1m Wave block 100m building

As I can see, you two are clones. Perhaps one of ignored one. So that you've been ignored. I will not add you to signature but announce you as clones.

i.e. you have no rational response, no ability to defend your claims, so you make up excuses to ignore people and pretend you haven't been refuted yet again.

It also matches how you repeatedly post your alleged workings in the preachers only section, where it can't get refuted.

With the data you posted, notice how you are basically just pushing it to be horizontal, and then having the wave contribute nothing at all.
Likewise, the buildings are being placed so far away they are shrinking to basically nothing.
This is not a wave blocking the view, it would simply be the object getting too small to see.
But we have devices (e.g. telescopes) that greatly enhance our resolution, allowing us to see these objects much further away.


You are also using radians to make the angles look deceptively small. The limit of human resolution (unaided) is roughly 1 arc minute or 0.0003 radians, so telescopes can easily bring it back into view without the wave obstructing it at all. The 0.0005 degrees you worked out before as the limit of resolution works out to be 0.00000872664626 radians.

But why bother appealing to that when you aren't doing anything like the real world examples given? We aren't talking about a 3m tall ship. Each of the containers on the ship is likely ~ 3 m tall (the standard size is 2.89 m. The ship itself would be 10s of m tall.

Even for your extreme examples, it is clear to see that the building is not obstructed. You have the building/ship at 1.5708, while the wave only blocks to 1.5707. That means the building/ship would be above the wave and still visible (at least with a telescope). You even calculate that ~33% of the building will be visible.

Also, rather than do as the OP had and have a near wave blocking a distant building, you have a wave which is roughly 66~ of the building's height, right next to the building. It isn't surprising that effectively putting a 2 m tall object directly in front (they may as well be touching considering the distance involved) of a 3 m tall object will block the lower 2 m. Likewise, if you were to paint that lower section a different colour, it would be a different color.

If you do it more honestly and inline with the OP, having a near wave and a distant building, such as by keeping the wave at 100 m, then you get vastly different results with the wave never obscuring the building at all.
Alternatively, making it a building which is 10 m tall results in only 20% being obscured even with your dishonest setup.

And we see that lowering the height of the observe to 2 m matching the 2m tall wave results in the lower 2 m being blocked.

It is only when you did what the OP did, pretending the person is below the wave were you made the wave 2 m tall and the person only 1.65 that you were finally able to block the view. But no one is arguing against that.

And rather than show it as an angle of dip, i.e. relative to looking straight out you instead compare it to looking straight down, and use a bunch of unneeded math in the process.
All you need to do to find that peak, if you want to find the angle of elevation would be (using the wave in the below picture) angle=atan(Hwe/dw), noting that if the wave is below the person, the Hwe is negative and so is the angle. Using your variables that would be atan((D-H)/L)


I have remade your spreadsheet, with this correction, and with the angles converted to degrees, and with the wave staying close if anyone wants to look:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YbEW7cJwlRrNzacdn8OeLiLVUqdNxr1GVYO1buWJezU/edit?usp=sharing

And how insulting to everyone, you claim that you are exposing dishonesty of REers, when everything in that pile of garbage of yours is dishonest.
Grow up.

tltr;

As everytime you do, you have not convincing claims so that use long posts. I have already proved raboniz claims being wrong are here:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2109982#msg2109982

Whether you agree or not, this is the truth. Mathametically, geometrically and trigonometrically I have proved it. Now you can claim I'm wrong by using language barrier or I don't care your rubbish claims. I have noticed one more time your baseless insults caused by a clear admin support.

Anyway. Since you are supporting the rinobaz the racist, so answer this question:



Where is the observer? Is observe point higher than wave highness or not? Prove this.

Grow up and give up the dishonesty.

tltr;
As everytime you do, you have not convincing claims so that use long posts. I have already proved raboniz claims being wrong are here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=dlladbadlmdo6mk2fb8f4f9k13&topic=66236.msg2109982#new

No you have done nothing of the sort!  You post this:

I have already proved raboniz claims being wrong are here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2109982#msg2109982
Whether you agree or not, this is the truth.

No, Wise, it is not "the truth"!

Mathametically, geometrically and trigonometrically I have proved it.

Now you can claim I'm wrong by using language barrier or I don't care your rubbish claims.


Where is the observer? Is observe point higher than wave highness or not? Prove this.

Stop pretending silly stuff like this "I have already proved raboniz claims being wrong are here"! That's total rubbish.

