[Buran]

Im trying to use the zetetic method to discover for myself the shape of the earth. Ok, so starting point is that the earth looks flat. Occams razor would lead to the conclusion from only this information that the earth is flat. Ok, so far so good. Then, I watch a sunset and I see a bright disc disappear below the horizon. Again, Occams razor leads to the conclusion that the sun is moving below the horizon. But the wiki says it moves above the earth at all times.

So today I set up a mock earth with a flashlight as the sun all done to scale according to the wiki. My flashlight was 1" in diameter which mwant it had to be 93.75" above the mock earth, and I set my head on the floor about 30' away from the "sun". I could still see the face of the flashlight, so I backed up another 6' and could still barely make out the face of the flashlight but it was there. I also noticed the "sun" was still a considerable distance above the horizon of my imitation earth.

Now I have read in the wiki that thicker atmosphere can bend light and magnify it. This is completely counterintuitive. So, my question for you all is if you can give me an experiment I can carry out to prove this distortion.

[Tom Bishop]

Im trying to use the zetetic method to discover for myself the shape of the earth. Ok, so starting point is that the earth looks flat. Occams razor would lead to the conclusion from only this information that the earth is flat. Ok, so far so good. Then, I watch a sunset and I see a bright disc disappear below the horizon. Again, Occams razor leads to the conclusion that the sun is moving below the horizon. But the wiki says it moves above the earth at all times.

Did you see the sun go below the horizon, or did you see the sun intersect the horizon?

Please note that the concept of the horizon in perspective isn't the earth. Although the earth might ascend to meet the horizon in the distance, the horizon is not the earth.

So today I set up a mock earth with a flashlight as the sun all done to scale according to the wiki. My flashlight was 1" in diameter which mwant it had to be 93.75" above the mock earth, and I set my head on the floor about 30' away from the "sun". I could still see the face of the flashlight, so I backed up another 6' and could still barely make out the face of the flashlight but it was there. I also noticed the "sun" was still a considerable distance above the horizon of my imitation earth.

Now I have read in the wiki that thicker atmosphere can bend light and magnify it. This is completely counterintuitive. So, my question for you all is if you can give me an experiment I can carry out to prove this distortion.

Here is an experiment:

Look out at the world and notice that perspective lines will meet in the distance. Straight lengths of railroad tracks will eventually seem to meet each other, as an example. The railroad tracks appear to meet a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.

From observations such as the above we can conclude that perspective lines will meet in the finite distance (even if the objects do not physically meet). The sun will therefore eventually meet the horizon, a finite distance away, and not an infinite distance away as predicted by some mathematical models. Experience trumps an ancient mathematical model of a continuous universe. It is experience and observation which tells us how perspective works, not a theory.

[Curious Squirrel]

So today I set up a mock earth with a flashlight as the sun all done to scale according to the wiki. My flashlight was 1" in diameter which mwant it had to be 93.75" above the mock earth, and I set my head on the floor about 30' away from the "sun". I could still see the face of the flashlight, so I backed up another 6' and could still barely make out the face of the flashlight but it was there. I also noticed the "sun" was still a considerable distance above the horizon of my imitation earth.

Now I have read in the wiki that thicker atmosphere can bend light and magnify it. This is completely counterintuitive. So, my question for you all is if you can give me an experiment I can carry out to prove this distortion.

Here is an experiment:

Look out at the world and notice that perspective lines will meet in the distance. Straight lengths of railroad tracks will eventually seem to meet each other, as an example. The railroad tracks appear to meet a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.

From observations such as the above we can conclude that perspective lines will meet in the finite distance (even if the objects do not physically meet). The sun will therefore eventually meet the horizon, a finite distance away, and not an infinite distance away as predicted by some mathematical models. Experience and trumps an ancient mathematical model of a continuous universe. It is experience and observation which tells us how perspective works, not a theory.

