Are aircraft submersible or is the water of the of Pond of Berre, France curved?

  • 59 Replies
  • 1714 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 20401
  • Real Earth Believer
Bendy light is curve fitting meets laziness.
But it sounds so much more scientific when you call it the Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory and, horror of horrors, give an equation for it:
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
Electromagnetic Accelerator
Recently a proposal for electromagnetic acceleration has surfaced:

Since there has been such a long wait for a conclusive equation describing EA theory, here is an approximate formula for large-scale bending. To find this, I took the limit of a much longer and nastier expression as x approaches infinity, so this will only work when y is much greater than x - that is to say, when the vertical distance travelled is much greater than the horizontal distance travelled. Put another way, its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical. Therefore, it is not valid for short-range experiments such as the one proposed by Sentient Pizza, but it can give an idea of how much sunlight would bend on its way to the Earth, for instance.

Definition of terms:
x, y - coordinates in the plane of the light ray, where y is increasing in the direction of fastest decreasing Dark Energy potential, and x is increasing in the direction of the component of propagation of the ray which is perpendicular to y.
c - the speed of light in a vacuum.
β - the Bishop constant, named in honour of the great Flat Earth zetetic Mr. Tom Bishop, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to Dark Energy.
     When the theory is complete, attempts will be made to measure this experimentally.
The equation itself is:

Where (0,0) is understood to be the point at which the light ray is horizontal (that is, the derivative of this function is zero).
He even takes a hypothesis from modern cosmology and drags Dark Energy in from tens of millions of light years from earth right to our doorstep.

This Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory must be so wonderful. It's such a pity that there's not a shred of evidence to support it and I believe that a great Zetetic Council Member and Flat Earth Believer once wrote:
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.
So I guess we can discard Tom Bishop's own claim for Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory.

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11567
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Wouldn't the evidence simply the the sun sinking behind the horizon, or the plane doing the same in those pictures you posted earlier? Whether or not you agree about the mechanism, there are observations of things disappearing behind the horizon. And if the Earth is taken to be flat, it's evidence.
Let me explain this in a way you can understand. What you just wrote sounds exactly like something that a gay rights Portuguese Samurai would write.

*

rabinoz

  • 20401
  • Real Earth Believer
Wouldn't the evidence simply the sun sinking behind the horizon, or the plane doing the same in those pictures you posted earlier? Whether or not you agree about the mechanism, there are observations of things disappearing behind the horizon. And if the Earth is taken to be flat, it's evidence.

"If the Earth is taken to be flat, it's evidence" of something but why evidence of an Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory when light is not bent by magnetic, electric or electromagnetic fields?

An explanation is one thing but that explanation should be supported by other evidence and not an explanation simply hypothesised for the purpose as was EAT.

But if we keep an open mind, as the flat earthers insist that we must, and we do not assume that the earth is flat then these "observations of things disappearing behind the horizon" is evidence against the earth being flat.

Rob Skiba postulates a similar "bending" due to all the water in the atmosphere.
He reasons that water bends light (true), there is a tremendous amount of water in the atmosphere (true) therefore this water must bend light a large amount (false).

What he fails to recognise is that the water in the transparent part of the atmosphere is in the form of water vapour which has a slightly lower refractive index than even air.

His full description is in this long video. The relevant section starts at about 29:58.
There are short versions but today I haven't found a good one so hopefully, this links to YouTube and starts just before 29:58.


In that video, unlike with EAT, Rob Skiba does start with a recognised phenomenon, refraction, but then misapplies it.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 15875
  • "Umm, WTF ???"

This Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory must be so wonderful. It's such a pity that there's not a shred of evidence to support it and I believe that a great Zetetic Council Member and Flat Earth Believer once wrote:
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.
So I guess we can discard Tom Bishop's own claim for Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory.

It's black energy.
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11567
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Leave it to rab to get hung up on the name of something, rather than the actual phenomenon it is describing
Let me explain this in a way you can understand. What you just wrote sounds exactly like something that a gay rights Portuguese Samurai would write.

