[Orbisect-64]

x

[Dog]

This doesn't address why ship masts appear to sink over the horizon. You just drew a picture with some boats and swells.

To answer the question: boat masts (and boats themselves) appear to sink over the horizon because the Earth is a sphere. This is obvious if you grab binoculars (or a telescope) and watch a ship go to the horizon on a clear day. Yes there will be some haze but the event is still perfectly observable. Ideally you would pick a place with little swell and pick a viewing point maybe 10-20 feet above the water. If there are tsunamis (as evidenced in your illustration) you can pick a higher viewpoint. Of course you would then be able to see further (as shown in my thrid link), so you would need to wait longer for the ship to "sink".

[Thork]

Go to hell... I mean GO HOME SHILL.

It answers the question quite nicely. You are looking at the swells in front of you, which causes you to look slightly upward. Boats in the distance will appear to sink because you can only see as much of the boat as the swells will permit.

I don't expect morons to possess the comprehension skills to get it.

Man, you would think they would pay intelligent people to be shills. I feel gipped, all we get are the idiots.


—

Please stop with all the shilliness. It is only Eric Dubay that thinks this. No one is paid to promote flat earth, neither is anyone who comes to this site likely to be a paid government stooge. Use your brains. You are making our society seem paranoid, cultish, delusional and childish.

[Furyan5]

The answer is simple. Light waves are repelled by gravity. As the light from the ship travels towards you, it is pushed upwards. The further away it gets, the further the light is bent.

Sent from my YOGA Tablet 2-830L using Tapatalk

[Anti FE]

The answer is simple. Light waves are repelled by gravity. As the light from the ship travels towards you, it is pushed upwards. The further away it gets, the further the light is bent.

Sent from my YOGA Tablet 2-830L using Tapatalk

Light travels much to quickly for this to be true, as you would need much more gravity and alot more space to work with for light to be effected by gravity that much

[andruszkow]

It has nothing to do with gravity.

Masts sink over the horizon because of the curvature, it's that simple. With specific weather conditions, it will even appear to be more hidden, or more visible on certain days, given the same distance.

Atmospheric refraction is the same reason why the Moon can appear to "ripple" given certain weather conditions, and also what causes you too see a mirror-like illusion on road on very hot summerdays.

[geckothegeek]

It has nothing to do with gravity.

Masts sink over the horizon because of the curvature, it's that simple. With specific weather conditions, it will even appear to be more hidden, or more visible on certain days, given the same distance.

Atmospheric refraction is the same reason why the Moon can appear to "ripple" given certain weather conditions, and also what causes you too see a mirror-like illusion on road on very hot summerdays.

I realize there are possibly many others on this website who have had no experience at this "ship passing over the horizon" subject and might think there is some question about the actual experience.

But those of us who have had the fortunate actual experience know the subject is simply due to the fact that the earth is the sphere, or globe that it is and the ship gradually disappears, hull first and finally the top of the mast pass out of view. And the distance to the horizon depends on the height of the observer. If the earth was flat there would be no need for placing crow's nests or radar antennas as high as they are  to "see" the greatest distance. This is also the same as far as land is concerned. Sailing away from a port, the shoreline passes out of view and gradually the tops of mountains or hills are the last seen points of land before they pass completely out of view.

To those of us who have had some experience in this matter, this seems to be one of the most fallacious of the flat earth fallacies. To anyone who has any doubts, I would suggest they talk to some one in the Navy, for example. Some navigation officer, preferably one in active duty with considerable experience , would be the best source to set this straight about this and explain why the flat earth idea is so false. Of course, I would imagine a flat earther would just say they were being fed a bunch of lies. But the bottom line, it is because of the shape of the earth - a globe and not a flat disc - is the reason for this phenomenon - not "swells" or any of the flat earth fallacies. Just check it out with someone who knows something about it.....If you dare, flat earthers.

Ever wonder why those sailors on those old ships - in the crow's nests high on the masts - were the first to call out "Land Ho !" when they neared a seaport or an  island ?

Since this is the debate section I think it would be safe to say that this is just one more flat earth fallacy that can be easily de-bunked. I hope I won't get banned for posting this on this section . But I am used to that and can abide with that. The other bannings were for posting on the Q&A  section. But I think this is a "Question" as to why ships pass out of view on the ocean with an "Answer" as to the real reason as to why and how they do.

You might also check into the subject of the maps, or charts, that are used for oceanic navigation. Are they made directly from a flat earth map of the earth or are they made from various projections from the globe of the earth ? 

[Aether]

No offense Thork, but as I've pointed out, go over the the hollow earth forums. They don't have people trying to convince them the earth is a ball.