You yourself even acknowledge the tracks don't physically meet, which is all the math says. There is NOTHING in the math that says perspective lines won't meet, but this is due to the angular limits of sight. But we've been over this so many times now I've lost track. Go look at the math. The railroad tracks appear to meet due to perspective where the math says they should. The sun in the FE model is still well above those angular limits.

To be slightly more on topic, once again. Show the proof that light, perspective, what have you functions differently at 3000 miles as compared to 3000 cm, WITHOUT the evidence relying upon the unproven idea of a flat Earth. Perspective is a device to describe a 3D world upon a 2D surface. It has no effect upon the physical relationship between objects.

[Tom Bishop]

You yourself even acknowledge the tracks don't physically meet, which is all the math says. There is NOTHING in the math that says perspective lines won't meet, but this is due to the angular limits of sight. But we've been over this so many times now I've lost track. Go look at the math. The railroad tracks appear to meet due to perspective where the math says they should. The sun in the FE model is still well above those angular limits.

I don't see where your argument that things don't physically meet takes us. We know that perspective does not cause things to physically meet. That is not the argument. The perspective lines of a railroad track merge together, just as the sun merges into the earth. No one is saying that the sun is crashing into the earth, and no one is saying that the train tracks physically touch. The perspective lines merge together.

What does the "they don't physically meet" argument have anything to do with it? Where are we saying that the sun touches the earth?

The perspective lines of railroad tracks merge at a FINITE distance. The conclusion to this is that perspective lines merge at a finite distance. Therefore it will not take an infinite distance for the sun to reach the horizon.

[Tom Bishop]

Knowing now, how perspective works; that the perspective lines will merge a finite distance away, we now move on to what is actually blocking the sun at the horizon. We know that it can get there, but what blocks the light? According to Samuel Birley Rowbotham it is the small imperfections on the earth's surface that blocks the sun. The perspective lines merge at a finite distance and any little disturbance on the earth near the horizon, such as a series of ocean waves, can cause even more distant bodies to be obscured; much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.

The perspective lines are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect, and there will be an area upon which something can disappear behind. That area is the solid line of built up ocean waves when you look out at the ocean's horizon, or the imperfections of the land when on land. It is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe that the sunset takes longer when the seas are calm compared to when they are more disturbed:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm

The above remarks are made considering the water to be still, as if it were frozen; but as the water of the sea is always in a state of undulation, it is evident that a line of sight passing over a sea horizon cannot possibly continue mathematically parallel to the plane of the water, but must have a minute inclination upwards in the direction of the zenith. Hence it is that often, when the sun is setting over a stormy or heavily swelling sea, the phenomenon of sunset begins at a point on the horizon sensibly less than 90° from the zenith. The same phenomenon may be observed at sunrise, from any eminence over the sea in an easterly direction, as from the summit

p. 275

of the Hill of Howth, and the rock called "Ireland's Eye," near Dublin, looking to the east over Liverpool Bay, in the direction of the coast of Lancashire. This is illustrated by diagram 97:----


FIG. 97.

A, D, B, represents the horizontal surface of the sea, and D 1, and D 2, the optical or apparent ascent of the water towards the eye-lines O 1, and O 2; O, D, the observer; Z, the zenith; H, H, the horizon; and S, S, the morning and evening sun. It is obvious from this diagram that if the water had a fixed character, as when frozen, the angle Z, O 1, or Z, O 2, would be one of 90 °; but on account of the waves and breakers at the horizon H, H, mounting half their altitudes above the lines O 1, and O 2, the line of sight meets the sun .at S, which appears to rise or set on the elevated horizon H, the angle Z, O, S, being less than 90°.

This is evidently the cause of the sun setting and rising at sea, later when the water is calm, and earlier when it is greatly disturbed--a fact well known to observant sea-going travellers and residents on eastern or western shores. It is also the cause of the sun rising later and setting earlier than it would over a smooth plane of earth, or over absolutely still water, or than it ought to do mathematically for its known altitude.

[Tom Bishop]

Because this will eventually come up, as per the question of why the sun does not shrink in size if it is disappearing to perspective, that may be answered by this article in our Wiki.

