[rabinoz]

There has been similar material in another thread, but it never settled the crucial question!

Junker posted this in a reply to another post:

Ships over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.

This one is a legit argument and those who have completed the experiment have confirmed it.

Where is this experiment that confirms this?

It MUST show that Ships over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.

The critical point here is disappearing OVER the horizon, not disappearing simply because they are small boats that are too small to see.

In other words a ship large enough to clearly see and resolve into parts must disappear OVER the horizon as we know they do, and has been know for millenia.

[juner]

There has been similar material in another thread, but it never settled the crucial question!

You're right, it isn't settled. I would suggest someone from the RE camp ^{perform the experiment,} _{document all logistics and results,} then report back with his or her findings. I can't wait to see the results!

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

There has been similar material in another thread, but it never settled the crucial question!

You're right, it isn't settled. I would suggest someone from the RE camp ^{perform the experiment,} _{document all logistics and results,} then report back with his or her findings. I can't wait to see the results!

You've learned a lot from the master of ransom note style formatting I see.

It MUST show that Ships over the horizon reappear when you look at them through a telescope.

The critical point here is disappearing OVER the horizon, not disappearing simply because they are small boats that are too small to see.

In other words a ship large enough to clearly see and resolve into parts must disappear OVER the horizon as we know they do, and has been know for millenia.

The point is, flat earth adherents deny that there is a horizon that you can physically go "over." So you're essentially asking them to perform an experiment under parameters that are incompatible with their actual assertion.

I've said this in the other thread, and I'll say it again.

If a ship is too small to see, exactly when can you perceive it as  "disappearing over the horizon?"

[Rama Set]

The point is, flat earth adherents deny that there is a horizon that you can physically go "over." So you're essentially asking them to perform an experiment under parameters that are incompatible with their actual assertion.

Ships are observed visually descending lower in to the ocean, and being hidden by the visual horizon.  This is incompatible with their view... yet it happens.  And not just with ships, but also with cities and the sun and moon.  Some FEers, adhere to Rowbotham's explanation, that this is a trick of visual perspective, and that the missing part of the figure can be restored using a telescope.  However, this has never been observed, and indeed, when such a boat is viewed through a telescope, the magnified image does not have it's hull restored, but there is still a portion hidden behind the visual horizon.  This is a falsification of the proposed explanation, and so the hypothesis must be modified or abandoned.  One proposed modification is that on the water, waves and swells cause the obstruction, but to my knowledge this has never been measured.  If you have, or know where I can find such a demonstration, I would love to see it.

I've said this in the other thread, and I'll say it again.

If a ship is too small to see, exactly when can you perceive it as  "disappearing over the horizon?"

I engaged in this conversation but you never continued it.   

[geckothegeek]

The point is, flat earth adherents deny that there is a horizon that you can physically go "over." So you're essentially asking them to perform an experiment under parameters that are incompatible with their actual assertion.

Ships are observed visually descending lower in to the ocean, and being hidden by the visual horizon.  This is incompatible with their view... yet it happens.  And not just with ships, but also with cities and the sun and moon.  Some FEers, adhere to Rowbotham's explanation, that this is a trick of visual perspective, and that the missing part of the figure can be restored using a telescope.  However, this has never been observed, and indeed, when such a boat is viewed through a telescope, the magnified image does not have it's hull restored, but there is still a portion hidden behind the visual horizon.  This is a falsification of the proposed explanation, and so the hypothesis must be modified or abandoned.  One proposed modification is that on the water, waves and swells cause the obstruction, but to my knowledge this has never been measured.  If you have, or know where I can find such a demonstration, I would love to see it.

I've said this in the other thread, and I'll say it again.

If a ship is too small to see, exactly when can you perceive it as  "disappearing over the horizon?"

I engaged in this conversation but you never continued it.

No doubt it has never been continued since this question of the horizon and the ship disappearing over the horizon is one of the weakest points in flat earth fallacies.
(1) At sea, on a normal day with no other atmospheric effects, the horizon is a distinct line where sea and sky meet, the distance to the horizon can be estimated, and the flat earth fallacy that the horizon is an indistinct blur that fades away in the distance is fallacious.
(2) Objects, such as ships, land and cities that disappear over the horizon can not be restored with a telescope. This is just comon every day knowledge.

Any person who has ever been to sea considers these as the most absurd of flat earth fallacies and fantasies from their common every day observations and experiences, such as those engaged in lookout or navigation duties at sea.

[TotesNotReptilian]

There has been similar material in another thread, but it never settled the crucial question!

