HOMO-CENTRIC UNIVERSE: DONUT EARTH

Quote from: wise on July 13, 2019, 01:27:01 PM

the size of the object does not decrease by half when the distance doubles. however, it would have to be halfway to connect it with a straight line. in other words, you don't see anything as straight.

No, it doesn't need to be "halfway" to be straight.
That is because a distance away from you will also appear to shrink as it gets further away.

Yes it does need. Your baselessly claim does not magically make it does not need. If there is an object between you and what you are looking to prevent you from seeing it, you cannot see it. that is also the case if you connect it with a straight line. because as I have clearly proved but you denied that because you are ignorant, the figure that appears on this paper can never look that way.

Quote from: zorbakim on July 13, 2019, 12:52:44 AM

You are wrong.
(arc tan 1)=45 degree.
(arc tan 1/2)=26.565 degree.
Do you understand what I mean?

Other than rounding differently, that is what I said.
The point is objects don't appear to have their apparent (angular) size cut in half when the distance is doubled when they are close.
Again, you can easily show this cannot be the case by going the other way, i.e. halving the distance.
I already showed that and you just ignored it and said I am wrong.

Take an object that is 16 m away and 16 m tall, above your eyeline.
That makes it 45 degrees.
According to your claim, at 8 m away it would need to cover from straight out, to straight up, but it doesn't.
Halving the distance again to 4 m it now would also need to appear behind you according to you. This makes no sense.

The apparent size of the object is the angular size.

Doubling the distance resulting in the object appearing half the size only works for small distant objects. Not close ones.

You don't understand me.
I've never said, "the apparent size of the object is the angular size".
That's your argument.
You are confusing physical and visual sizes.
So there's a contradiction like what you said.

You don't understand me.
I've never said, "the apparent size of the object is the angular size".
That's your argument.
You are confusing physical and visual sizes.
So there's a contradiction like what you said.

No, I do understand you.
Your argument is that angular size isn't the apparent size.
This is based upon your claim that when the distance doubles the size is halved. But that isn't the case at all.
Again, take a 16 m tall object at 16 m. It takes up roughly 45 degrees, and that is its apparent size as it takes up 1/8 of your vision.
When it is brought to 8 m, it doesn't take up 1/4 of your vision.
When it is brought to 4 m it doesn't take up 1/2 of your vision.
When it is brought to 2 m it doesn't take up your entire vision.

There is no contradiction in modern understanding.

It is one of my main theories. I'll create more detailed working includes how angular view works.

Today it was 15 July remembrance day of fetö coup try and our 251 martyres dead while stopping the coup. So it was holiday.

I'm planning a work about Mu continent one more time. After that I'll return the angular size problem and show you why can not you see it by convincing technical details. I know angry globularist people will not be convinced because they have programmed to not get convinced by flat earthers, but it will be easy to get convincing for ordinary people.

Stand by...

First we have to determine what you think you to see and what you see in fact.



You think you see the ship on a straight line. whereas it actually moves on a curve starting from the tip of the foot and extending to the skyline.

The eye has a detection sensitivity. we cannot see after a certain sensitivity. Let's do a test to measure this sensitivity.

Get remember this page:



we are unable to read the most down words on this paper. however, this is not due to the sensitivity of the eye, but the sensitivity of the computer screen. To measure it yourself, move away from an A4 sheet with a lettering and try to read it. then measure the distance from which you can no longer read the text. you can measure the sensitivity of your eye using the relation between this distance and the font size.

I did this experiment for you. I have opened a book. The words on it was 2 milimetres. I have began to move away from the book. When I came to a distance of 3 meters, I realized that I could not read the articles anymore.

Lets calculate sensitivity of my, an average human eye:

Distance to paper: 3 metres.
Highness of word: 2 mm.

Sensitivity of eye: 2mm. / (3m. x 1000) = 0,0007.

This value is also the distance we can no longer see on the skyline of an object approaching the skyline. What we need to do for this is to correct the skyline angle which should be 90 degrees with this value.