What I have written and linked above is how sunset works in Earth Not a Globe, and in the current Flat Earth model. There are no good rebuttals to this, as the basic tenets to the workings of perspective are backed up by experience and observation.

What we tend to get are some complaints about how perspective doesn't cause objects to REALLY meet, but again, no one is claiming that the sun is crashing into the earth. Anyone can see that this argument is not really valid when put into context.

Other rebuttals involve an attempt at using math to show that the sun would never reach the horizon; but anyone who uses this math would need to show that perspective operates according to the axioms of that continuous mathematical model, as opposed to operating according to what is experienced. The debater is unable to show or cite anything showing perspective to work in that way; and so, since this argument is made without evidence, it is discarded without evidence.

[TimeWillTell]

Knowing now, how perspective works; that the perspective lines will merge a finite distance away, we now move on to what is actually blocking the sun at the horizon. We know that it can get there, but what blocks the light? According to Samuel Birley Rowbotham it is the small imperfections on the earth's surface that blocks the sun. The perspective lines merge at a finite distance and any little disturbance on the earth near the horizon, such as a series of ocean waves, can cause even more distant bodies to be obscured; much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.

The perspective lines are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect, and there will be an area upon which something can disappear behind. That area is the solid line of built up ocean waves when you look out at the ocean's horizon, or the imperfections of the land when on land. It is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe that the sunset takes longer when the seas are calm compared to when they are more disturbed:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm

The above remarks are made considering the water to be still, as if it were frozen; but as the water of the sea is always in a state of undulation, it is evident that a line of sight passing over a sea horizon cannot possibly continue mathematically parallel to the plane of the water, but must have a minute inclination upwards in the direction of the zenith. Hence it is that often, when the sun is setting over a stormy or heavily swelling sea, the phenomenon of sunset begins at a point on the horizon sensibly less than 90° from the zenith. The same phenomenon may be observed at sunrise, from any eminence over the sea in an easterly direction, as from the summit

p. 275

of the Hill of Howth, and the rock called "Ireland's Eye," near Dublin, looking to the east over Liverpool Bay, in the direction of the coast of Lancashire. This is illustrated by diagram 97:----


FIG. 97.

A, D, B, represents the horizontal surface of the sea, and D 1, and D 2, the optical or apparent ascent of the water towards the eye-lines O 1, and O 2; O, D, the observer; Z, the zenith; H, H, the horizon; and S, S, the morning and evening sun. It is obvious from this diagram that if the water had a fixed character, as when frozen, the angle Z, O 1, or Z, O 2, would be one of 90 °; but on account of the waves and breakers at the horizon H, H, mounting half their altitudes above the lines O 1, and O 2, the line of sight meets the sun .at S, which appears to rise or set on the elevated horizon H, the angle Z, O, S, being less than 90°.

This is evidently the cause of the sun setting and rising at sea, later when the water is calm, and earlier when it is greatly disturbed--a fact well known to observant sea-going travellers and residents on eastern or western shores. It is also the cause of the sun rising later and setting earlier than it would over a smooth plane of earth, or over absolutely still water, or than it ought to do mathematically for its known altitude.

You yourself even acknowledge the tracks don't physically meet, which is all the math says. There is NOTHING in the math that says perspective lines won't meet, but this is due to the angular limits of sight. But we've been over this so many times now I've lost track. Go look at the math. The railroad tracks appear to meet due to perspective where the math says they should. The sun in the FE model is still well above those angular limits.

I don't see where your argument that things don't physically meet takes us. We know that perspective does not cause things to physically meet. That is not the argument. The perspective lines of a railroad track merge together, just as the sun merges into the earth. No one is saying that the sun is crashing into the earth, and no one is saying that the train tracks physically touch. They perspective lines merge together.

What does the "they don't physically meet" argument have anything to do with it? Where are we saying that the sun touches the earth?

