Floating water behind the curve?

So, after all this bolstering, it seems that you really can't tell us what is and is not an illusion.

You see a sunken boat and it is proof of a curved earth, and an observation of seeing further than should be possible must be an illusion. What interesting logic one must hold to champion the sinking boat as evidence of anything when there are contradictory observations.

So, after all this bolstering, it seems that you really can't tell us what is and is not an illusion.

You see a sunken boat and it is proof of a curved earth, and an observation of seeing further than should be possible must be an illusion. What interesting logic one must hold to champion the sinking boat as evidence of anything when there are contradictory observations.

Read what I wrote!

I claimed none were illusions information can be gained from all. But it seems you have no answers.

Now, what about you answering my question?
Why is the Bathurst Lighthouse and all of Rottnest Island visible from 100' above sea level but part of the lighthouse and all the island except for the tall trees is hidden by water from 6' above sea level?

Your answers please.

You see a sunken boat and it is proof of a curved earth, and an observation of seeing further than should be possible must be an illusion.

No one has ever been able to see further than should be possible when refraction is taken into consideration.
This isn't an illusion.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2019, 10:02:04 PM

So, after all this bolstering, it seems that you really can't tell us what is and is not an illusion.

You see a sunken boat and it is proof of a curved earth, and an observation of seeing further than should be possible must be an illusion. What interesting logic one must hold to champion the sinking boat as evidence of anything when there are contradictory observations.

Read what I wrote!

Quote from: rabinoz on August 15, 2019, 09:41:01 PM

I claimed none were illusions information can be gained from all. But it seems you have no answers.

Now, what about you answering my question?
Why is the Bathurst Lighthouse and all of Rottnest Island visible from 100' above sea level but part of the lighthouse and all the island except for the tall trees is hidden by water from 6' above sea level?

Your answers please.

Tom, to Rab's point, where did it all go? A 100' observer elevation versus a 6' one shouldn't make any difference on a flat earth. But At 6', all of a sudden, there's a 75' wall of water obscuring the land and lighthouse. What sort of refractive atmoplane projection magnification perspective will you serve up to explain that? Can't wait for what illusion you will conjure.

That image is embarassing to whoever created it. Was it you or rab?

You think that swell in the water needs to be 75 feet in height to cover 75 feet in the distance?

An erroneous argument. That is like claiming that only an object the size of an elephant can obscure an elephant in the distance, when a dime could easily do so.

That image is embarassing to whoever created it. Was it you or rab?

No, I did not create that image! I created these:

Then there are other videos showing a clean horizon with no sign of excess refraction of mirages as in:

Quote from: rabinoz on August 15, 2019, 03:38:24 AM

The following screenshots of the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island are taken from Avonmore Tce,  Cottesloe Western Australia.

Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft

Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft

The screenshots are from this video:

Bathurst Lighthouse - The fastest flat Earth destroyer in the West.

Not only is the horizon clean and sharp but the island and lighthouse is shown from two known elevations allowing an easy comparison.

And mine were not "created"! But are screenshots from the video in that post!

What;s the problem? Have you NEVER seen that sort of thing in real life?

You think that swell in the water needs to be 75 feet in height to cover 75 feet in the distance?

What's the problem? It's not a swell, but the curve of the ocean, unless you have a better explanation!
I didn't say 75 feet.
The distance from Cottesloe Beach to Bathurst Lighthouse is 20 km and the "Metabunk Curve Calculator" puts:
With "Standard" refraction the horizon is a bit over 5 km away and the "Hidden Height" about 15 meters and
With "No refraction"  the horizon is a bit under 5 km away and the "Hidden Height" about 18 meters.

And, if you watch the video you might note that there is no noticeable swell and not much in the way of waves.

There are two similar videos, one in metres and one in feet. My screenshots were from the one in feet but there is little difference.

An erroneous argument. That is like claiming that only an object the size of an elephant can obscure an elephant in the distance, when a dime could easily do so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that you believe a wave (or something) rose from water, completely level with the horizon, to evenly occlude the scenery in the background, and then persisted there for the duration of the video.  Is that right?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 16, 2019, 06:04:42 AM

An erroneous argument. That is like claiming that only an object the size of an elephant can obscure an elephant in the distance, when a dime could easily do so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that you believe a wave (or something) rose from water, completely level with the horizon, to evenly occlude the scenery in the background, and then persisted there for the duration of the video.  Is that right?

It does seem as though Tom Bishop goes around with his eyes shut.

And if you look this another similar video you can see that there is no significant swell nor large waves:

Flat Earth - Zooming on Lighthouses and a ship - 6ft vs 100ft Elevation. Wolfie6020

And for a "dime" to "an object the size of an elephant" the dime must be right in front of your eye or the camera!

That image is embarassing to whoever created it. Was it you or rab?

You think that swell in the water needs to be 75 feet in height to cover 75 feet in the distance?

An erroneous argument. That is like claiming that only an object the size of an elephant can obscure an elephant in the distance, when a dime could easily do so.

So you agree that bendy light sunsets are an illusion that you have no evidence for?

 Seems to me, that the further something gets, the shallower angle begins to reflect the sky with a mirror line/ layer of mirage.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 12, 2019, 05:14:47 AM

There are plenty of videos of people seeing further than Aristotle's ancient sinking ship proof should allow. Inconsistent proofs invalidate the matter. Find real evidence rather than spamming the same old same old.

From Valparaiso you can see Aconcagua, 160 km away.
But that's not inconsistent.
You can not see the lower part of it.

Standard refraction bends light slightly downwards, around the curve,
making you see farther than what pure geometry would allow.
But those effects are very well known and explained.