90 degrees - 90*0,0007 = 89,94 °  (for wave)
90 degrees + 90*0,0007 = 90,06 °  (for ship)

We understand that we cannot see the sensitivity of 0.06 degrees. with it, we can compute a common angle where we cannot distinguish between wave and ship. this will increase both values. in other words, we will assume that we can now see a distance from which we cannot notice two objects.

Corrected values. We can not distinguish wave and skyline whenever they are in angularly:

89,97 °  (for wave)
90,03 °  (for ship)

in other words, when an object reaches a horizontal angle of 89.94°, we now see it contiguous with the skyline.

Lets calculate distances for wave and ship seperately where we see them adjacent to skyline:

Calculating distance we see 1 metre wave adjacent to skyline

α +  β= arctan (L/2) + arctan (1/L) = 89,97°

>> L ~= 2000 metres.

After 2000 meters, we can no longer distinguish waves from other objects in the skyline. This value can be calculated differently according to your eye sensitivity.

Calculating distance we see 5 metres ship adjacent to skyline

α +  β= arctan (L/2) + arctan (1/L) = 90,03°

>> L ~= 4000 metres.

If we can not see this ship has 5 meter highness after 4 kms anymore because of we can not to distinguish it with a 1 meter wave in 2 kms distance.

Since our horizontal vision sensitivity has disappeared earlier, we now see both objects horizontally, so the ship begins to disappear behind the wave.

If you want to see the ship, even so you can use a camera has zoom property. but this is limited by the sensitivity of the camera. no matter how powerful a camera you have, the sensitivity will decrease at some point and you will see the ship disappearing behind the waves. this is not because the world is spherical, but because your angle of vision is limited to the tangent function and your sensitivity to observation is limited. As shown in the example, a tool can help you increase your visual sight. in this case, you can see that the object that just disappeared behind the waves is still in place.

in short, seeing a distant object is about property of seeing, it has nothing to do with the fact that the object is really visible.

You think you see the ship on a straight line. whereas it actually moves on a curve starting from the tip of the foot and extending to the skyline.

I am yet to find a single person that thinks this.
Instead they think the light travels in a straight line to their eye.
Taking that 2D case of yours, what you actually see is a series of 1D lines which each subtend some angle.
You don't see it from the side at all, and you definitely don't see yourself (unless you are looking in a mirror).
But at  least you now have the sea coming up to eye level, rather than objects magically teleporting down.

The eye has a detection sensitivity. we cannot see after a certain sensitivity. Let's do a test to measure this sensitivity.

The appropriate terminology is angular resolution.
The angular resolution is what angle 2 objects need to be separated by in order to be able to resolve them as 2 objects.
For humans this is roughly 1 minute of arc, with things like binoculars and telescopes allowing you to resolve much smaller angles.

Also note that reading is a poor test for this as you need to distinguish what letter is what. If it is just a case of seeing the letter instead of reading it, it is much easier.
Even seeing a letter sticking up above a black line.

Sensitivity of eye: 2mm. / (3m. x 1000) = 0,0007.

This equates to roughly 2.3 minutes of arc or 0.04 degrees.

This means using your numbers, we would expect to see any object which is at least 0.04 degrees.

Since our horizontal vision sensitivity has disappeared earlier, we now see both objects horizontally, so the ship begins to disappear behind the wave.

No, if it is just a case of being too small to resolve, it fades to a blur and is no longer visible.
The wave has nothing to do with it.
Even without the wave there, you wouldn't see it.
More importantly, it wouldn't make it disappear from the bottom up.

So no, the fact that objects disappear from the bottom up has everything to do with Earth being round.
It isn't being hidden by a wave, nor is it due to limited angular resolution.
This is quite clear due to how well resolved the objects are in the many examples provided, and that the object and viewer are above the waves.

No one has ever been able to bring an object hidden by the horizon back into view by a device with better angular resolution.