The perspective lines merge in railroad tracks, at a FINITE distance. The conclusion to this is that perspective lines merge at a finite distance. Therefore it will not take an infinite distance for the sun to reach the horizon.

Very well said and thought out response.

[juner]

Very well said and thought out response.

Please refrain from "me too" type responses. If you want to post in the upper for, then at least contribute something to the topic/discussion.

[Curious Squirrel]

You yourself even acknowledge the tracks don't physically meet, which is all the math says. There is NOTHING in the math that says perspective lines won't meet, but this is due to the angular limits of sight. But we've been over this so many times now I've lost track. Go look at the math. The railroad tracks appear to meet due to perspective where the math says they should. The sun in the FE model is still well above those angular limits.

I don't see where your argument that things don't physically meet takes us. We know that perspective does not cause things to physically meet. That is not the argument. The perspective lines of a railroad track merge together, just as the sun merges into the earth. No one is saying that the sun is crashing into the earth, and no one is saying that the train tracks physically touch. They perspective lines merge together.

What does the "they don't physically meet" argument have anything to do with it? Where are we saying that the sun touches the earth?

The perspective lines merge in railroad tracks, at a FINITE distance. The conclusion to this is that perspective lines merge at a finite distance. Therefore it will not take an infinite distance for the sun to reach the horizon.

Exactly! The sun doesn't physically reach the ground. That's literally all the math tells us. Geometry doesn't deal with perspective until you ask it to. At which point it does a fine job, as evidenced by the thousands of video games that take place in first and third person. Perspective isn't just an art, in many ways it's a science. We have rules and we know how things work, and we can show this knowledge with video games. Claiming the math says the perspective lines won't meet is lying. That's what I'm saying. So stop it.

Correct, they appear to meet at a finite distance. One which we can easily compute and figure out. The distances involved with your sun don't meet the criteria for getting the sun to the point it can vanish behind an object on the horizon, or even one close to you. Unless of course you invoke bendy light. YOU claim geometry that works to accurately describe relationships at 3000 cm stops working at 3000 miles, despite the math not caring what the units of measure are in use. The burden of proof here is on you, and once again you must do it without invoking something that relies upon the unproven claim of a flat Earth.

Unless you insist I'm not going to touch on your ENaG comments. I've pointed out in numerous other threads that he doesn't come close to the standard of evidence you demand of anyone presenting a RE idea on these forums, so expecting people to take him at face value when you yourself would not if he were a RE proponent is at best pointless, at worst hypocritical.

[TimeWillTell]

Im trying to use the zetetic method to discover for myself the shape of the earth. Ok, so starting point is that the earth looks flat. Occams razor would lead to the conclusion from only this information that the earth is flat. Ok, so far so good. Then, I watch a sunset and I see a bright disc disappear below the horizon. Again, Occams razor leads to the conclusion that the sun is moving below the horizon. But the wiki says it moves above the earth at all times.

So today I set up a mock earth with a flashlight as the sun all done to scale according to the wiki. My flashlight was 1" in diameter which mwant it had to be 93.75" above the mock earth, and I set my head on the floor about 30' away from the "sun". I could still see the face of the flashlight, so I backed up another 6' and could still barely make out the face of the flashlight but it was there. I also noticed the "sun" was still a considerable distance above the horizon of my imitation earth.

Now I have read in the wiki that thicker atmosphere can bend light and magnify it. This is completely counterintuitive. So, my question for you all is if you can give me an experiment I can carry out to prove this distortion.

Wouldn't you have to shrink your eyes as well and your site of view or am I missing something here ?

[retlaw]

Experience trumps an ancient mathematical model of a continuous universe. It is experience and observation which tells us how perspective works, not a theory.

This is so true. Younger folks don't have any experience as us older folks do.
Trust the gut comes with age.
Observation of your own persons life journey will take you way father then a text book will.

A good experiment to do with mirrors to test perspective is take three of them in a triangle all facing inwards
and then stick your head in the middle and look at infinite and beyond.