The observer is about 10 m above sea-level and the nearer ship is about 10 km away from the observer.
And that is not a wave higher than the observer. There are no big waves! Look at the video again.
If there were any big waves you would see the ships rise and fall at different times as the wave moved in towards the coast!
And you do not see that in the video, so have amother look:

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!

Grow up and give up the dishonesty.

The nearer ship is slightly closer than the very clear and sharp ocean-atmosphere.
The ship further further away is clearly hidden  behind the curve in the surface of the ocean. Look again, honestly this time!

As everytime you do, you have not convincing claims so that use long posts. I have already proved raboniz claims being wrong are here:

No, as always, I explain in detail why you are wrong, making it clear why you are wrong.
And like always, you have no rational response.

Whether you agree or not, this is the truth. Mathametically, geometrically and trigonometrically I have proved it.

And you have failed to prove your initial claim, or the claim of the OP.
You have failed to show that a wave below or level with you is capable of obstructing any part of an object higher than the wave, e.g. hiding it from view. You have failed to show that a near wave below you is capable of blocking any significant part of a distant object. You have failed to show that a wave below you would make an object appear to disappear from the bottom up as it gets further away.

Instead you have just made pathetic strawmen where you have shown distant objects have a small angular size which can make them impossible to view with the naked eye. No one was claiming otherwise. That doesn't explain why it would disappear from the bottom up and has nothing to do with waves.
You also repeated the irrelevant nonsense of the OP of being below a wave allows the wave to obstruct your view. No one was objecting to that.

What people were objecting to was the OP's claim that this magically explain why objects disappear from the bottom up, which in order to apply to reality needs to include waves significantly below you obstructing distant objects which are also above the wave.
You have failed to do that.

Now you can claim I'm wrong by using language barrier

No, I have already shown you to be wrong, explaining why.

As for your question, yes I see the waves, and I can also see that behind them, the water behind them. This shows the waves are below the height of the observer. What you are pretending is a wave is the horizon.

Grow up and give up the dishonesty.

Follow your own advice. You are the one continually acting like a child and repeatedly spouting dishonest crap. When you cant refute you act like a child again and just throw pathetic insults and lie.

Grow up and stop with the dishonesty.

Either defend your claims or get lost.

The observer is about 10 m above sea-level and the nearer ship is about 10 km away from the observer.

Prove it. Because it seems less.

Quote from: rabinoz on October 21, 2018, 01:58:15 AM

The observer is about 10 m above sea-level and the nearer ship is about 10 km away from the observer.

Prove it. Because it seems less.

He can not. You'll see, he can not prove anything. Because he only knows racist speeches.

Prove it. Because it seems less.

Inky, did you make another account?

What makes you say it seems less?
While we can't be certain about 10 m, we can be certain it is above the waves, as we see waves and the water behind the waves.
The exact height and the exact distance aren't important, as a FE can't explain how the further ship appears to be sunk.

He can not. You'll see, he can not prove anything. Because he only knows racist speeches.

I see you are now patting yourself on the back and projecting your own inadequacies onto others.
But you typically find other ways of insulting or dismissing people, just as lying and calling them racists.

Quote from: wise on October 21, 2018, 01:32:28 AM

As everytime you do, you have not convincing claims so that use long posts. I have already proved raboniz claims being wrong are here:

No, as always, I explain in detail why you are wrong, making it clear why you are wrong.
And like always, you have no rational response.

Quote from: wise on October 21, 2018, 01:32:28 AM

Whether you agree or not, this is the truth. Mathametically, geometrically and trigonometrically I have proved it.

And you have failed to prove your initial claim, or the claim of the OP.
You have failed to show that a wave below or level with you is capable of obstructing any part of an object higher than the wave, e.g. hiding it from view. You have failed to show that a near wave below you is capable of blocking any significant part of a distant object. You have failed to show that a wave below you would make an object appear to disappear from the bottom up as it gets further away.

Instead you have just made pathetic strawmen where you have shown distant objects have a small angular size which can make them impossible to view with the naked eye. No one was claiming otherwise. That doesn't explain why it would disappear from the bottom up and has nothing to do with waves.
You also repeated the irrelevant nonsense of the OP of being below a wave allows the wave to obstruct your view. No one was objecting to that.

What people were objecting to was the OP's claim that this magically explain why objects disappear from the bottom up, which in order to apply to reality needs to include waves significantly below you obstructing distant objects which are also above the wave.
You have failed to do that.

Quote from: wise on October 21, 2018, 01:32:28 AM

Now you can claim I'm wrong by using language barrier

No, I have already shown you to be wrong, explaining why.

As for your question, yes I see the waves, and I can also see that behind them, the water behind them. This shows the waves are below the height of the observer. What you are pretending is a wave is the horizon.