No one has ever been able to bring an object hidden by the horizon back into view by a device with better angular resolution.

Nope. Sounds like you did not watch the video. The observer in video is clearly bringing the object back by zooming it after it has disappeared in skyline.

Nope. Sounds like you did not watch the video. The observer in video is clearly bringing the object back by zooming it after it has disappeared in skyline.

No, I did watch the video, and it matches what I said.
The object does not disappear from the bottom up.
It simply gets too small to resolves.

In that case, the curvature has nothing to do with it as it isn't hidden by the horizon.

That is never used as evidence of the curvature of Earth.
What is are objects hidden from the bottom up.

What you need to provide to show the curvature of Earth has nothing to do with that and instead it is just magic perspective is to start zoomed right in on an object so you can clearly see it, then zoom out and have it disappear from the bottom up.

First we have to determine what you think you to see and what you see in fact.



You think you see the ship on a straight line. whereas it actually moves on a curve starting from the tip of the foot and extending to the skyline.

No. On a flat earth there is no a curve like that at the the skyline. Are you sure that you aren't trying to draw the Globe?

The eye has a detection sensitivity. we cannot see after a certain sensitivity. Let's do a test to measure this sensitivity.

I need no education on that,  thank you.

But haven't you heard of telescopes and high-power zoom lenses on modern cameras.

These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is about 10 km from the camera but the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind something.

And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:

And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:

The video, below, was taken with a Nikon P900 with its 2000 mm and so has something like 40 times bette resolution than the unaided eye.


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

All that video shows is that you can't see a small boat that's become smaller that the eye's (or camera's) resolution - but we already knew that!

It is nothing like a large ship being partly hidden by the curve thst I showed.

These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is about 10 km from the camera but the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind something.

And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:

And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:

I have asked you countlessly their altitude of observation point but you could not provided a convincing evidence, it is your failure. It is clear that the observer isn't at a higher point than the highest wave till you prove the opposite.

As the big ship passes, the waves rise and block a part of the ship behind. You're a complete trickster. It proves that you have no argument but trickstery and boydstery.

I have asked you countlessly their altitude of observation point but you could not provided a convincing evidence, it is your failure. It is clear that the observer isn't at a higher point than the highest wave till you prove the opposite.

It has been proven, and you just ignore it.
We don't see any massive waves in the foreground blocking view.
We can see all the way to the near ship without any problem.
It is only the ship that is over the horizon that isn't visible.

If it was some magic behind the first ship you would clearly see it as a large wave behind that ship.

So the waves are clearly not the issue.
The clearly visible and resolvable containers on the ship shows angular resolution is not the issue.
You need a better reason for why the bottom is not visible.
The sane explanation is that the water is getting in the way due to the curvature of Earth.

Quote from: wise on July 18, 2019, 04:04:13 AM

I have asked you countlessly their altitude of observation point but you could not provided a convincing evidence, it is your failure. It is clear that the observer isn't at a higher point than the highest wave till you prove the opposite.

It has been proven, and you just ignore it.
We don't see any massive waves in the foreground blocking view.

All viewers of this page clearly see that you are not providing any evidence prove its altitude but only claiming i,t was but I have denied it.

Your baselessly claiming its existance does not magically an absent object to exist. Where is it? Why can not you show it? Because you know, it is absent. Stop to deceive yourself. Your supporting his baseless claim with another lie proves you have no arguments but just lies and boydster.

Then all of them prove the earth is flat. Even existance of boydster proves the earth's being flat.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 18, 2019, 03:46:59 AM

These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is about 10 km from the camera but the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind something.

And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:

And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:

I have asked you countlessly their altitude of observation point but you could not provided a convincing evidence, it is your failure.

Rubbish! Read this again!
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.

It is clear that the observer isn't at a higher point than the highest wave till you prove the opposite.

Rubbish! The observer is about 10 m above sea-level and there are clearly no waves anywhere near that height look at the photos and the video.
Any large waves would hide both the bulk carrier and the container ship. So stop making up these silly excuses.

