[HorstFue]

It took it's time, to follow these argument, but in the end - for me - it appears quite simple.
You know this diagram from http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm ?


The distance of the vanishing point - aka the horizon - is defined by the limited resolution of the naked eye, where lines from the observers eye E to the vanishing point H and the surface C to H build an angle less than 1 minute of degree.
Rising observers position will broaden this angle and move point H (horizon) farther away, until the 1 minute criteria is met again.

But what, if observer has "hypervision" and could resolve angles less than 1 minute. Is then the point H also moved farther away?
Anyone can get "hypervision": use a binocular or a telescope.
If e.g. the binocular has a magnification of 7x (standard marine binocular) according to this the horizon should be 7 times farther away.

I frequently use such a binocular at sea, but the horizon always appears to be at the same distance, no significant difference when looking with naked eye or with the binocular - unless details get clearer.

[JohnAdams1145]

Yup. You're right. The horizon gets 10x farther away if you use 10x magnification... Never thought of it that way; I always just used the idea that the objects got hidden by the curvature of the Earth. Clearly the horizon doesn't get 10x farther away. The problem is that FE can simply respond that "waves" block you from seeing anything past a certain point; "waves" can make an "effective horizon" much closer than the actual horizon, which theoretically is extremely large (because we can get very powerful magnification).

The problem is that they haven't quantified any of these things, so there's no point in trying to debate it this way; it's far too prone to disproof by assertion (and those assertions are hard to disprove if done vaguely enough).

[douglips]

Waves can't explain the horizon in Kansas.

[Tom Bishop]

It took it's time, to follow these argument, but in the end - for me - it appears quite simple.
You know this diagram from http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm ?


The distance of the vanishing point - aka the horizon - is defined by the limited resolution of the naked eye, where lines from the observers eye E to the vanishing point H and the surface C to H build an angle less than 1 minute of degree.
Rising observers position will broaden this angle and move point H (horizon) farther away, until the 1 minute criteria is met again.

But what, if observer has "hypervision" and could resolve angles less than 1 minute. Is then the point H also moved farther away?
Anyone can get "hypervision": use a binocular or a telescope.
If e.g. the binocular has a magnification of 7x (standard marine binocular) according to this the horizon should be 7 times farther away.

I frequently use such a binocular at sea, but the horizon always appears to be at the same distance, no significant difference when looking with naked eye or with the binocular - unless details get clearer.

Yes. There are many accounts in the Flat Earth literature of telescopes restoring half sunken ships across calm bodies of water, showing that they are not really behind a "hill of water".

In cases where the water is turbulent, the shinking ship effect cannot be restored, showing waves to be the cause.

[AATW]

Yes. There are many accounts in the Flat Earth literature of telescopes restoring half sunken ships across calm bodies of water, showing that they are not really behind a "hill of water".

In cases where the water is turbulent, the shinking ship effect cannot be restored, showing waves to be the cause.

Except the water is clearly not turbulent in this video



He shows where the different shots were taken from, looking at the times when he shows the GPS readings it looks like the same afternoon and the weather doesn't seem significantly different. While the channel does connect with the ocean, you can see that the water is pretty calm in all the shots as you would expect in a fairly narrow channel like this. It's not the open ocean. If waves were a factor you would expect the amount of the building you can see to vary significantly as the swell comes and goes, but you can't.

[JohnAdams1145]

Tom, do you even think about what we're saying before just using these trivial dismissals? Your mind is so closed to the Round Earth that after every thing we say, you try these obviously physically wrong rebuttals without even giving a thought to their feasibility and their quantification.

You can't just say the water is turbulent; clearly we aren't seeing waves tens or hundreds of feet tall, which would be required to hide a building by that much. This is addition to the observation that it doesn't look turbulent.

[Tom Bishop]

Yes. There are many accounts in the Flat Earth literature of telescopes restoring half sunken ships across calm bodies of water, showing that they are not really behind a "hill of water".

In cases where the water is turbulent, the shinking ship effect cannot be restored, showing waves to be the cause.

Except the water is clearly not turbulent in this video



He shows where the different shots were taken from, looking at the times when he shows the GPS readings it looks like the same afternoon and the weather doesn't seem significantly different. While the channel does connect with the ocean, you can see that the water is pretty calm in all the shots as you would expect in a fairly narrow channel like this. It's not the open ocean. If waves were a factor you would expect the amount of the building you can see to vary significantly as the swell comes and goes, but you can't.

Those images were taken across an inland sea, which has significant waves on it. Read the chapter Perspective at Sea in Earth Not a Globe. The many built up waves on the horizon line will provide an area for larger bodies to shrink behind, much like how a dime can obscure an elephant behind it.

[Rama Set]

The dime obscuring an elephant example is not analogous. If a dime is on the ground and you are standing, it does not matter how far away the dime or the elephant is, it cannot obscure it.

[AATW]

Those images were taken across an inland sea, which has significant waves on it. Read the chapter Perspective at Sea in Earth Not a Globe. The many built up waves on the horizon line will provide an area for larger bodies to shrink behind, much like how a dime can obscure an elephant behind it.

Why would I read anything from a man who thought that the moon was translucent.

And your "Bishop Experiment" which you claim to be able to reproduce any time you like is also on a bay, more exposed to the open sea than the channel in this video.

This is your "heads I win, tails you lose" reasoning again. You constantly contradict yourself.

[JohnAdams1145]

Those images were taken across an inland sea, which has significant waves on it. Read the chapter Perspective at Sea in Earth Not a Globe. The many built up waves on the horizon line will provide an area for larger bodies to shrink behind, much like how a dime can obscure an elephant behind it.

