[AATW]

"Technically the explanation for why the sun sets at higher altitudes is also "waves," and whatnot. The perspective lines meet at the horizon and are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. Any slight increase  in height at the Vanishing Point will allow something to disappear further behind it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant." - Tom Bishop

I did an experiment to explore the idea that waves could be an explanation for sunset or ships sinking below the horizon. This is the set up



So I built a tower 3 Jenga blocks high and a row of blocks which represent waves. Let's see how much of the tower is hidden behind the waves depending on the eye height. If the eye is below the level of the wave then the amount of tower hidden is more than the height of the wave. More than one block of the tower is hidden. Couple of pictures, the first slightly to the side so you can see that we are looking below wave level, the second looking straight along the row of blocks:





This is explained by this diagram:



You're looking up at the wave so more than the wave height is hidden. Although if the wave that is higher than your eye height is nearer the tower then less of it would be hidden because the angle is shallower:



This is also a demonstration that these side on diagrams don't need to "account for perspective" and do reflect the reality of what you see.
Now let's look at wave height. Here you can see that the amount hidden is the same as the wave height:



Which makes sense. You're looking across the level of the waves so only the height of the wave is hidden:



If you are above the wave level though then less than the wave height is hidden.
Jenga blocks are all the same height but you can clearly see that less than one block is hidden:



And that's because you are looking down over the waves:



Ergo, if you're at altitude you will be looking over the waves so the sun can't be hiding behind them.



Discuss.

[JohnAdams1145]

I don't even know why you have to do an experiment to disprove Tom's statement. He would do well to take a class on basic geometry and then move on to basic physics, and I'm sorry that you had to waste your time to conduct such an experiment.

Even a fool knows that if there is a straight (well technically, there's refraction, but its effect is minuscule and well-understood), clear path from your eye to an object, then you can see it, irrespective of whatever "perspective" junk you want to include. Light travels in mostly straight lines.

Therefore, if a ship is on the horizon, it can be seen if and only if there is an optically clear path from it to your eyes. Forget about what the scene looks like if photographed from anywhere, and diagram it with a scale that doesn't change depending on coordinates. Therefore, for an object to occlude that path, it has to be taller than your eye height (or the height of the ship, but I bet the ship is taller than you are).

Simple. It's a real shame that people still blindly assert physical facts they can test themselves. That's intellectually dishonest and lazy.

As for a rebuttal to your experiment, they'll invoke the same junk reasoning that makes them discredit the diagrams you've drawn before: you didn't properly incorporate the "perspective" resulting from long distances. And you can't fix their ignorance, fundamental misunderstandings, or lack of education.

No part of their assertions addresses why you wouldn't detect the rays of light from a distant object if there were an unobstructed path from it to your eyes.


My hypothesis (what the FEs call a "theory") is that the waves simply get up to thousands of feet tall, but you can't see them because celestial gravitation brings them down as you get closer to them.

[AATW]

I realise I'm wasting my time but I had no plans yesterday. 

Also, I thought it was useful to demonstrate that the diagrams I made previously do actually match reality, you don't need to incorporate perspective.

I note there's been no FE response yet.

[Tom Bishop]

That is only a small model. The end of it doesn't rise to eye level with perspective.

[inquisitive]

That is only a small model. The end of it doesn't rise to eye level with perspective.

Please explain your continual use of the word perspective.

[AATW]

That is only a small model. The end of it doesn't rise to eye level with perspective.

It demonstrates the principle.
And you have been shown 3 different experiments which all clearly show the result that the horizon does NOT rise to eye level.
I'm looking forward to the results of your experiment where you show the result that the horizon does rise to eye level so we can review that. 

And if you could show a diagram as to how light from a sun THREE THOUSAND miles above the earth can enter my eye horizontally without bending then that would be super-helpful too.

[Macarios]

When the wave is small you have to be lower than the top of its crest in order to have something hidden.
When you are on top of Aconcagua (6962 meters) then how big waves should be to hide Sun 5005 km high?
Have you ever heard of any wave that high?

Or how far should Sun be for gap below to disappear in (or behind) vanishing point?
Resolution of human eye is about one arc minute (0.0167 degrees), and the gap is 5000 kilometers.

[JohnAdams1145]

That is only a small model. The end of it doesn't rise to eye level with perspective.

Predicted it.

See, you can't just make that assertion without any knowledge or proof. Do you even understand how perspective works? Allow me to enlighten you. Things farther away appear closer together because the angular distance between them (which the eye resolves) gets smaller. If you draw lines from your eye to the edges of those things and look at a viewing plane in front of you, you clearly see that distances appear smaller as things get farther away.

PERSPECTIVE IS NOT A PHYSICAL LAW. IT HAS NO BEARING TO PHYSICAL REALITY. IF THERE IS A CLEAR, UNOBSTRUCTED PATH BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS, YOU WILL SEE THEM. END OF DISCUSSION. QUIT ASSERTING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITHOUT AN ELEMENTARY UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS.

Let me put this in several different ways so you quit repeating this trash mantra. Maybe something will "click" in you.
1. Light travels in mostly straight lines.
2. Angles get "thinner" as an object moves farther away. Try some geometry.
3. Therefore, things farther away look smaller.
4. Perspective does not describe reality. It only describes how you see things.


-- If light travels in straight lines and there is a CLEAR path, then why won't the EM waves from the Sun reach your eye?
-- There is a CLEAR path as many diagrams have shown.
-- Try sticking a door shorter than you on the ground. Now try hiding your eyes from the afternoon sun. You can't, no matter how hard you try.
-- The Sun emits EM waves in all directions. Why, even though there is a CLEAR path from it (no wave blocks it), do we not see light from it according to your perspective explanation?