As the big ship passes, the waves rise and block a part of the ship behind. You're a complete trickster. It proves that you have no argument but trickstery and boydstery.

No they do not!
Don't be silly, the "big ship", the bulk carrier EPIC, is moored and "does not pass!"
Look at the video again and don't you dare say that you can't watch it because you posted your own YouTube video!

The video, below, was taken with a Nikon P900 with its 2000 mm and so has something like 40 times better resolution than the unaided eye.


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

Quote from: wise on July 18, 2019, 04:04:13 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 18, 2019, 03:46:59 AM

These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
The nearer ship is about 10 km from the camera but the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the shIp is hidden behind something.

And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:
https://i.resimyukle.xyz/bOxy40.jpg
         
And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:
https://i.resimyukle.xyz/H5Pzfb.jpg



I have asked you countlessly their altitude of observation point but you could not provided a convincing evidence, it is your failure.

Rubbish! Read this again!
These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.

Quote from: wise

It is clear that the observer isn't at a higher point than the highest wave till you prove the opposite.

Rubbish! The observer is about 10 m above sea-level and there are clearly no waves anywhere near that height look at the photos and the video.
Any large waves would hide both the bulk carrier and the container ship. So stop making up these silly excuses.

Quote from: wise

As the big ship passes, the waves rise and block a part of the ship behind. You're a complete trickster. It proves that you have no argument but trickstery and boydstery.

No they do not!
Don't be silly, the "big ship", the bulk carrier EPIC, is moored and "does not pass!"
Look at the video again and don't you dare say that you can't watch it because you posted your own YouTube video!

Quote from: rabinoz on July 18, 2019, 03:46:59 AM

The video, below, was taken with a Nikon P900 with its 2000 mm and so has something like 40 times better resolution than the unaided eye.


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

Your repeatedly writing "rubbish" do not make them rubbish but proves how you are cornered and started to insult.

Claiming the observe point's being 10 meter about the sea level does not magically it above ten meters of sea level, it still needs an evidence without your baseless claims and insults. And I've reported and leaked your insults proves you are cornered.

Your repeatedly writing "rubbish" do not make them rubbish but proves how you are cornered and started to insult.

What else should I say when you claims are meaningless?

Claiming the observe point's being 10 meter about the sea level does not magically it above ten meters of sea level,

It makes little difference. There are no big waves anywhere and the bulk ore carrier is clearly all visible and beyond it the hull of the container ship is hidden.

There are no 10 or 20 m waves there!

But you obviously did not watch the video and read the explanation under it so look again!

Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)...

MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018
Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible. Unless they're deploying cargo submarines these days....
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm,  that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.

The person that took the video stated that: "The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL." So 10 metres Above Mean Sea Level as I said!

it still needs an evidence without your baseless claims and insults. And I've reported and leaked your insults proves you are cornered.

I'm not cornered! I'm just tired of your continually denying the obvious!

You've got your evidence now admit that there are clearly no waves hiding either ship!

Quote from: wise on July 18, 2019, 04:41:30 AM

Your repeatedly writing "rubbish" do not make them rubbish but proves how you are cornered and started to insult.

What else should I say when you claims are meaningless?

Quote from: wise

Claiming the observe point's being 10 meter about the sea level does not magically it above ten meters of sea level,

It makes little difference. There are no big waves anywhere and the bulk ore carrier is clearly all visible and beyond it the hull of the container ship is hidden.

There are no 10 or 20 m waves there!

But you obviously did not watch the video and read the explanation under it so look again!

Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)...

Quote

MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018
Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible. Unless they're deploying cargo submarines these days....
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm,  that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.

The person that took the video stated that: "The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL." So 10 metres Above Mean Sea Level as I said!

Quote from: wise

it still needs an evidence without your baseless claims and insults. And I've reported and leaked your insults proves you are cornered.

I'm not cornered! I'm just tired of your continually denying the obvious!

