additionally, this doesn't even follow the simple linear trend expected if your eye height was 1 m.

How about this:

On a flat earth assuming 2m observer height, to obscure 70% of the 10m tower 10km away, if I put the wave at the midpoint (5km), the wave would have to be 4.66m tall:



On a flat earth assuming 2m observer height, to obscure 70% of the 10m tower 10km away, if I put the wave at 2.5km it would have to be 3.35m tall:



On a flat earth assuming 2m observer height, to obscure 70% of the 10m tower 10km away, if I put the wave at 500m it would have to be 2.27m tall:



Lastly, on a flat earth assuming 2m observer height, I couldn’t get a 0.47 wave to obscure anything at any distance. To be expected.

Not necessarily a reply to you but...

So what happens when the ships are anchored at those positions?  Is the wave height constant at the point?  Waves move, wouldn't the wave eventual reach me or the ship causing one us to raise up to see the entire ship?  But that doesn't happen.  When I'm or the ship is on the peak of the wave what's blocking the ship from view a wave that's even taller?  As that reaches one of us, what's now blocking the view, an even taller wave?  ETC.....

I hope you get where I'm going with this.

Not necessarily a reply to you but...

So what happens when the ships are anchored at those positions?  Is the wave height constant at the point?  Waves move, wouldn't the wave eventual reach me or the ship causing one us to raise up to see the entire ship?  But that doesn't happen.  When I'm or the ship is on the peak of the wave what's blocking the ship from view a wave that's even taller?  As that reaches one of us, what's now blocking the view, an even taller wave?  ETC.....

I hope you get where I'm going with this.

I agree. A wave isn't a fixed obstruction. It's moving. This model presumes that in all circumstances, when viewing a ship moving away from your fixed position, disappearing hull first, the obscuring waves must be perpetually growing. The waves must get taller and taller to finally completely obscure the ship...In all observations of the effect, everywhere on the planet.

A much simpler and more realistic explanation is that the ship moves below the horizon due to earth's curvature.

I have made a working about how a wave blocks shipd behind it and published in the place that angry globists spread their rubbish on it. In short, theorically it blocks. Scientifically it blocks. Whatever any of you claim some rubbish can not change the reality.

I have made a working about how a wave blocks shipd behind it and published in the place that angry globists spread their rubbish on it. In short, theorically it blocks. Scientifically it blocks. Whatever any of you claim some rubbish can not change the reality.

Sure, Mr Wise, your "rubbish cannot change the reality".

If the earth were flat a "1m Wave" could not "block 100m building" unless the camera or observers eye were at sea-level.
That's very simply geometry and nothing that you claim can change that!