*

Stash

  • 1410
Rumor has it that some user named 'Euclid' came up with the Bishop equation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27958.msg661776#msg661776

Don't know if this helps to reveal its use or non-use.

*

rabinoz

  • 20401
  • Real Earth Believer
Leave it to rab to get hung up on the name of something, rather than the actual phenomenon it is describing
Excuse me! This is where the EAT came from:
Almosy 19,000 posts and still kicking EAT out of the options?
And, as Jane usually does, goes on and on and on about it.

*

rabinoz

  • 20401
  • Real Earth Believer
Rumor has it that some user named 'Euclid' came up with the Bishop equation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27958.msg661776#msg661776

Don't know if this helps to reveal its use or non-use.
But maybe Euclid wasn't the first to introduce "EAT" with Tom Bishop posting these:
Quote
If everything is accelerating up why do meteors sometime crash into earth?  And with enough force to cause massive craters.  Like the Barringer Meteor Crater.

UA only affects certain bodies with special properties, which is why it does not affect us.

I've speculated that the properties Universal Accelerator affects are electromagnetic in nature. All bodies which exhibit a certain level of electromagnetic influence are affected by the UA. All bodies that do not exhibit a certain level of electromagnetic influence are not affected by UA. The bodies who lose their level of electromagnetic influence through collisions in space, half-life degradation, or bits which break off from passing by comets become unaffected by the UA and fall towards the earth.

The properties UA affects could alternatively be related to the energy density of a body; but more research will be done to determine the precise mechanism of UA.

Nope. If the sun's rays were straight like a flash light's you would be correct. However, since on massive scaled they are curved due to cosmic gravitation/electromagnetic accelerator, the farther the sun is from the earth the more of the outward rays will make U-Turns into the cosmos without intersecting with the earth. This creates the effect of a smaller spotlight the farther the sun is away from the earth.
What is the definition of Zetetic Science again ::)?

*

Stash

  • 1410
Rumor has it that some user named 'Euclid' came up with the Bishop equation:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27958.msg661776#msg661776

Don't know if this helps to reveal its use or non-use.
But maybe Euclid wasn't the first to introduce "EAT" with Tom Bishop posting these:
Quote
If everything is accelerating up why do meteors sometime crash into earth?  And with enough force to cause massive craters.  Like the Barringer Meteor Crater.

UA only affects certain bodies with special properties, which is why it does not affect us.

I've speculated that the properties Universal Accelerator affects are electromagnetic in nature. All bodies which exhibit a certain level of electromagnetic influence are affected by the UA. All bodies that do not exhibit a certain level of electromagnetic influence are not affected by UA. The bodies who lose their level of electromagnetic influence through collisions in space, half-life degradation, or bits which break off from passing by comets become unaffected by the UA and fall towards the earth.

The properties UA affects could alternatively be related to the energy density of a body; but more research will be done to determine the precise mechanism of UA.

Nope. If the sun's rays were straight like a flash light's you would be correct. However, since on massive scaled they are curved due to cosmic gravitation/electromagnetic accelerator, the farther the sun is from the earth the more of the outward rays will make U-Turns into the cosmos without intersecting with the earth. This creates the effect of a smaller spotlight the farther the sun is away from the earth.
What is the definition of Zetetic Science again ::)?

I might be mixing metaphors. I always assumed that EAT was the bendy light explanation for why things disappear over a horizon. And UA is one of the FET 'gravity' replacements. Back then, 2008, were they one and the same?

Someone was asking about the Bishop formula a few weeks back on the other site. I think it came out that Tom did not create the formula but that Euclid dude did. Though it seems Tom was a proponent of EAT (maybe with UA, maybe without) earlier on.

*

Jane

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11040
  • Official Pokemon Trainer of the FES
always assumed that EAT was the bendy light explanation for why things disappear over a horizon. And UA is one of the FET 'gravity' replacements. Back then, 2008, were they one and the same?
It is, Rab's just dumb. EAT just states that the same phenomenon is responsible for both.

*

rabinoz

  • 20401
  • Real Earth Believer
It is, Rab's just dumb. EAT just states that the same phenomenon is responsible for both.
Is attacking people all you do?