You've got your evidence now admit that there are clearly no waves hiding either ship!

I can not watch a video again which I can not watch it for the first time. As far as I see from your talkings, you say some numbers on it and some talkings.

This is not an enough evidence somebody says or shows some numbers there. They can be easily manipulated by changing the software settings. the height of the observation point from the sea should be demonstrated comparable to the objects around it, as the following example.



The man uses above camera does not need where the observe point, because we clearly see him at the land level pier on the beach.

Again, insulting me does not magically your argments stronger but it is a proof how you are cornered, hence the earth is flat. All fair viewers of this conversation will be sure why the earth is flat, and what kind of nonsences we are dealing every day.

All viewers of this page clearly see that you are not providing any evidence prove its altitude but only claiming i,t was but I have denied it.

Yes, you have denied it. Your denial means nothing as you have no rational objection.
I have clearly explained why we know the waves aren't the issue and you just ignore it.

We don't need some external source to tell us how high the person was. We can tell from the photo that the waves were not an issue.

Now how about you address the rest of my post, where I clearly address your objections?

We don't see any massive waves in the foreground blocking view.
We can see all the way to the near ship without any problem.
It is only the ship that is over the horizon that isn't visible.

If it was some magic behind the first ship you would clearly see it as a large wave behind that ship.

So the waves are clearly not the issue.
The clearly visible and resolvable containers on the ship shows angular resolution is not the issue.
You need a better reason for why the bottom is not visible.
The sane explanation is that the water is getting in the way due to the curvature of Earth.

Yes, you have denied it.

I did not ask you whether I denied anything or I did not.

Your denial means nothing as you have no rational objection.

My denial means I denied it as you read. There isn't anything there its being a rational objection or not. Is it there? When you stop to talk wast in vain?

I have clearly explained why we know the waves aren't the issue and you just ignore it.

You are thinking you have explaned does not magically it as a rational explanation. I have not to agree your BS explanations supported by anger of boydster.

We don't need some external source to tell us how high the person was.

No, we need. Otherwise we can not get your being how a liar.

We can tell from the photo that the waves were not an issue.

They are clearly the issue. They are appearently onstructing the ship, we clearly see it hence the observe point is not higher than the highest wave caused by the big ship passing there.

Now how about you address the rest of my post, where I clearly address your objections?

I have replied, boydster deleted. I have replied, your slave deleted. I have replie, somebody deleted. I don't remember whether I have replied or not. Because you have many slaves here you say go, then it goes; come, then it comes. Stop to use our moderation as your slaves. They are free people, not your slaves. If you're paying their wages, at least employ honest people.

We don't see any massive waves in the foreground blocking view.

We clearly see a grand ship passing then massive waves happen. Otherwise, can not you a time to see the ship behind but not another ship passing in front of it. Because you know the front ship causes massive waves then obstruct to see the ship behind.

We can see all the way to the near ship without any problem.

Yes because another bigger ship doesn't passing in front of it.

It is only the ship that is over the horizon that isn't visible.

It is not at the horizon, it is at behind the waves created by big ship. On the other hand the altitude of the observer obviously seem not enough high.

If it was some magic behind the first ship you would clearly see it as a large wave behind that ship.

We call it as a big ship caused big waves, but not as magic. No need to magic but you need to magic to explain the lies.

So the waves are clearly not the issue.

You have proved nothing, so that the waves are the main issue till you prove the opposite.

The clearly visible and resolvable containers on the ship shows angular resolution is not the issue.

Yeah, the problem is waves obsturck the ship. Can you define the angular resolution what does here.

You need a better reason for why the bottom is not visible.

Nope. The explanations are enough but you are ignoring the facts of life.

The sane explanation is that the water is getting in the way due to the curvature of Earth.

your propaganda based on lies and denial of truth does not magically reinforce your arguments. The earth still is flat whether you deny it or you do not.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 18, 2019, 02:20:15 PM

We can tell from the photo that the waves were not an issue.

