You provided examples of two things - obstruction and limitations of camera sensors
I'm not sure what you mean by limitations of camera sensors. The images both showed a boat where the bottom was clearly not visible.
As for obstruction...well yes, that's what I was trying to demonstrate.
The context being honk saying "The oldest and best proof of the Earth's flatness can be seen by looking out your window."
Duncan replying "The idea that a subject can be fully explained by observing it through a 42-inch-diagonal portal is absurd."
And then Dual1ty saying "it can if you live next to the sea and you have a telescope/camera to bring those "boats gone over the curve" back into view"
I assumed that Dual1ty was claiming that boats don't really disappear below the horizon, they just get too small to see, the bottom merges with the sea and with optical zoom you can bring them back in to view. That isn't true and it's what the images were intended to demonstrate. Those pictures are zoomed in and the bottom of the boats aren't restored, because they're occluded by something. It doesn't matter what they're obstructed by, I was providing counter-examples of the claim that you can
always restore them. You can't.
I'd ask you a similar question: you've got a guy that's just saying things over and over, without even attempting to appeal to logic, and you're giving him a good portion of your time.
Fair question. As I've told you, I post here partly because it's a diversion during downtime at work and partly because I don't like to see bullshit go unchallenged.
I guess it's the same reason I've engaged with Tom a fair bit in my time here. He's obviously wrong about a load of stuff, it is frustrating to see him dig his heels in harder and harder no matter how clearly he's shown to be wrong, but it's something to do and I can't let such nonsense stand without correction.
you go months at a time of constantly repeating the same nonsense and constantly being corrected, with no acknowledgement on your end.
Well obviously I don't regard it as nonsense and therefore don't accept I've been corrected.
Let's say you're right about the image, the boat's behind a wave. In a previous thread in this area when I asked you what prevents you seeing further than the horizon you said
"Waves, usually. A physical obstruction produces the boundaries which you describe as a "sharp horizon" (which is neither sharp, nor is it the true horizon)"
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5327.msg277324#msg277324But now you're complaining that I'm showing photos where it's waves stopping you seeing the rest of the boat?
I would note that during that thread I came to realise that a FE horizon wouldn't be as different to an RE one as I had initially supposed, so the assertion that I don't adapt to new information is not correct...if I accept the new information as valid.
I'm struggling to see what we are arguing about here. I've seen the FE claim that boats don't really sink from the bottom first, optical zoom restores them. It isn't true. It doesn't matter whether the reason it's not true is because things disappear over the horizon/curve of the earth, or whether it's because they're occluded by waves or other physical obstruction, they do disappear and that's what I was trying to demonstrate.
Even with the cost of living crisis, I do find it remarkable that you haven't been able to justify the £50 expense in the literal years you've been whinging about not understanding this simple experiment, and that you haven't otherwise found yourself near a lake or sea in all that time.
Literally in the post you're replying to I outlined some work I did on this at a recent trip to the seaside.
BUT...it's not just about the cost of getting there, it's also about having the right optics and they aren't cheap. I have a mid-range camera and the zoom is OK, but when I was trying to do some tests I didn't get anything conclusive.
You said elsewhere I claim to "approach things in the way I do"
I'm not sure that's quite true although I don't think our approaches are a million miles apart.
I believe your philosophy is you have to check everything out for yourself. Mine is that doing that isn't possible - I either don't have the equipment, competence or knowledge to do that. I take a more evidence based approach, and I don't think the only evidence admissible is what I've personally observed.
Show Posts