!!! Take an introductory physics course.  You're being ridiculous. !!!

[Tontogary]

That is only a small model. The end of it doesn't rise to eye level with perspective.

Predicted it.

See, you can't just make that assertion without any knowledge or proof. Do you even understand how perspective works? Allow me to enlighten you. Things farther away appear closer together because the angular distance between them (which the eye resolves) gets smaller. If you draw lines from your eye to the edges of those things and look at a viewing plane in front of you, you clearly see that distances appear smaller as things get farther away.

PERSPECTIVE IS NOT A PHYSICAL LAW. IT HAS NO BEARING TO PHYSICAL REALITY. IF THERE IS A CLEAR, UNOBSTRUCTED PATH BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS, YOU WILL SEE THEM. END OF DISCUSSION. QUIT ASSERTING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN WITHOUT AN ELEMENTARY UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS.

Let me put this in several different ways so you quit repeating this trash mantra. Maybe something will "click" in you.
1. Light travels in mostly straight lines.
2. Angles get "thinner" as an object moves farther away. Try some geometry.
3. Therefore, things farther away look smaller.
4. Perspective does not describe reality. It only describes how you see things.


-- If light travels in straight lines and there is a CLEAR path, then why won't the EM waves from the Sun reach your eye?
-- There is a CLEAR path as many diagrams have shown.
-- Try sticking a door shorter than you on the ground. Now try hiding your eyes from the afternoon sun. You can't, no matter how hard you try.
-- The Sun emits EM waves in all directions. Why, even though there is a CLEAR path from it (no wave blocks it), do we not see light from it according to your perspective explanation?

!!! Take an introductory physics course.  You're being ridiculous. !!!

Apparently the sun does not emit waves in all directions, it is like a flashlight with focussed beams of light, thus neatly explaining why you cant see the sun at all times and distances on a plane earth. (Liberally sprinkled with a healthy dose of “perspective”)

Ridiculous i know, but i am sure it will be mentioned.......

[JohnAdams1145]

Oh yeah, forgot about that. Apologies.

Now what about ships and their masts?

[Westprog]

That is only a small model. The end of it doesn't rise to eye level with perspective.

Please explain your continual use of the word perspective.

Replace "perspective" with "deep magic from the dawn of time" to get the proper impression of how it works. Flat Earth perspective has nothing to do with optics.

[Tontogary]

Oh yeah, forgot about that. Apologies.

Now what about ships and their masts?

Now THATS perspective......

Although there is a certain amount of vanishing pointy involved, although to be honest i cannot follow the varied and confused responses to the questions.

I have tried to take a picture of a ship over the horizon, but i dont have a camera with a good zoom lens, all i can do is take a picture through binoculars, which does not turn out well. I know what the ship turns out to look like in the attached pic, it has a black hull, but i cant claim it as empirical evidence as the quality is too poor.

[AATW]

Apparently the sun does not emit waves in all directions, it is like a flashlight with focussed beams of light, thus neatly explaining why you cant see the sun at all times and distances on a plane earth. (Liberally sprinkled with a healthy dose of “perspective”)

Ridiculous i know, but i am sure it will be mentioned.......

Actually...I used to think that's what they believed but it isn't, they do believe the sun shines in all directions but they think that the reason you can't see it at night is "perspective".
That is partly why I created this thread. The quote in the original thread is from Tom, he says the explanation for sunset of a sun THREE THOUSAND miles above the plane of the earth is explained by "waves and whatnot".

Waves. And whatnot. I wish I was making this up, but I'm not. That is what he said.

So the point of this thread is that if you're at altitude then less than the height of a wave can occlude the sun. Which makes it unlikely that a wave is high enough to occlude a sun THREE THOUSAND miles above the plane of the earth.

[jimbob]

"Technically the explanation for why the sun sets at higher altitudes is also "waves," and whatnot. The perspective lines meet at the horizon and are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. Any slight increase  in height at the Vanishing Point will allow something to disappear further behind it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant." - Tom Bishop

I did an experiment to explore the idea that waves could be an explanation for sunset or ships sinking below the horizon. This is the set up



So I built a tower 3 Jenga blocks high and a row of blocks which represent waves. Let's see how much of the tower is hidden behind the waves depending on the eye height. If the eye is below the level of the wave then the amount of tower hidden is more than the height of the wave. More than one block of the tower is hidden. Couple of pictures, the first slightly to the side so you can see that we are looking below wave level, the second looking straight along the row of blocks:





This is explained by this diagram:



You're looking up at the wave so more than the wave height is hidden. Although if the wave that is higher than your eye height is nearer the tower then less of it would be hidden because the angle is shallower:



This is also a demonstration that these side on diagrams don't need to "account for perspective" and do reflect the reality of what you see.
Now let's look at wave height. Here you can see that the amount hidden is the same as the wave height:



Which makes sense. You're looking across the level of the waves so only the height of the wave is hidden:



If you are above the wave level though then less than the wave height is hidden.
Jenga blocks are all the same height but you can clearly see that less than one block is hidden:



And that's because you are looking down over the waves:



Ergo, if you're at altitude you will be looking over the waves so the sun can't be hiding behind them.



Discuss.

I fly microlights and consideration has to be given regarding sunset at altitude. You can be caught out if you dont allow for it. The sun sets later at altitude.