[Buran]

Because this will eventually come up, as per the question of why the sun does not shrink in size if it is disappearing to perspective, that may be answered by this article in our Wiki.

What I have written and linked above is how sunset works in Earth Not a Globe, and in the current Flat Earth model. There are no good rebuttals to this, as the basic tenets to the workings of perspective are backed up by experience and observation.

What we tend to get are some complaints about how perspective doesn't cause objects to REALLY meet, but again, no one is claiming that the sun is crashing into the earth. Anyone can see that this argument is not really valid when put into context.

Other rebuttals involve an attempt at using math to show that the sun would never reach the horizon; but anyone who uses this math would need to show that perspective operates according to the axioms of that continuous mathematical model, as opposed to operating according to what is experienced. The debater is unable to show or cite anything showing perspective to work in that way; and so, since this argument is made without evidence, it is discarded without evidence.

Ok, work with me here, because I'm going to try my best to understand how this works.

Now, I understand that prespective lines eventually meet. However, the sun seems to be too high to meet with the "horizon". That's assuming that perspective works the same over longer distances. What I think you're trying to say is that there is a physical limit to perspective. Because, if I look down railroad tracks with just my eyes, they eventually meet at a specific spot. But if I used a telescope, that would allow me to see farther thus pushing my perspective limit farther. But if I used a telescope on the setting sun it does not bring it into view.

So, how would I prove that it is indeed perpective that changes over longer distances?

EDIT:

I realized I made an assumption without evidence. I said that using a telescope on a setting sun cannot bring it back into view. I actually have not tried this.

So, for my next experiment, I will go to the beach at sundown and wait for the moment that the sun is no longer visible and then use a 200x zoom telescopen to see if I can bring it back into view. Does this sound like a fair experiment? Why or why not?

EDIT2:

I need to clarify I'm not arguing against how perspective works. However, how do we know it is perspective that is causing the effect we see at sundown? What experiments have been carried out at that kind of distance to prove it is convergence of perspective lines and not simply the sun going below the earth? Some ancient people's actually thought the sun went into the earth. How do we know this is wrong?

EDIT

If perspective lines do indeed behave in the way that you make it sound, wouldn't that make it impossible to get an accurate distance or size of the sun?

[inquisitive]

The sun might merge into the earth for one person but for another it is high in the sky and for another is just rising.  Just do some observations and measurements.

[Buran]

Wouldn't you have to shrink your eyes as well and your site of view or am I missing something here ?

That did cross my mind, but wouldn't using a telescope in real life make up for my eyeball in the experiment? Besides, I think the change in atmosphere density is the bigger issue not accounted for.

[AATW]

Did you see the sun go below the horizon, or did you see the sun intersect the horizon?

If you're looking out to sea on a clear day what you see is the sun slowly dropping in the sky until the bottom of it appears to touch the water and then the disc of the sun slowly sinks behind the horizon.
Now, you can say that "behind" is a rationalisation but in every other experience of observing things, that is what is happening. If you look along the top of a table and someone drops a small ball from above the far edge of the table to below it then you see the ball "set", like a sunset. Rotate the ball above the plane of the table as in your sun model and you will be able to see it all the time, it will just get bigger and smaller.
And note, a table is flat. Sunset doesn't necessarily prove a globe earth, it could occur on a flat earth. But then the sun would be below the plane of the earth and it would be dark everywhere.
Long shadows prove that the sun is physically low in the sky. Shadow length does not depend on perspective.

Please note that the concept of the horizon in perspective isn't the earth. Although the earth might ascend to meet the horizon in the distance, the horizon is not the earth.

I'm interested by this, can you explain this further? Are you saying that the earth extends further than the horizon but you can't see it? I'm not clear how that can be when you get such a sharp horizon line on a clear day.

Look out at the world and notice that perspective lines will meet in the distance. Straight lengths of railroad tracks will eventually seem to meet each other, as an example. The railroad tracks appear to meet a finite distance away, not an infinite distance away.