Quote from: wise on October 21, 2018, 01:32:28 AM

Grow up and give up the dishonesty.

Follow your own advice. You are the one continually acting like a child and repeatedly spouting dishonest crap. When you cant refute you act like a child again and just throw pathetic insults and lie.

Grow up and stop with the dishonesty.

Either defend your claims or get lost.

As you very well know that, I have numereous time warned you to do not seperate my posts. So that this is the point I'll no longer reply your childish rubbish claims.

As you very well know that, I have numereous time warned you to seperate my posts. So that this is the point I'll no longer reply your childish rubbish claims.

And as I warned you repeatedly, if you want me to go to the effort of keeping your post together and making clear what I am addressing (especially as that would make the posts longer), then you will need to respect others as well, such as not repeatedly insulting people, and actually responding to arguments made.

But you don't care how people treat you. As soon as they show you to be wrong you use whatever pathetic, childish excuse you can to ignore their posts.
When they don't split your posts you will dismiss them as too long.

Your claims are rubbish, not mine.
I have repeatedly disproven your garbage and you have failed to defend it.

Grow up. Either defend your BS or get lost.

Quote from: rabinoz on October 21, 2018, 01:58:15 AM

The observer is about 10 m above sea-level and the nearer ship is about 10 km away from the observer.

Prove it. Because it seems less.

And how do you work that out?
For that first ship to be completely visible but the second having only the containers and superstructure visible the distances around 10 km or more are needed.
That fits with a viewing height of about 10 m..

But who cares? All of the nearer ship can be seen and there no great wave past that point, yet much of the second ship is hidden.
If any of that second ship is hidden it does not fit with a flat earth.
Have a look at: Ships beyond the horizon - Earth curvature demonstration
This is a part of one photo from that forum. There is quite a deal of relevant working for that and other photos:Something hides that second ship. And this video explains what should be seen on a flat-earth and on the Globe:And from about 16:20 onwards shows and explains a number of examples.

He can not. You'll see, he can not prove anything. Because he only knows racist speeches.

What is racist in anything thst I have said? Stop your continual personal attacks! If you have nothing useful to offer butt out!

tltr;

The Wise One complains about Too Long to Read posts, but take a gander at this: Why can't a 1,65mt man see the high buildings?

PS

• I'm 1.75 m not 1.65 m tall
• I didn't take that video and
• in the relavent video the camera was about 10 m above sea-level but fatcs never bother The Wise One

Ignored again because I won the argument again. 

Eventually the list will grow, he will demand an apology, get none, and remove everyone from his ignore list anyway, and the cycle repeats.

Quote from: zohan on October 21, 2018, 02:38:59 AM

Prove it. Because it seems less.

Inky, did you make another account?

Prove it!

You are the angry one here and you have never proven any are clones.

He says you have to prove I am clone of someone else.

Prove it!

How about instead of continuing to act childish and pat yourself on the back you try and address the issue?

You have a person standing above a wave, viewing an object above the wave. How does the wave obstruct the view?

Imagine a complete flat plane.
The flat plane almost rises up to eye level in the distant.
But there are no obstacles on the flat plane, so it doesn't cover the building.
However, there are many kinds of waves in the sea.
wind wave, swell, tide etc.
These serve as obstacles on the flat sea.
So they can cover the building.

Imagine a complete flat plane.
The flat plane almost rises up to eye level in the distant.
But there are no obstacles on the flat plane, so it doesn't cover the building.
However, there are many kinds of waves in the sea.
wind wave, swell, tide etc.
These serve as obstacles on the flat sea.
So they can cover the building.

and as long as your eye level is above the waves then those waves can only cover up to their height. Last I checked waves tended to average 10 feet or less and buildings tended to be quite higher.

Define "rises to eye level".

Define "rises to eye level".

I think he is talking about one of those Laws of Perspective

Quote from: Themightykabool on October 26, 2018, 01:34:34 PM

Define "rises to eye level".

I think he is talking about one of those Laws of Perspective

Oh i meant for the FE people to define this often referred to method of measurement.
Im taller than my wife.
How high is the rise?
Equal or not equal to both of us.
What if she tilts her head up slightly?

Imagine a complete flat plane.
The flat plane almost rises up to eye level in the distant.
But there are no obstacles on the flat plane, so it doesn't cover the building.
However, there are many kinds of waves in the sea.
wind wave, swell, tide etc.
These serve as obstacles on the flat sea.
So they can cover the building.