They are clearly the issue. They are appearently onstructing the ship, we clearly see it hence the observe point is not higher than the highest wave caused by the big ship passing there.

No, that is your baseless assertion which you have backed up with nothing.
We clearly do not see any significant waves in the photo.
We can see the water line on the closer ship. There is no massive wave behind it to obscure the distant ship.
That means the waves are not the issue.

If you want to assert that they are the issue you will need far more than that assertion.

We clearly see a grand ship passing then massive waves happen.
Because you know the front ship causes massive waves then obstruct to see the ship behind.

No, they don't.
There are no massive waves there.
If there was they would be clearly visible.
Please point where in the picture these "massive" waves are.

Also, if there was going to be these massive waves, why would they only go behind the ship?
Why not in front as well?

You have proved nothing, so that the waves are the main issue till you prove the opposite.

I have proven it quite conclusively.
All you have done is just dismiss everything and repeatedly assert there are some magical massive waves which are not observed in the photo at all.

If you want to assert there are some massive waves you need to explain why these massive waves are not visible.

The distant ship is clearly at a lower angle of elevation than the near ship. This is due to the curvature of Earth.
There are no massive waves getting in the way.
The only sane explanation is that the Earth is curved.

There are no massive waves getting in the way.

it is expected that the front ship will approach before capturing the behind ship, as it is clearly needed by the wave created by the front ship. water is swelling and blocking the image. the observation point is further down the highest wave. prove the opposite.

I see massive waves. Prove them being small by measuring.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 18, 2019, 03:49:12 PM

There are no massive waves getting in the way.

it is expected that the front ship will approach before capturing the behind ship, as it is clearly needed by the wave created by the front ship. water is swelling and blocking the image. the observation point is further down the highest wave. prove the opposite.

I'm answering because I posted the photos and the video and the notes under the video were:

Quote

MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018
Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible. Unless they're deploying cargo submarines these days....
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm,  that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.

So the nearer ship, the EPIC, was 16.7 km from the camera and the farther ship, the container ship was 26.0 km from the camera.

Note that "The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004]." and so is not creating a wave. so the water is not swelling and cannot be blocking the image.

Try again.

I see massive waves. Prove them being small by measuring.

You are the one claiming that you "see massive waves" so it's up to you to "prove them being" massive "by measuring."

Quote from: JackBlack on July 18, 2019, 03:49:12 PM

There are no massive waves getting in the way.

it is expected that the front ship will approach before capturing the behind ship, as it is clearly needed by the wave created by the front ship. water is swelling and blocking the image. the observation point is further down the highest wave. prove the opposite.

I see massive waves. Prove them being small by measuring.

Where are these 'massive' waves you speak of? I don't see so much as a ripple of a wake in the water from the ship in front. There's no wake.

You are the one claiming that you "see massive waves" so it's up to you to "prove them being" massive "by measuring."

I don't claim anything. I say what I see. If you claim its not being massive, so why don't you record the behind ship without any ship wandering around?

Quote from: rabinoz on July 19, 2019, 01:04:29 AM

You are the one claiming that you "see massive waves" so it's up to you to "prove them being" massive "by measuring."

I don't claim anything. I say what I see. If you claim its not being massive, so why don't you record the behind ship without any ship wandering around?

There is no ship 'wandering around'. There is a ship, in the foreground, moored, stationary. Behind it, off in the distance is a ship moving from left to right doing what shipping ships do.

The ship in the background is obscured by the horizon. No 'massive' waves are visible to the casual observer. If you could point out where you claim to see 'massive' waves that would be great. In the mean time, there are none. So in the absence of 'massive' waves one needs to reconcile how the ship in the background can be obscured, to the point of where it looks like it's sinking, by the horizon. Simple as that.

water is swelling and blocking the image. the observation point is further down the highest wave. prove the opposite.

Again, there is no significant swelling in the photo.
I have proven that there are no waves to block the distant ship.

Again, if there was a massive wave it would be clearly visible in the photo.
It would appear as a large wave behind the near ship going quite high compared to the near ship.