Now please post an authoritative ;D source for where "EAT just states that the same phenomenon is responsible for both."

And on "bendy light" read:
Nope. If the sun's rays were straight like a flash light's you would be correct. However, since on massive scaled they are curved due to cosmic gravitation/electromagnetic accelerator, the farther the sun is from the earth the more of the outward rays will make U-Turns into the cosmos without intersecting with the earth. This creates the effect of a smaller spotlight the farther the sun is away from the earth.
Look at, "sun's rays . . . . are curved due to cosmic gravitation/electromagnetic accelerator"! Sounds like "bendy" light to me.

Bit what bugs me it that Tom Bishop writes as if this were fact when it's simply a hypothesis.

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11567
  • May I have 55 words with you?
What bugs me is that there seem to be no object permanence with you. And you are playing semantics over EAT as if the name matters. It doesn't. If the Earth is flat, it is an objective fact that light must behave differently and you know this because you've discussed it before. Leave aside your very committed opposition to FE for one second and just look at the terrible ground you are basing your argument on. It amounts to "The words don't make sense so the whole thing is rubbish. Again. Well, many agains. But again again."

You are hung up on the cause. Sometimes, the effect is more well described even when the cause isn't as well fleshed out. And if you're going to spend your days here, maybe embrace that.
Let me explain this in a way you can understand. What you just wrote sounds exactly like something that a gay rights Portuguese Samurai would write.

*

rabinoz

  • 20401
  • Real Earth Believer
What bugs me is that there seem to be no object permanence with you. And you are playing semantics over EAT as if the name matters. It doesn't. If the Earth is flat, it is an objective fact that light must behave differently and you know this because you've discussed it before. Leave aside your very committed opposition to FE for one second and just look at the terrible ground you are basing your argument on.
Not at all. The words are not my words but mainly from Tom Bishop but it all seems to boil down to what constitutes evidence.

You say, "If the Earth is flat, it is an objective fact that light must behave differently" but that seems to give flat earthers free rein to use any hypothesis they as valid an explanation of contrary evidence.

Much of the evidence against a flat earth must come from distant observations because locally the earth does look flat.

So it seems that distant observations can be explained away by unsupported hypotheses ranging from perspective, massive upside down refraction, atmoplanic lensing to the Electromagnetic Accelerator Hypothesis.

If any unsupported hypotheses can be accepted as a valid explanation of observations the "Flat Earth Theory" is unfalsifiable and we might as well pack up and leave you to it.

*

Jane

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11040
  • Official Pokemon Trainer of the FES
Is attacking people all you do?

Now please post an authoritative ;D source for where "EAT just states that the same phenomenon is responsible for both."
When you act like this, yes. Any other kind of discussion with you is utterly impossible, and maybe I'll hit that one in a million chance of you getting enough self-awareness to realise that.
If the concept of EAT and 'bendy light' being connected is new to you after all this time, that's a problem with you, not me. Two years olds have object permanence, you apparently do not.

If any unsupported hypotheses can be accepted as a valid explanation of observations the "Flat Earth Theory" is unfalsifiable and we might as well pack up and leave you to it.
Then why are you trying to falsify? If falsification is the only ground you can reject something on, you really are dumb. Yep, hypotheses can be used to view something as hypothetically possible, which is sufficient to deal with claims of falsification, this isn't radical thinking or anything remotely new. That doesn't make it true, that doesn't make it possible, and the fact you are apparently utterly unable to grasp any of that is pathetic.

*

rabinoz

  • 20401
  • Real Earth Believer
Is attacking people all you do?

Now please post an authoritative ;D source for where "EAT just states that the same phenomenon is responsible for both."
When you act like this, yes. Any other kind of discussion with you is utterly impossible, and maybe I'll hit that one in a million chance of you getting enough self-awareness to realise that.
If the concept of EAT and 'bendy light' being connected is new to you after all this time, that's a problem with you, not me. Two years olds have object permanence, you apparently do not.