Um, go back to the hollow earth forums and try to read, they already believe the earth is round. No need to convince them of a spherical earth, just need them to come out of the closet....er, I mean the earth.

[Atlas22]

Yea and the Horizon is lie cause its a curve? Right? Without Antarctica the ocean would spill on bottom of the Universe... ALL OF YOU YOU ARE LOSING MENTAL HEALHT! And... GO TO SCHOOL

[Fletcher]

Aren't ships supposed to lean backwards when they disappear over the horizon? The same thing should be true for tall buildings.

[geckothegeek]

Aren't ships supposed to lean backwards when they disappear over the horizon? The same thing should be true for tall buildings.

The distance is so small it is not noticeable. One of the problems I have noticed from flat earthers is that they make these weird statements . Apparently many of them have never been to sea and have had first hand experience in observing ships sailing beyond the horizon , whether watching them with or without Telescopes or Binoculars. The same as watching an island or the mainland appear or disappear when leaving or nearing them.  It is all simply a matter of the curvature of the earth because the earth is a globe.

In the words of Sherlock Holmes- Elementary, My Dear Watson....OK,  sherlockians,he didn't  really say it that way...LOL..but anyway....

[geckothegeek]

This shilly-Ness is one of the greatest silly-Ness of the flat earth cult ...IMHO anyway....LOL

Another problem seems to be that they take the Word Of Samuel Burley Rowbotham as The Gospel Truth without question.

[geckothegeek]

In reference to this mention of swells...There are days when the ocean is perfectly calm and there are no swells. Even if there were  some they would have very little effect on this ship over the horizon subject. Only the curvature of the earth involved. Speaking from personal experience and obsevation.

[mikeman7918]

Aren't ships supposed to lean backwards when they disappear over the horizon? The same thing should be true for tall buildings.

I have done the calculations multiple times and it turns out that they are only supposed to lean backwards by a tiny fraction of a degree.  I could do the calculations again if you want.

The answer is simple. Light waves are repelled by gravity. As the light from the ship travels towards you, it is pushed upwards. The further away it gets, the further the light is bent.

What you claim is in direct violation of general relativity and special relativity.  It doesn't just conflict with a minor prediction, it is in direct violation of the core principals of these theories and the only way for it to work is for a model that allows relativistic paradoxes to happen.  Anything repelling gravity is physically impossible, unless you debunk relativity.  Relativity is based on Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism, so you can start by proving that magnetism, electricity, and light don't exist.

[Luke 22:35-38]

In relation to ship masts, lighthouses are built specifically with the curvature of the earth in mind.

[LuggerSailor]

The known height of lighthouses and the height of an observer is also used to determine the distance between the two when the light first becomes visible above the horizon;

http://www.sailtrain.co.uk/navigation/rising.htm

[sandokhan]

Relativity is based on Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism, so you can start by proving that magnetism, electricity, and light don't exist.

Einstein made the very same mistake:

Einstein, 1905:

"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”

But those are not Maxwell's equations at all; on the contrary, they are the Heaviside-Lorentz equations:



In fact, NdG Tyson shows the same ignorance on the subject:





(from the Cosmos series)

HERE ARE THE REAL ETHER MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS:



THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE, AND NOT CONSTANT.

The Speed of Light

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/5373


http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/030706.htm

(step by step demonstration how the set of Maxwell's original equations was censored/modified)

The much-reduced Heaviside-Gibbs-Hertz limited version of Maxwell's theory, with the added Lorentz symmetrization and arbitrary discarding of all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems, has since been taught as "Maxwell's theory". It is Heaviside's equations and Heaviside's notations, as further limited by Lorentz.

In 1892 Lorentz added the coup de grace to even this much-reduced Heaviside vector theory with simple equations and much fewer potentials. Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the equations to make them simpler yet, so that closed algebraic solutions could usually be found and one would not have to use numerical methods so widely. He did it merely to simplify the equations to NEW equations having much easier solutions! That he changed the potentials was considered of no consequence, so long as no NET translation force field emerged (even though two new force fields were arbitrarily introduced).



http://www.cheniere.org/articles/Deliberate%20Discard.htm

(superb documentation on the reasons why Maxwell's original set of equations was deliberately eliminated from textbooks)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1639521#msg1639521


unless you debunk relativity

This has to be a joke, right?

There is no such thing as the theory of relativity:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2715.msg80203#msg80203

[mikeman7918]

Sandokhan, that's a nice claim you got there.  It would be a shame if someone were to look into it.

But those are not Maxwell's equations at all; on the contrary, they are the Heaviside-Lorentz equations:

Heaviside-Lorentz equations?  Do you mean Heaviside-Lorentz units, which are a set of standards about how units are expressed in physics equations?  Maxwell's equations in Heaviside-Lorentz units are still Maxwell's equations because they are the same exept they are written in a different equivelent form.