I don't claim anything. I say what I see. If you claim its not being massive, so why don't you record the behind ship without any ship wandering around?

You are claiming there are massive waves which hide the distant ship.
They are not in the photo at all.
The burden is on you to prove that these massive invisible waves are there and blocking the view.

If you really need to deny the globe a far better option is to claim that the distant ship is actually underwater/sinking.

The waves close to me look bigger.
Visual size is determined by light pressure.
It has nothing to do with the incident angle of light.
A lot of optical action takes place near the eye level.
Waves rising near the eye level and a lot of water vapor make it more.
So far away objects are covered by the horizon.
It is important to remember that the horizon is not a single line.
The visual horizon is physically tens of kilometers long.

The waves close to me look bigger.

Yes, closer things look bigger.
That is entirely in line with what modern understanding indicates.

Visual size is determined by light pressure.

Define what you mean by light pressure.
I would assume it relates to the intensity of the light, but that isn't what determines visual size.
Bright objects and dim objects can have the same visual size.

Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light.

Waves rising near the eye level and a lot of water vapor make it more.
So far away objects are covered by the horizon.

That only applies when your eyes are close to the level of the waves.
It does not work in general.

You're right.
Living in three dimensions may be our illusion.
Try drinking beer in a small glass.
The world in the glass looks very small.
The size that the hand touches is also not absolute.
Size and shape depend solely on our senses.
So I'm saying that the world is our sense.
The only thing that can be said to be a three-dimensional is the sense of touch.
But that, too, is not certain.
In fact, we can say that we live in two dimensions, or at one point.

Thanks for idea. When I was looking at your past posts, then I've saw this one. I guess I've solved the problem of something. I think one of the problem is drinking. Drinking isn't a problem in fact, but a problem for this life. When we drink, we start to see close objects closer, and far objects motional. because in this case the brain cannot perform its full function and reduces external command. therefore it will either run slower or use its own internal resources. In other words, when a man is drunk, his brain will work more slowly and at the same time, what he sees is more real than what he sees when he is sober. I think that was the answer. So, if I really try to drink, how is the system affected? Is there a risk of total collapse? I'd appreciate it if you could come up with some enlightening ideas.

Quote from: zorbakim on July 31, 2019, 02:53:09 AM

The waves close to me look bigger.

Yes, closer things look bigger.
That is entirely in line with what modern understanding indicates.

Quote from: zorbakim on July 31, 2019, 02:53:09 AM

Visual size is determined by light pressure.

Define what you mean by light pressure.
I would assume it relates to the intensity of the light, but that isn't what determines visual size.
Bright objects and dim objects can have the same visual size.

Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light.

Quote from: zorbakim on July 31, 2019, 02:53:09 AM

Waves rising near the eye level and a lot of water vapor make it more.
So far away objects are covered by the horizon.

That only applies when your eyes are close to the level of the waves.
It does not work in general.

Light has no size. Just dim or bright.
It's a bowl like a headlight that has size.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 31, 2019, 03:05:32 AM

Quote from: zorbakim on July 31, 2019, 02:53:09 AM

The waves close to me look bigger.

Yes, closer things look bigger.
That is entirely in line with what modern understanding indicates.

Quote from: zorbakim on July 31, 2019, 02:53:09 AM

Visual size is determined by light pressure.

Define what you mean by light pressure.
I would assume it relates to the intensity of the light, but that isn't what determines visual size.
Bright objects and dim objects can have the same visual size.

Visual size is determined by the angular difference between the incoming rays of light.

Quote from: zorbakim on July 31, 2019, 02:53:09 AM

Waves rising near the eye level and a lot of water vapor make it more.
So far away objects are covered by the horizon.

That only applies when your eyes are close to the level of the waves.
It does not work in general.

Light has no size. Just dim or bright.
It's a bowl like a headlight that has size.

I never said it did.
I said the objects have a visual size.

Now care to respond to what I said?