No they don't.
Again that only works if you or the distant object is below that obstacle.
If you are above the obstacle, as is the distant object, it is impossible for that obstacle to get in the way.

What you are doing is akin to suggesting you are unable to see anything in front of you because your toy gets in the way and because of how close your toe is, it has  a greater angular size than objects further away.

Imagine a complete flat plane.
The flat plane almost rises up to eye level in the distant.

Even on a flat plane that plane cannot "rise up to eye level in the distance". It only seems to rise up to eye-level due to perspective.
Just as the building in the distance does not really get smaller.  It only seems to get smaller due to perspective.

But there are no obstacles on the flat plane, so it doesn't cover the building.
However, there are many kinds of waves in the sea.
wind wave, swell, tide etc.
These serve as obstacles on the flat sea.
So they can cover the building.

They cannot "cover the building" if eye-level is above the highest wave.

Your OP showed eye-level right at sea-level that is never the case.
In that video that I showed, eye-level was clearly well above sea-level and the nearer ship was completely visible from the water-line up.

The ideal plane blocks the view.
Then how about the sea with waves?
I hope this video will be helpful.

The ideal plane blocks the view.
Then how about the sea with waves?
I hope this video will be helpful.

How about instead of posting crap video after crap video, which builds upon your prior crap, you try dealing with what has already been said.

As I have said repeatedly, if you want to go to the angular point of view (which you have labelled as visual), then instead of measuring angles like you are, they are simply measured from y=0. Any angle is a horizontal line. So the 69" would simply be a horizontal line that intersects where the building touches the ground. It doesn't magically become 8". The angle you are measuring literally makes no sense. So if you want to focus on that angle, it would be the 69", not the 8".
But it isn't even that which you need to distinguish. It doesn't magically make the bottom disappear. It makes the entire building blur, and eventually blur with the ground.
But that is nothing like what is seen.

The waves you add are pure BS. The physical waves don't match the visual waves.
For the physical waves, the waves are physically the same size as they get further away. This means visually they will be smaller the further away they are. Instead for the visual waves you have them being the same visual size.
You start off with waves which are physically tiny, and then end up with waves almost as large as the building.
Why do the waves magically increase in size?

Here is what it looks like if the wave height remains constant:

Notice how the distant waves appear tiny, because they are far away?
This makes it so they can't block the view to the building (other than a small portion at the bottom).

Here is what it looks like if the wave height magically increases:

Notice how now the waves are massive?
The waves start out fairly small. At 1 km away they are only 1 m high, but near the building they end up roughly 10 m, which is the height of the building.

Yes, if you had a 10 m wave in front of a 10 m building, that would obscure the view to the building, but people would notice that wave.
So why aren't the people in the building (or near it) noticing these massive waves which are as tall as the building?

The dip of the horizon is purely from a RE, unless you are claiming to be able to see right to the very edge. A FE has the horizon at eye level. It will always be 0 degrees. Even if you want to appeal to it starting to blur, it will still be at eye level. Trying to use a magnification device (such as a theodolite) to see more clearly where it is should then push the horizon backwards and keep it at 0 degrees, regardless of how much you zoom, allowing you to see further and further.
In reality, the position of the horizon remains fixed (at least after a certain point of increasing resolution). It doesn't matter how much more you zoom in, the horizon remains in the same position with the same angle of dip.
This is consistent with a RE, not a FE.

Now are you actually going to address the points this time, or just run away and spout more crap later?

You are missing the point.
I drew the picture just for convenience and for visual effect.
But the calculation was done according to perspective.
I wrote it in the video description.

You are missing the point.
I drew the picture just for convenience and for visual effect.
But the calculation was done according to perspective.
I wrote it in the video description.

No. You are missing the point.
Your figure is pure garbage which blatantly misrepresents reality so you can pretend waves block the view when in fact they don't.

You falsely claim that the wave can block the object. But the only thing you have supporting that is your blatant misrepresentation of how the waves work, where instead of a small wave you have a massive one.

Now care to actually address it, even if it is just an admission that in order for the waves to block the building, they need to be at least taller than you eye elevation or the building (i.e. physically go above one of them)?
If not, care to explain how they magically block it?

...the calculation was done according to perspective...

If you ever expect to be persuasive with this "side-view perspective" argument, you're going to have to show/explain how you perform your calculations.

I'm on the other flat earth forum as Bobby Shafto, and I and others have expressed our critiques there, but you're over here repeating the same errors. At least the errors we conclude from your presentations and subsequent follow-up. You're not getting OUR point.

If there's a language disconnect, maybe mathematics will bridge the gap.