Sorry, that's not how "many built up waves" work. You should read up on wave propagation; constructive interference cannot take place the way you say it can. However, this is a quibble. The main point is that there needs to be something extremely large obscuring the building, with the requisite size getting smaller as it gets closer to you. Your example is bad. As long as your eyes are above the dime, the dime cannot obscure the elephant. I think that anyone with common sense can tell you that.

[StinkyOne]

Yes. There are many accounts in the Flat Earth literature of telescopes restoring half sunken ships across calm bodies of water, showing that they are not really behind a "hill of water".

In cases where the water is turbulent, the shinking ship effect cannot be restored, showing waves to be the cause.

Except the water is clearly not turbulent in this video



He shows where the different shots were taken from, looking at the times when he shows the GPS readings it looks like the same afternoon and the weather doesn't seem significantly different. While the channel does connect with the ocean, you can see that the water is pretty calm in all the shots as you would expect in a fairly narrow channel like this. It's not the open ocean. If waves were a factor you would expect the amount of the building you can see to vary significantly as the swell comes and goes, but you can't.

Those images were taken across an inland sea, which has significant waves on it. Read the chapter Perspective at Sea in Earth Not a Globe. The many built up waves on the horizon line will provide an area for larger bodies to shrink behind, much like how a dime can obscure an elephant behind it.

There are many pictures of the Chicago skyline taken across lake Michigan that show the same effect. The waves on the Great Lakes in fair weather are quite small. A couple of feet.

Please provide evidence that a dime 3 feet below eye level can obscure an elephant.

[AATW]

The Wiki says:

With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence

Surely any waves over 20 inches would obscure the entire beach and shoreline. Is it really credible that over a span of 23 miles there is not a single wave over this height?
No photographic evidence of his claim is produced.

But the video I posted above? Oh, that's waves...
Heads I win, tails you lose.

[model 29]

Yes. There are many accounts in the Flat Earth literature of telescopes restoring half sunken ships across calm bodies of water, showing that they are not really behind a "hill of water". 

  Do you have a video of this occurring?  I have yet to find this. 

[Tom Bishop]

The dime obscuring an elephant example is not analogous. If a dime is on the ground and you are standing, it does not matter how far away the dime or the elephant is, it cannot obscure it.

Sure, at close distances. However, the horizon line is at eye level.

Those images were taken across an inland sea, which has significant waves on it. Read the chapter Perspective at Sea in Earth Not a Globe. The many built up waves on the horizon line will provide an area for larger bodies to shrink behind, much like how a dime can obscure an elephant behind it.

Sorry, that's not how "many built up waves" work. You should read up on wave propagation; constructive interference cannot take place the way you say it can. However, this is a quibble. The main point is that there needs to be something extremely large obscuring the building, with the requisite size getting smaller as it gets closer to you. Your example is bad. As long as your eyes are above the dime, the dime cannot obscure the elephant. I think that anyone with common sense can tell you that.

Perspective places the horizon at eye level. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

[Tom Bishop]

Yes. There are many accounts in the Flat Earth literature of telescopes restoring half sunken ships across calm bodies of water, showing that they are not really behind a "hill of water". 

  Do you have a video of this occurring?  I have yet to find this.

There are some Youtube videos. In another thread we are considering adding a list of such videos to our Library.

[model 29]

It will be interesting to see one.  All I've seen so far are videos of small boats on the horizon that are too small to see at low magnification and become visible at higher magnification, but anything that is partially 'sunken' at any magnification does not rise up (restore) as magnification is increased.

[AATW]

Yes, all magnification does is make things bigger and therefore clearer. If a hull is truly sunken behind the curve of the earth then magnification will not restore it any more than if I see someone go over a hill till I can only see their head will a telescope then allow me to see all of them.

It goes without saying that the "horizon rises to eye level" thing is also incorrect although admittedly you have to get pretty high before the horizon's dip below eye level is noticeable.

[spoonbow]

Mr Bishop,
You are quite clearly the authority on the subject here. Would you please tell us, based on the ideas set forth in Perspective at Sea in Earth Not a Globe, just how tall the waves (or the "dime") would have to be in order to produce the effect seen in the video? Of course, we will have to make some assumptions, primarily as to the location of the waves relative to the viewer and the building. Since the waters in the foreground of all of the video shots are quite calm, we'll have to assume that the waves are more distant, closer to the building that the observer, agreed? Since this is video we can also gather some clues regarding the sea state by referring to the Beaufort Scale http://ggweather.com/101/beaufort.htm and by observing general weather/atmospheric conditions. I very much look forward to receiving your reply and gaining valuable insight as to how physics behave in the FE model.

[Obviously]

Perspective places the horizon at eye level. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

Umm sorry Tom, this is some serious unscientific nonsense (especially when you're not at sea level), and even at sea level, it doesn't help you prove anything. You can keep posting links to your silly wiki all you want, it's not gonna convince anyone. In the meantime, check out my other thread which clearly demonstrates the exact opposite of what you're trying to say, maybe you'll learn something: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8832.0

[spoonbow]

Perspective places the horizon at eye level. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

Umm sorry Tom, this is some serious unscientific nonsense (especially when you're not at sea level), and even at sea level, it doesn't help you prove anything. You can keep posting links to your silly wiki all you want, it's not gonna convince anyone. In the meantime, check out my other thread which clearly demonstrates the exact opposite of what you're trying to say, maybe you'll learn something: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8832.0

Now, now, let's not be so hasty. The idea of the horizon being at eye level isn't in itself unscientific nonsense, it's just not relative to the current conversation. Mr Bishop has been given opportunity to clarify his statements and provide examples of how his theory applies in this particular instance. It's only fair to Mr Bishop and to those participating in this thread to allow him the opportunity to reply before insisting that he pursue another topic/thread.