If any unsupported hypotheses can be accepted as a valid explanation of observations the "Flat Earth Theory" is unfalsifiable and we might as well pack up and leave you to it.
Then why are you trying to falsify? If falsification is the only ground you can reject something on, you really are dumb. Yep, hypotheses can be used to view something as hypothetically possible, which is sufficient to deal with claims of falsification, this isn't radical thinking or anything remotely new. That doesn't make it true, that doesn't make it possible, and the fact you are apparently utterly unable to grasp any of that is pathetic.
I have falsified EAT using "accepted physics" but you and Boydster insist that Flat Earth has different physics which just gets pulled out the hat as needed.
No one seems able to pin flat earthers or their supporters down to what the "rules" are.
It seems to be as "the Wiki" says "The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth" and "unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET is fabricated evidence".
In other words, the Flat Earth can never be falsified.

My meaning was that if the flat earth supporters, like yourself, are free to hypothesise any unsupported (by conventional physics) explanation that they like then the flat earth cannot be falsified.

So, oh smart one. Instead of calling others dumb and being all talk and no action, how about YOU showing us poor dumb people how to do it!

You never do and to me, that proves that you are nothing but a useless windbag good for nothing but playing Were-Pigeons or whatever and unable to present a decent argument against the flat earth yourself.

Put up or shut up!

*

Jane

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11040
  • Official Pokemon Trainer of the FES
So, oh smart one. Instead of calling others dumb and being all talk and no action, how about YOU showing us poor dumb people how to do it!
I've bloody tried, you just have a memory that consists purely of what it is you want to be the case and conveniently ignoring everything beyond it. I'm not interested in joining a mob, no one's going to be interested in debating with you adamantly getting in the way of any discussion so what would the point be?

You are the one that is obsessed with falsification. Personally I'm happy with rejecting based on lack of evidence, if you want to go for falsification stop throwing a temper tantrum whenever anyone expects you to actually do the bare minimum.

Why are you incapable of bringing anything new to the table? All you do is repeat the same rubbish over and over and over and over and continually ignore the responses you get, both to arguments and this little persistent tirade of yours. If you don't like it, piss off. No one will miss you.

*

rabinoz

  • 20401
  • Real Earth Believer
<< So you still can't post any arguments of your own! >>

Answered! Neither electric nor magnetic fields bend light therefore EAT is hogwash.

If you disagree post evidence supporting EAT.
Can you explain how you readily accept the mythical "g" can bend light, yet make the statement that electricity and magnetism cannot?
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

*

rabinoz

  • 20401
  • Real Earth Believer
Answered! Neither electric nor magnetic fields bend light therefore EAT is hogwash.

If you disagree post evidence supporting EAT.
Can you explain how you readily accept the mythical "g" can bend light, yet make the statement that electricity and magnetism cannot?
It's not just the "mythical g" that can bend light but the UA as promoted by the Society also bends light by exactly the same minuscule amount ;D.

When I get the time I might try to explain it but in the meantime you could read:
          Einstein The elevator, the rocket, and gravity: the equivalence principle
or       Einstein online: The equivalence principle and the deflection of light
or       The Great Courses Daily, Einsteinís Experimental Elevator
Or you might watch a video.
Before you dismiss this video out of hand, just remember that the Equivalence Principle is the basis is the Flat Earth Society's Universal Acceleration Theory as in: The Flat Earth Society Wiki: Equivalence Principle


Gravity and Acceleration The Equivalence Principle

Now as to neither electric nor magnetic fields not bending light:

Electric or magnetic fields only affect charges and the photon has no charge. Charges can cover "magnets" as well because they are only moving charges.
There are extremely small relativistic quantum effects of extremely strong electric and magnetic fields on photons but they are so small as to be negligible here.

Hope it helps.

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11567
  • May I have 55 words with you?
So you are saying FE proposes that there must be some mechanism that produces the same observations? Huh. What if they called it "RAB," meaning "Rab Annoying Behavior," and admit it works with different underlying mechanics than the heliocentric model does, and perhaps even admit that those mechanics aren't 100% worked out?