You're right, it isn't settled. I would suggest someone from the RE camp ^{perform the experiment,} _{document all logistics and results,} then report back with his or her findings. I can't wait to see the results!

No thanks. No matter how many times I do the experiment and get a negative result, there is no way to prove that the phenomenon doesn't exist. However, it only takes one positive result to prove that the phenomenon DOES exist. Which is why we are asking for some proof positive. Surely, *you have some proof positive stashed somewhere if you are convinced that the phenomenon is real?

* by "you" I mean flat-earthers in general, since you seem to get super annoyed at me making any assumptions about you specifically.

Also, touche on the formatting, although, you forgot the <marquee> tag. Rabinoz: your posts tend to look like a website from the nineties.

If a ship is too small to see, exactly when can you perceive it as  "disappearing over the horizon?"

I also answered this:

1. The horizon line passes in FRONT of the ship.
2. A significant portion of the ship that is normally above water appears to be behind the horizon line.

It just needs to be big enough so that we can accurately and precisely measure point 2. You kind of have to use your own judgement, but when presenting evidence, you should try to err on the side of too big. The more detail the better.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

The point is, flat earth adherents deny that there is a horizon that you can physically go "over." So you're essentially asking them to perform an experiment under parameters that are incompatible with their actual assertion.

Ships are observed visually descending lower in to the ocean, and being hidden by the visual horizon. 

How and when are ships observed doing that? When a ship is too small to distinguish the hull from the water and eventually too small to be perceptible besides being a dot in the distance. Are ships observed "listing" forward, as they would as they go over a round horizon? Or still perfectly level? I've seen ships and boats go out to the ocean and eventually the haze of the atmosphere is what makes it disappear for me.

And as I said, on a flat earth the boat never goes under a horizon. It appears to because of the faultiness of the viewing instrument (eyes, telescope, zoom lens).

As for a City that's over the horizon, what's interesting to me is that it doesn't seem to tilt away from you as you would expect something 50 miles away affected by hundreds of feet of curvature.

The sun and moon are entirely different matters altogether. Unfortunately there is no easy way to experiment and test that, but we can do that with physical objects on Earth.

[andruszkow]

Tall structures indeed, and a malfunctioning telescope.

... Right?

[Rama Set]

The point is, flat earth adherents deny that there is a horizon that you can physically go "over." So you're essentially asking them to perform an experiment under parameters that are incompatible with their actual assertion.

Ships are observed visually descending lower in to the ocean, and being hidden by the visual horizon. 

How and when are ships observed doing that? When a ship is too small to distinguish the hull from the water and eventually too small to be perceptible besides being a dot in the distance. Are ships observed "listing" forward, as they would as they go over a round horizon? Or still perfectly level? I've seen ships and boats go out to the ocean and eventually the haze of the atmosphere is what makes it disappear for me.

Ships certainly get hidden:

Diamond Princess leaving Harbour

Diamond Princess partly over horizon

Diamond Princess well over horizon (framed for overlay)

Diamond Princess original ship overlayed on prev picture

In my opinion this ship is clearly partly hidden.

This ship is sinking behind the visual horizon and is not too small to see.  The sun does it too, every day.

And as I said, on a flat earth the boat never goes under a horizon. It appears to because of the faultiness of the viewing instrument (eyes, telescope, zoom lens).

It does?  Why does the sun go behind the horizon?

As for a City that's over the horizon, what's interesting to me is that it doesn't seem to tilt away from you as you would expect something 50 miles away affected by hundreds of feet of curvature.

The expected list at approximately 50 miles away is something less than 1 degree.  Miniscule.

The sun and moon are entirely different matters altogether. Unfortunately there is no easy way to experiment and test that, but we can do that with physical objects on Earth.

Why is it a different matter?  It is an object that appears to disappear behind the visual horizon.

[geckothegeek]

The point is, flat earth adherents deny that there is a horizon that you can physically go "over." So you're essentially asking them to perform an experiment under parameters that are incompatible with their actual assertion.

Ships are observed visually descending lower in to the ocean, and being hidden by the visual horizon. 

How and when are ships observed doing that? When a ship is too small to distinguish the hull from the water and eventually too small to be perceptible besides being a dot in the distance. Are ships observed "listing" forward, as they would as they go over a round horizon? Or still perfectly level? I've seen ships and boats go out to the ocean and eventually the haze of the atmosphere is what makes it disappear for me.

And as I said, on a flat earth the boat never goes under a horizon. It appears to because of the faultiness of the viewing instrument (eyes, telescope, zoom lens).