Correct, but I've highlighted the flaw in your thinking. They only appear to meet and they do so because of the limitation in your vision. If you zoom in you will still see a gap between the tracks because there IS a gap between them.

From observations such as the above we can conclude that perspective lines will meet in the finite distance (even if the objects do not physically meet). The sun will therefore eventually meet the horizon, a finite distance away, and not an infinite distance away as predicted by some mathematical models.

Again, appear to. Not actually. All perspective does is make distant objects smaller and distances between them seem shorter. Zooming in will make them more distinct and the gaps apparent. Perspective doesn't make items "merge", but when they are far enough away they will become indistinguishable. That is a limit of your vision. So just like railway tracks if you zoomed in on a sunset you should be able to just make out the THREE THOUSAND MILE GAP between the earth and the sun.
If you had two railway tracks 3000 miles apart are you suggesting that the gap between them would be indistinguishable at 6000 miles away?

There is no way that perspective can explain the sun intersecting the horizon. And even if you think it can somehow, long shadows at sunset prove that the sun is physically low in the sky. Shadows angle and length depend on the physical relationship between light source and object.
And if it is not crashing into the earth - I agree it isn't - then it must be going below the earth (from your point of view)
On a flat earth that would mean it would then be night everywhere, which is not what we observe.
On a spinning globe it would mean it gets dark where you are but people living further round the curve of the earth would be in daylight which is what we observe.

I don't know why you're still citing Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was translucent and whose proofs are pretty much always "This is what I saw". If a build up of waves is blocking things, I've seen you claim this to explain how distant buildings are occluded by the sea, then how does the "Bishop Experiment" work then? Why are waves not blocking your view of the distant beach? You can't have it both ways.

[TriangularEarth]

Knowing now, how perspective works; that the perspective lines will merge a finite distance away, we now move on to what is actually blocking the sun at the horizon. We know that it can get there, but what blocks the light? According to Samuel Birley Rowbotham it is the small imperfections on the earth's surface that blocks the sun. The perspective lines merge at a finite distance and any little disturbance on the earth near the horizon, such as a series of ocean waves, can cause even more distant bodies to be obscured; much like how a dime can obscure an elephant.

The perspective lines are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect, and there will be an area upon which something can disappear behind. That area is the solid line of built up ocean waves when you look out at the ocean's horizon, or the imperfections of the land when on land. It is mentioned in Earth Not a Globe that the sunset takes longer when the seas are calm compared to when they are more disturbed:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm

The above remarks are made considering the water to be still, as if it were frozen; but as the water of the sea is always in a state of undulation, it is evident that a line of sight passing over a sea horizon cannot possibly continue mathematically parallel to the plane of the water, but must have a minute inclination upwards in the direction of the zenith. Hence it is that often, when the sun is setting over a stormy or heavily swelling sea, the phenomenon of sunset begins at a point on the horizon sensibly less than 90° from the zenith. The same phenomenon may be observed at sunrise, from any eminence over the sea in an easterly direction, as from the summit

p. 275

of the Hill of Howth, and the rock called "Ireland's Eye," near Dublin, looking to the east over Liverpool Bay, in the direction of the coast of Lancashire. This is illustrated by diagram 97:----


FIG. 97.

A, D, B, represents the horizontal surface of the sea, and D 1, and D 2, the optical or apparent ascent of the water towards the eye-lines O 1, and O 2; O, D, the observer; Z, the zenith; H, H, the horizon; and S, S, the morning and evening sun. It is obvious from this diagram that if the water had a fixed character, as when frozen, the angle Z, O 1, or Z, O 2, would be one of 90 °; but on account of the waves and breakers at the horizon H, H, mounting half their altitudes above the lines O 1, and O 2, the line of sight meets the sun .at S, which appears to rise or set on the elevated horizon H, the angle Z, O, S, being less than 90°.

This is evidently the cause of the sun setting and rising at sea, later when the water is calm, and earlier when it is greatly disturbed--a fact well known to observant sea-going travellers and residents on eastern or western shores. It is also the cause of the sun rising later and setting earlier than it would over a smooth plane of earth, or over absolutely still water, or than it ought to do mathematically for its known altitude.