Except for the name, that's basically where we are at.
Let me explain this in a way you can understand. What you just wrote sounds exactly like something that a gay rights Portuguese Samurai would write.

*

rabinoz

  • 20401
  • Real Earth Believer
So you are saying FE proposes that there must be some mechanism that produces the same observations? Huh. What if they called it "RAB," meaning "Rab Annoying Behavior," and admit it works with different underlying mechanics than the heliocentric model does, and perhaps even admit that those mechanics aren't 100% worked out?

Except for the name, that's basically where we are at.
Unless someone can define what is accepted in this "Flat Earth Physics" I see no point in continuing this "debate".

Answered! Neither electric nor magnetic fields bend light therefore EAT is hogwash.

If you disagree post evidence supporting EAT.
Can you explain how you readily accept the mythical "g" can bend light, yet make the statement that electricity and magnetism cannot?
It's not just the "mythical g" that can bend light but the UA as promoted by the Society also bends light by exactly the same minuscule amount ;D.

When I get the time I might try to explain it but in the meantime you could read:
          Einstein The elevator, the rocket, and gravity: the equivalence principle
or       Einstein online: The equivalence principle and the deflection of light
or       The Great Courses Daily, Einsteinís Experimental Elevator
Or you might watch a video.
Before you dismiss this video out of hand, just remember that the Equivalence Principle is the basis is the Flat Earth Society's Universal Acceleration Theory as in: The Flat Earth Society Wiki: Equivalence Principle


Gravity and Acceleration The Equivalence Principle

Now as to neither electric nor magnetic fields not bending light:

Electric or magnetic fields only affect charges and the photon has no charge. Charges can cover "magnets" as well because they are only moving charges.
There are extremely small relativistic quantum effects of extremely strong electric and magnetic fields on photons but they are so small as to be negligible here.

Hope it helps.
Wait, now you are stating electrical fields and magnetic fields can alter light.

How can you determine it is negligible in this discussion?

Light itself is a known product of electrical and magnetic force.

Sorry, I think that alone nullifies your position.
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

*

rabinoz

  • 20401
  • Real Earth Believer
Answered! Neither electric nor magnetic fields bend light therefore EAT is hogwash.

If you disagree post evidence supporting EAT.
Can you explain how you readily accept the mythical "g" can bend light, yet make the statement that electricity and magnetism cannot?
It's not just the "mythical g" that can bend light but the UA as promoted by the Society also bends light by exactly the same minuscule amount ;D.

When I get the time I might try to explain it but in the meantime you could read:
          Einstein The elevator, the rocket, and gravity: the equivalence principle
or       Einstein online: The equivalence principle and the deflection of light
or       The Great Courses Daily, Einsteinís Experimental Elevator
Or you might watch a video.
Before you dismiss this video out of hand, just remember that the Equivalence Principle is the basis is the Flat Earth Society's Universal Acceleration Theory as in: The Flat Earth Society Wiki: Equivalence Principle


Gravity and Acceleration The Equivalence Principle

Now as to neither electric nor magnetic fields not bending light:

Electric or magnetic fields only affect charges and the photon has no charge. Charges can cover "magnets" as well because they are only moving charges.
There are extremely small relativistic quantum effects of extremely strong electric and magnetic fields on photons but they are so small as to be negligible here.

Hope it helps.
Wait, now you are stating electrical fields and magnetic fields can alter light.
It's not my claim. It's the claim of physicists that know a lot more about Einstein's General Relativity than I can ever hope to know.

Quote from: totallackey
How can you determine it is negligible in this discussion?
I can't. All I can do is refer to those who can calculate this sort of thing.
The limit of my knowledge would be that the carriers of electromagnetic radiation, photons, are non-magnetic and have no electric charge.
As a result of that electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields cannot bend light at all.

On strongest magnetic field:
Quote
While Russian scientists were able to create a magnetic field of an astonishing 2,800 teslas, their equipment blew up ;D with the field.
I can't find any good reference on the highest electric field in the laboratory but from my own experience in a high voltage laboratory, 1 MV/m would be very high.