As for a City that's over the horizon, what's interesting to me is that it doesn't seem to tilt away from you as you would expect something 50 miles away affected by hundreds of feet of curvature.

The sun and moon are entirely different matters altogether. Unfortunately there is no easy way to experiment and test that, but we can do that with physical objects on Earth.

If I should be pardoned for the use of the word "suggestion"..... My suggestion would be for the flat earthers to talk to some real sailors about this subject.....civilians and /or  enlisted men or officers in the navy. They could set you straight.  But knowing the flat earth mind set , they would probably consider them as liars since they are part of The Great Round Earth Conspiracy. They probably wouldn't even believe it even if they went to sea and saw it demonstrated.

[geckothegeek]

The point is, flat earth adherents deny that there is a horizon that you can physically go "over." So you're essentially asking them to perform an experiment under parameters that are incompatible with their actual assertion.

Ships are observed visually descending lower in to the ocean, and being hidden by the visual horizon. 

How and when are ships observed doing that? When a ship is too small to distinguish the hull from the water and eventually too small to be perceptible besides being a dot in the distance. Are ships observed "listing" forward, as they would as they go over a round horizon? Or still perfectly level? I've seen ships and boats go out to the ocean and eventually the haze of the atmosphere is what makes it disappear for me.

And as I said, on a flat earth the boat never goes under a horizon. It appears to because of the faultiness of the viewing instrument (eyes, telescope, zoom lens).

As for a City that's over the horizon, what's interesting to me is that it doesn't seem to tilt away from you as you would expect something 50 miles away affected by hundreds of feet of curvature.

The sun and moon are entirely different matters altogether. Unfortunately there is no easy way to experiment and test that, but we can do that with physical objects on Earth.

As for the sun and moon it is equally obvious that you can not "restore with a telescope " a sunset or a moonset once the sun or moon has set over the horizon. This is one of the easiest tests to performed. Try it yourself during some sunset or moonset.

As for the "tilt" it has been ponted out so many times that it is so small that it is imperceptible. Just consider that you are dealing with a globe that is 25,00 miles in circumference.

You would think that flat earthers had never been to sea ?

[Woody]

I have sailed many places.  I have seen a lot of ships travel towards and away from me.  I have sailed away and towards land.  I have used tables telling how far I should be able to see stuff from different heights above the water.

I have only restored sight of a ship one time when it left my view.  It was a cruise liner.  I was on the deck and when I climbed the mast to look for reefs and shallow water I was able to see it again.

I have estimated distance using tables and math telling me how far away I should be able to see something.  Based on the Earth being round and the results where accurate.

I was never able to see more of something over the horizon by using binoculars or a telescope.  The only thing that happened was I saw it more clearly. 

It seems to me it would be rather easy to make a video that proves that it is only a matter of perspective that makes it look like a ship sinks or rises.  The videos I have seen involve a small boat and/or clearly shows the horizon behind the ship/boat.

[geckothegeek]

I have sailed many places.  I have seen a lot of ships travel towards and away from me.  I have sailed away and towards land.  I have used tables telling how far I should be able to see stuff from different heights above the water.

I have only restored sight of a ship one time when it left my view.  It was a cruise liner.  I was on the deck and when I climbed the mast to look for reefs and shallow water I was able to see it again.

I have estimated distance using tables and math telling me how far away I should be able to see something.  Based on the Earth being round and the results where accurate.

I was never able to see more of something over the horizon by using binoculars or a telescope.  The only thing that happened was I saw it more clearly. 

It seems to me it would be rather easy to make a video that proves that it is only a matter of perspective that makes it look like a ship sinks or rises.  The videos I have seen involve a small boat and/or clearly shows the horizon behind the ship/boat.

Your experiences are certainly like a lot of those that we have all experienced if we have ever had the opportunity of going to sea.
What amazes me - and I don't think I'm alone -Is how anyone thought up this idea of the horizon and the ship over the horizon in the first place since it is so weird and unreal.
Is this just one more thought from Rowbotham's writings ? Maybe his idea of the horizon came from a foggy night at sea ? And restoring the ship over the horizon with a telescope ? Maybe some flat earther can explain Rowbotham's delusions ?

[geckothegeek]

l

There has been similar material in another thread, but it never settled the crucial question!

You're right, it isn't settled. I would suggest someone from the RE camp ^{perform the experiment,} _{document all logistics and results,} then report back with his or her findings. I can't wait to see the results!

No thanks. No matter how many times I do the experiment and get a negative result, there is no way to prove that the phenomenon doesn't exist. However, it only takes one positive result to prove that the phenomenon DOES exist. Which is why we are asking for some proof positive. Surely, *you have some proof positive stashed somewhere if you are convinced that the phenomenon is real?