The first order of business I would ask is for you to explain how you arrive at distance values for the horizon. I've asked before and you said it was complicated and requires experience. So, help me develop that experience. I live on a coast and I can see the horizon from the shoreline, from 30m bluffs, from 120m hills and from 250-500m coastal "mountains." I can use my 20/20 (corrected) "naked eye" vision resolution, my 200mm-equivalent camera telephoto lens and HD resolution, and I'll soon have a decent enough long-tube refractor telescope for terrestrial digiscoping that will allow me even better distance viewing (atmosphere and "waves" permitting.)

I want to learn how you determine the distance to the horizon.

After that, you can show me how you calculate 1m obstacle on that horizon blocks heights beyond that horizon for eye-level at that 1m height. It doesn't make sense to me. If there's an inverse-distance (ID) curve that produces a perceived rising effect of objects that are at eye-level, I'd like to know how that is calculated, and how to calculate a "shadow" or "hidden" area beyond that.

Currently, no model I know incorporates such an "ID curve" factor.  You started out with a good observation of how objects appear to diminish in size not linearly but inversely according to distance. But beyond that, you seem to go off the rails and make leaps of reason that don't make sense, at least not to me. And since you persevere without seeming to address the criticism, I'd like to make sure I'm not missing something that you've discovered in the math(s). So instead of just asserting it, can you show us how it's done? It's okay if it's complicated. If the concept you are trying to convey is to make any headway, you have to do that eventually; because it'll never convince anyone if it's based on the Art and Devices of Zorbakim and we have to take your word for it. You need to show us how it's done.

Feel free to do it here or on the other flat earth society forum. Or via YouTube. That actually might be best. Just let us know when it's posted.

Quote from: zorbakim on October 31, 2018, 05:29:39 PM

...the calculation was done according to perspective...

If you ever expect to be persuasive with this "side-view perspective" argument, you're going to have to show/explain how you perform your calculations.

I'm on the other flat earth forum as Bobby Shafto, and I and others have expressed our critiques there, but you're over here repeating the same errors. At least the errors we conclude from your presentations and subsequent follow-up. You're not getting OUR point.

If there's a language disconnect, maybe mathematics will bridge the gap.

The first order of business I would ask is for you to explain how you arrive at distance values for the horizon. I've asked before and you said it was complicated and requires experience. So, help me develop that experience. I live on a coast and I can see the horizon from the shoreline, from 30m bluffs, from 120m hills and from 250-500m coastal "mountains." I can use my 20/20 (corrected) "naked eye" vision resolution, my 200mm-equivalent camera telephoto lens and HD resolution, and I'll soon have a decent enough long-tube refractor telescope for terrestrial digiscoping that will allow me even better distance viewing (atmosphere and "waves" permitting.)

I want to learn how you determine the distance to the horizon.

After that, you can show me how you calculate 1m obstacle on that horizon blocks heights beyond that horizon for eye-level at that 1m height. It doesn't make sense to me. If there's an inverse-distance (ID) curve that produces a perceived rising effect of objects that are at eye-level, I'd like to know how that is calculated, and how to calculate a "shadow" or "hidden" area beyond that.

Currently, no model I know incorporates such an "ID curve" factor.  You started out with a good observation of how objects appear to diminish in size not linearly but inversely according to distance. But beyond that, you seem to go off the rails and make leaps of reason that don't make sense, at least not to me. And since you persevere without seeming to address the criticism, I'd like to make sure I'm not missing something that you've discovered in the math(s). So instead of just asserting it, can you show us how it's done? It's okay if it's complicated. If the concept you are trying to convey is to make any headway, you have to do that eventually; because it'll never convince anyone if it's based on the Art and Devices of Zorbakim and we have to take your word for it. You need to show us how it's done.

Feel free to do it here or on the other flat earth society forum. Or via YouTube. That actually might be best. Just let us know when it's posted.

I know what you're talking about.
I'll try to make a video about it some day.
It may not be understandable to explain in words.
So video will be helpful.

I know what you're talking about.
I'll try to make a video about it some day.
It may not be understandable to explain in words.
So video will be helpful.

How about responding to me before making a video to clear things up?

I have shown how a small wave can't block the distant building. Going to respond in any way? Going to admit you were wrong or explain what is wrong with my method?

Quote from: zohan on October 25, 2018, 02:28:41 PM

Prove it!

How about instead of continuing to act childish and pat yourself on the back you try and address the issue?

You have a person standing above a wave, viewing an object above the wave. How does the wave obstruct the view?

You are missing the point. The ideal plane blocks the view. Then how about the sea with waves?