All of this is true of this effect though, and you have even admitted that the effect exists before in past conversations. See this past admission from 2022 from you
What "effect"? That things get smaller as they move away from you until you can't see them?
I'm not sure that's something that needs to be "admitted". Obviously that's true, it's just nothing to do with the sinking ship effect.
In the conversation around the post you quoted I demonstrated that by showing how the "hull" of a ship I drew disappeared from across the room
even when it was at the top. Angular side can, of course, make objects not visible. And with optical zoom they can be restored. No-one disputes that. But when an object is properly occluded by the horizon you can zoom in and you only see the top of the object, the rest is hidden by something, it's not just too small to see.
Rowbotham claimed that things disappear bottom first on a flat plane - like a path. They don't.
Which is exactly what Rowbotham is describing in Earth Not a Globe. When bodies are smaller than 1/60th of a degree they become lost to optical resolution, and are beyond perception. So, you were wrong. This effect does exist and it is reversible with optical zoom.
I wasn't wrong, I never denied that things can be too small to see. But that's true whether the thing is at the bottom of an object or the top. Your experiment is the same as the one I posted the results of in the thread you quoted. The hull disappears if it's at the top of the boat. Nothing to do with the sinking ship. Your claim that "Rowbotham's original society solved the sinking ship" is simply untrue.
The railroad references are here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Railroads
That's just a box set of people not understanding that "level" is defined with respect to your up/down direction. A spirit level shows when something is level. If you were at a different location on earth then the spirit level would be in a different orientation but still show level as horizontal to the local up/down direction. There's also a sprinkling of not understanding that elevation above sea level is also with respect to your orientation. I'm not sure if the curve of the earth is really a factor in the construction of railway as rails are laid in such small sections. The curve of the earth is absolutely a factor in larger scale engineering projects. It's explicitly mentioned on the LIGO web page:
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/factsYes, Lady Bount also verified Rowbotham's water convexity experiments with the then-new technology of long distance photography. Near the surface of the water, for at least the span of six miles, the light created a path which contradicted Round Earth Theory.
Amazing. Can we see the proof then? Then we can put all this globe earth nonsense to bed. Because I found one picture and it was some grainy mess in which I couldn't really make out anything. Please tell me there's something better? Or the results of the Bishop experiment would do. If you can see the beach all the way down to the shoreline from 23 miles away and a viewer height of 20 inches then I'm sold. Could you present the evidence you gathered?
A hypothesis typically does not have supporting evidence. However, the pages show that there is supporting evidence for celestial-scale, and possibly celestial-specific, bending of light
No-one disputes that light bends. There's refraction of course, light bends in relativistic ways. But EA states that light bends "upwards".
But in the moon tilt illusion you show the light bending downwards.
The test of a good theory is its ability to make predictions which can then be verified experimentally. How can you make specific predictions using EA when you have no working FE map and the equation governing EA is one Parsifal made up, shows no derivation and contains an unknown constant
People sitting in a plane have a difficult time telling how much the winds and the jet stream are adding to the journey.
OK, but you could plot your expected flight path on a FE map and check that against observations. Basic stuff like are you flying over land or sea. If land are there any identifiable landmarks.
Planes have a hard time determining their true speeds because they are propelling themselves in pockets of fluids which itself is traveling through larger scales of fluids.
They absolutely don't have a hard time doing that. Go on any long haul flight and you can put the flight map on the screen showing exactly where you are, how fast you're going and when you'll arrive. You can cross reference that against observations to determine whether the data it's showing is accurate. I was flying back from Cairo recently, I did this for a bit. The map said we were flying over some mountains. I looked out the window and there they were. The idea that this is all possible without planes knowing where they are at all times and therefore how fast they're going is ludicrous.
Show Posts