Near water the effect is stronger.
That's why Rowbotham could see the Bedford water as flat.
But when Wallace moved the viewing line out of the effect he proved the bulge.

That is also well known.

Didn't see a single case where "finding inconsistencies" in GE helped establish any "consistency" in FE model.
I don't believe that any theory can successfully lay its foundation on nitpicking.

On the other hand, Geodesy has shown the shape of this planet long time ago and shows it again and again day after day.
And not just Geodesy.

I live nowhere near the sea and i commonly see examples which i understand to be lack of prescribed curvature, and not over water.
As to your example of 160 km, are those two mtns? And what are the two heights? Wallace exp. : how did he move the viewing linw out of the refaction "zone"?

Quote from: Macarios on August 12, 2019, 07:30:25 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 12, 2019, 05:14:47 AM

There are plenty of videos of people seeing further than Aristotle's ancient sinking ship proof should allow. Inconsistent proofs invalidate the matter. Find real evidence rather than spamming the same old same old.

From Valparaiso you can see Aconcagua, 160 km away.
But that's not inconsistent.
You can not see the lower part of it.

Standard refraction bends light slightly downwards, around the curve,
making you see farther than what pure geometry would allow.
But those effects are very well known and explained.

Near water the effect is stronger.
That's why Rowbotham could see the Bedford water as flat.
But when Wallace moved the viewing line out of the effect he proved the bulge.

That is also well known.

Didn't see a single case where "finding inconsistencies" in GE helped establish any "consistency" in FE model.
I don't believe that any theory can successfully lay its foundation on nitpicking.

On the other hand, Geodesy has shown the shape of this planet long time ago and shows it again and again day after day.
And not just Geodesy.

I live nowhere near the sea and i commonly see examples which i understand to be lack of prescribed curvature, and not over water.
As to your example of 160 km, are those two mtns? And what are the two heights? Wallace exp. : how did he move the viewing linw out of the refaction "zone"?

Valparaiso is the city at the Chilean coast (sea level).

Aconcagua is the highest peak of South America (6962 meters),
high enough to have geometric horizon at about 298 kilometers.

The question is: why your "atmospheric obstruction" doesn't hide it from view?

I live nowhere near the sea and i commonly see examples which i understand to be lack of prescribed curvature, and not over water.

You keep saying that but never present any real examples, why not?

Wallace exp. : how did he move the viewing linw out of the refaction "zone"?

He took measurements further above the water surface.

Bedford Level Experiment Confirmed the Curvature of the Earth

In 1870, Alfred Russell Wallace successfully demonstrated the curvature of the Earth to answer the challenge put forward by a flat-Earther, John Hampden.

Hampden was a disciple of Rowbotham, who was a significant influence on flat-Earth movement back in the day. Rowbotham had previously used the Bedford Canal to prove the non-existence of Earth’s curvature. He looked through a telescope from one end of the canal and was able to observe boats on the other end.

He (Rowbotham) ignored the effect of refraction and wrongly concluded that the Earth does not have curvature. Wallace designed a better experiment to minimize the effect of refraction:

• He raised the entire experiment by 13 ft 3 in (4 m) above water. In contrast, Rowbotham did his experiment only 8 in (20 cm) above water.
  
  
• He added a pole with two discs in the middle of the canal for observational aid. This way, if there’s a curvature, it would be easy to observe.

In the experiment, Wallace successfully proved the existence of Earth’s curvature. Unfortunately, Hampden was not an honest person. He didn’t allow Wallace to take the wager. Instead, he made various threats to Wallace and his friends over the years and as a result, was put in jail many times.

Hampden wasn't a very nice type!

Quote from: faded mike on August 18, 2019, 09:32:16 PM

I live nowhere near the sea and i commonly see examples which i understand to be lack of prescribed curvature, and not over water.

You keep saying that but never present any real examples, why not?

Quote from: faded mike

Wallace exp. : how did he move the viewing linw out of the refaction "zone"?

He took measurements further above the water surface.

Quote

Bedford Level Experiment Confirmed the Curvature of the Earth

In 1870, Alfred Russell Wallace successfully demonstrated the curvature of the Earth to answer the challenge put forward by a flat-Earther, John Hampden.

Hampden was a disciple of Rowbotham, who was a significant influence on flat-Earth movement back in the day. Rowbotham had previously used the Bedford Canal to prove the non-existence of Earth’s curvature. He looked through a telescope from one end of the canal and was able to observe boats on the other end.

He (Rowbotham) ignored the effect of refraction and wrongly concluded that the Earth does not have curvature. Wallace designed a better experiment to minimize the effect of refraction:

• He raised the entire experiment by 13 ft 3 in (4 m) above water. In contrast, Rowbotham did his experiment only 8 in (20 cm) above water.
  
  
• He added a pole with two discs in the middle of the canal for observational aid. This way, if there’s a curvature, it would be easy to observe.

In the experiment, Wallace successfully proved the existence of Earth’s curvature. Unfortunately, Hampden was not an honest person. He didn’t allow Wallace to take the wager. Instead, he made various threats to Wallace and his friends over the years and as a result, was put in jail many times.

Hampden wasn't a very nice type!

"was able to observe boats at the other end" I understand that he watched the boat the entire trip. If thats true, it's funny they would leave out that detail, yet include the seemingly unimportant detail that Wallaces middle marker "had two disks". Could you cite that quote?

"was able to observe boats at the other end" I understand that he watched the boat the entire trip. If thats true, it's funny they would leave out that detail, yet include the seemingly unimportant detail that Wallaces middle marker "had two disks". Could you cite that quote?

Surely "was able to observe boats at the other end" implies that "he watched the boat the entire trip" so what's funny about it?