As for the "real" equations, I have searched and searched and I cannot find where you got your information.  In all the sources you cited I did not find where you got the most important part of your argument on which everything else is built, which is that Maxwell's equations don't require the speed of light to be a constant.  I don't even know what all te variables mean in those "real" equations so I can't do anything with them.

Your post also doesn't address the fact that special relativity and general relativity have been proven experimentally multiple times.  One famous experient is one where an atomic clock was put on a plane and another perfectly synced one was left on the ground and when the plane flew around the world the clocks were offset by a tiny amount that matches perfectly with presictions made by relativity equations.  This experiment was repeated multiple times with different clocks, different planes, and different flight paths all with simelar results.

There is another experiment where the speed of light was measured coming from the Sun at sunset and sunrise.  The Sun rises to the east of you and sets to the west of you, so there is no question that it moves west relative to you no matter what model you use.  The experiment found that the speed of light was the same in both instances.  This experiment was repeated multiple times with simelar results.  This experiment lead to the theory that light travels at light speed relative to the "aether", but that model failed to explain so much.

[sandokhan]

You haven't done your homework at all.

Here is the original paper containing the ORIGINAL ETHER MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS:

http://vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf

Dr. Frederick Tombe has undertaken a painstaking research in order to discover how the original Maxwell equations have been modified into their currently known form, and why it was done.

http://www.nanotechinnov.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Maxwell-Original-Equations.pdf

While Maxwell refers to twenty equations at the end of this section, there are in fact
only eight equations as such. Maxwell arrives at the figure of twenty because he splits
six of these equations into their three Cartesian components. Maxwell’s eight original
equations,



Modern day sets of Maxwell’s equations therefore only contain three of the original
set, with two of these having been amalgamated into one.

http://web.archive.org/web/20071006083222/http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf


The Distortion of Maxwell's Equations

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/ep8/distortion.pdf


Maxwell was most certainly not a stepping stone for Einstein as is often
suggested, even by some anti-relativists. Maxwell’s most important work has
been swept under the carpet and a set of equations with a partial connection to
Maxwell have been promoted in his name and used in a manner which is far
removed from Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism.


Step by step account of how HEAVISIDE AND LORENTZ modified the original set of equations to eliminate from public knowledge the ether terms contained in Maxwell's equations.

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/030706.htm


What you are referring to is the Hafele-Keating experiment (1972).

No proof at all for any theory of relativity.

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/rickeressen.pdf (Louis Essen, the greatest expert on atomic clocks of the 20th century, dismisses the very experiment)

http://www.anti-relativity.com/hafelekeatingdebunk.htm (total debunking of the failed Hafele-Keating experiment, a must read)


For the second "experiment" you opened a thread here one year ago:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62515.0#.VnBnS9J961s

EINSTEIN FALLACIES:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090309113407/http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm


REASONS WHY EINSTEIN WAS WRONG:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120205135201/http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html (one of the best works on the variability of light)


EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY: SCIENTIFIC THEORY OR ILLUSION? by Milan Pavlovic

http://web.archive.org/web/20080705084812/http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter5.html


“it is difficult to find a theory so popular, and yet so unclear, incomplete, paradoxical
and contradictory, as is the theory of relativity…. The special theory of relativity can be said to be, in essence, a sum of deceptions.”



ALBERT IN RELATIVITYLAND

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf

However, space-time as a fourth dimension is nothing more than the product of professor Minkowski's cerebral and mathematical imagination.


Here is a critical view to each and every aspect of the relativity theory:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/ntham/amesbury.pdf


The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.


Now, here is the 100% correct proof for the existence of ether, the Galaev ether-drift results:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722791#msg1722791

[mikeman7918]

I skimmed through your articles and lost count of how many logical fallacies I saw.  The people you linked to clearly had no understanding of relativity.  For example: one of your sources said that people who believe in relativity doubted that GPS would work yet it does, but in reality the reason it works is because they account for relativity by resetting the clocks whenever time dilation offsets them.

As for Maxwell's equations being "altered", all alterations made kept the same function of the equations such that plugging in the same numbers in both will yield the same result.  It's kind of like how X=2Y is the same as 2X=4Y and -X+2Y=0.  Any and all solutions for one of these equations are solutions for the other two, so they are basically the same equation even though they look different.  The same thing happened with Maxwell's equations, exept a few were added together F(G(X)) style.

Some of your sources mentioned that Maxewll believed in an Aether, as did most scientists of the time.  The reason people stopped believing in it is because experiments kept failing to detect it and the theory had more holes then Swiss cheese.  It was replaced by relativity because that theory had math to prove it that nobody could refute and it was confirmed hundreds of times by experiment.