Now if you test the bending of light experimentally with "little" fields like that the observed bending of light would be found to be zero, zilch, nada!

If you can find better information, good luck!

Now, I did say that "There are extremely small relativistic quantum effects of extremely strong electric and magnetic fields on photons but they are so small as to be negligible here."

But before I waste my time going into General Relativity and the fact that a magnetic field is "energy" and energy, like mass, bends spacetime, I must ask a simple question.

Do you, totallackey, accept that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is correct.
If you don't then for YOU there is no reason that either electrical fields or magnetic fields could bend electromagnetic radiation where the energy carriers, photons, are non-magnetic and have no electric charge.

If you do accept that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is correct just let's know and we can go further into the matter.

Quote from: totallackey
Light itself is a known product of electrical and magnetic force.

Sorry, I think that alone nullifies your position.
No, the fact that light itself is known to be electromagnetic radiation does not nullify my position in the slightest.

Provided the medium that the light is propagating through is linear (that is the permittivity, ε, and permeability, μ, are constant) then Maxwell's equatuions are linear.

As a result of this electric, magnetic and electromagnetic simply add and pass through each othe quite unaffected.

Bye.


There's a lot of discussion here about why light bends.
Whether it is because of Gravity, UA, Refraction, or Black Energy seems irrelevant to the importance of the effect described in the first post, or the video link at #32.
My question is which way is light supposed to bend under all, or any of these influences?

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 15875
  • "Umm, WTF ???"

I have falsified EAT

what the hell is an EAT?
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

rabinoz

  • 20401
  • Real Earth Believer

I have falsified EAT

what the hell is an EAT?
Ask Jane, she introduced EAT. Or search the Wiki or fora for "Electromagnetic Accelerator".

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 15875
  • "Umm, WTF ???"

I have falsified EAT

what the hell is an EAT?
Ask Jane, she introduced EAT. Or search the Wiki or fora for "Electromagnetic Accelerator".

You wrote EAT.
You don't know what it means?

Try to explain your way around that without using copy/paste.   ::)



RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

rabinoz

  • 20401
  • Real Earth Believer

I have falsified EAT

what the hell is an EAT?
Ask Jane, she introduced EAT. Or search the Wiki or fora for "Electromagnetic Accelerator".
You wrote EAT.
You don't know what it means?

Try to explain your way around that without using copy/paste.   ::)
I should tell you to go and ask a physicist. But try this version:
      The Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory Hypothesis claims that electromagnetic, electric or magnetic fields are
       able to bend light in such a way as to make sun, moon and stars to appear at exactly the same elevation above the earth as is
       observed above the surface of the Globe.

       For example, latitude in the Northern Hemisphere is very close to the elevation of Polaris. This is correct and is in "the Wiki".
       But the geometric elevation of Polaris over the flat earth is only correct at latitudes 45įN and 90įN, the North Pole.
       "EAT" seeks to explain this by postulating that light is bent by exactly the right amount by electromagnetic, electric or magnetic fields.
       The little problem that flat earthers have is that in "real physics" none of electromagnetic, electric nor magnetic fields do bend light.
        Not only that but these flat earthers seem to have no idea what might cause these fields nor why they are not detected.
        Pedants might claim the there is an obscure effect that claims a minute deflection in extreme magnetic fields, such as near neutron stars.
E&OE

*

Stash

  • 1410
I saw a recent debunk vid that showed the curvature on a body of water with more water visible behind the boat...

Share the video with us and we'll take a look.

*

rabinoz

  • 20401
  • Real Earth Believer
I saw a recent debunk vid that showed the curvature on a body of water with more water visible behind the boat...

Share the video with us and we'll take a look.
I was interested in that video but I can't even find faded mike's post. 
But there's nothing mysterious about "more water visible behind the boat". All it means is that the boat is not past the horizon.

This isn't a wonderful example but there is a little water visible behind the nearer ship.
And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
         With a similar sized container vessel with the hull hidden behind "something":
If you want details, the photos were taken on the coast near Wollongong, NSW, and are from this video: Nikon P900 debunks flat earth MCtheEmcee1.