* by "you" I mean flat-earthers in general, since you seem to get super annoyed at me making any assumptions about you specifically.

Also, touche on the formatting, although, you forgot the <marquee> tag. Rabinoz: your posts tend to look like a website from the nineties.

If a ship is too small to see, exactly when can you perceive it as  "disappearing over the horizon?"

I also answered this:

1. The horizon line passes in FRONT of the ship.
2. A significant portion of the ship that is normally above water appears to be behind the horizon line.

It just needs to be big enough so that we can accurately and precisely measure point 2. You kind of have to use your own judgement, but when presenting evidence, you should try to err on the side of too big. The more detail the better.

I think the burden of proof lies with the "flat earthers."
As "round earthers" we KNOW that our facts about the horizon, etc. are TRUE.  They have been known and observed  for ages.
It is up to the "flat earthers" to prove that ours are false and theirs are true.

[rabinoz]

In other words a ship large enough to clearly see and resolve into parts must disappear OVER the horizon as we know they do, and has been know for millenia.

The point is, flat earth adherents deny that there is a horizon that you can physically go "over." So you're essentially asking them to perform an experiment under parameters that are incompatible with their actual assertion.

I've said this in the other thread, and I'll say it again.

If a ship is too small to see, exactly when can you perceive it as  "disappearing over the horizon?"

Exactly!

[TotesNotReptilian]

I think the burden of proof lies with the "flat earthers."
As "round earthers" we KNOW that our facts about the horizon, etc. are TRUE.  They have been known and observed  for ages.
It is up to the "flat earthers" to prove that ours are false and theirs are true.

I agree that the burden of proof lies with flat-earthers in this case, but I completely disagree with your reasoning. We don't need preferential treatment just because we "know" we are right. Many flat-earthers are just as convinced that they are right.

The burden of proof is generally on the person making the claim that something exists. In this case, flat-earthers are making the claim that "a ship that has appeared to sink behind the horizon can be restored using a telescope". The burden is on them to provide proof-positive that this phenomenon exists. It would be ridiculous to ask for proof that it doesn't exist, because proving the non-existence of something is often impossible.

Likewise, when round-earthers make the claim "a ship can sink behind the horizon", the burden is on round-earthers to provide evidence. And they have. Rabinoz has already posted pictures supporting that claim in this thread. If that isn't enough, I can post many more pictures to support that claim on request.

The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.

[geckothegeek]

The whole "flat earth" idea is completely ridiculous anyway. LOL..

[Tom Bishop]

The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.

Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.

[inquisitive]

The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.

Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.

None of which can be proved today.

[Woody]

The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.

Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.

Tom if you are right it would be very easy to demonstrate.

You do not live too far away from the Port of LA.  One of the busiest ports in the world with plenty of large ships coming and going.

It should be well within most peoples means to conduct the experiment of trying to bring part of a ship back into view once it passes the horizon.

To prove you are right you must show:

1. The horizon clearly in front of the ship when it disappears from view.

2. Using higher magnification you can see the ship again.

Continually referring people to a source that regularly omits important information like observer height, distances, and target height is not proof.  How can someone go recreate the experiment and verify the observations and conclusions.  By your own standards the source you cite is not adequate evidence.  You are taking Rowbathan's word for it and have not witnessed it yourself or seen pictures or videos demonstrating it.

I assume I have more experience and cehave witnessed the hull down effect more than most people.  I could be wrong because I do not have data, but since I live on my boat, currently in one of the busiest ports in the world I think it is safe to assume.

I have only once been able to restore a ship once it went beyond the horizon out of view.  As I pointed out above it was when I climbed the mast.  If you ever spent weeks crossing an ocean single handed you would realize how something like another ship coming into sight becomes the entertainment and the vsomething to do.  The same is true when you see the first signs of land.  I have spent hours on each of these different occasions observing ships using my naked eye, binoculars and telescopes.

Every time the ship/land/object appeared from the top up and disappeared from the bottom up.  I usually switch between my naked eye, binos and a telescope.  My many observations tell me I can not bring something back into view once it passes the horizon.  The only thing that happens when I use higher magnification is I am able to make out more detail.

When you conduct observations I would suggest trying to observe a cruiseliner at night.  They are very well lit and allows you to see it with the naked eye from further distances.  I suggest this because I have observed a cruiseliner at night and can not think of anything that could demonstrate you may be wrong better.  Approaching a cities at night, like LA, from the sea also has me firmly believing you are wrong.