I have a HUGE problem with the imperfections on the earth type explanation. Firstly, if you were to stand on a hill next to an ocean facing the setting sun, it would set. According to the theory, the imperfections on the Earth should block the sun. But when there is no imperfection to block it, where does the sun go?

You may argue that the sea will block the sun, but "water is always flat" is one of the arguments I always see for the FET. So again, where will the sun go? Are there massive waves hundreds of meters high out there? Has the government built some wall to 'hide the truth'?

Even if this theory were true, I believe from my own lived experiences that night would not be possible. Get a lamp or light source, for example, and put it on a table. If you get yourself below the table and look the opposite direction, the light will still shine on the wall or object. Even in the diagram shown, from D to H the sun would illuminate that ground. I know from experience that a setting sun isn't a black line travelling up a hill, its a gradual change.

[Tom Bishop]

Now, I understand that prespective lines eventually meet. However, the sun seems to be too high to meet with the "horizon". That's assuming that perspective works the same over longer distances. What I think you're trying to say is that there is a physical limit to perspective. Because, if I look down railroad tracks with just my eyes, they eventually meet at a specific spot. But if I used a telescope, that would allow me to see farther thus pushing my perspective limit farther. But if I used a telescope on the setting sun it does not bring it into view.

That is correct. If you use a telescope you can see more of the railroad tracks. The same is true with the sinking ship effect on a calm surface. Rowbotham and several other authors cite instances of half-sunken ships being restored when viewed with telescope, showing that the ships are not really going behind a "hill" of water.

So, how would I prove that it is indeed perpective that changes over longer distances?

The books Earth Not a Globe, Zetetic Cosmogony, and the Cellular Cosmogony all have numerous references to half-sunken ships and other objects that are restored when viewed with a telescope and when the water is calm. Youtube Flat Earthers have also shown that the effect can be restored with a telescope.

In instances where the water is greatly disturbed, the sinking ship effect is not restorable. This is because masses at the horizon line can provide an area which more distant objects can shrink behind -- such as how a dime can obscure an elephant.

So, for my next experiment, I will go to the beach at sundown and wait for the moment that the sun is no longer visible and then use a 200x zoom telescopen to see if I can bring it back into view. Does this sound like a fair experiment? Why or why not?

You would have to make sure that there is nothing on the horizon for the distance between you and the sun at sunset. Since this is a long length of land to control, the restoration of the sun may not be possible.

According to our literature, the restoration of closer objects is possible if the surface of the waters is calm. By replicating those experiments and showing that the only modification is the disturbance of the water that causes things to disappear, the conclusion that perspective is the cause for things to merge into the horizon at a finite distance is stronger.

EDIT2:

I need to clarify I'm not arguing against how perspective works. However, how do we know it is perspective that is causing the effect we see at sundown? What experiments have been carried out at that kind of distance to prove it is convergence of perspective lines and not simply the sun going below the earth? Some ancient people's actually thought the sun went into the earth. How do we know this is wrong?

Earth Not a Globe and other works conduct numerous experiments with perspective, showing that objects become obscured when they are distant, and are restored with a telescope, showing the cause not to be a physical blockage. When the surface is disturbed those distant objects are not restorable. The conclusions from these experiments suggests that the mechanism is what I have described.

If perspective lines do indeed behave in the way that you make it sound, wouldn't that make it impossible to get an accurate distance or size of the sun?

It's not impossible to get a distance, we would just need to know more about how perspective operates -- what the descent in perspective means and how it related to distance. Some of the math in our literature for the sun's distance is, consequently, not valid if we are questioning the axioms of the Ancient Greek continuous universe model.

[Tom Bishop]

Please note that the concept of the horizon in perspective isn't the earth. Although the earth might ascend to meet the horizon in the distance, the horizon is not the earth.

I'm interested by this, can you explain this further? Are you saying that the earth extends further than the horizon but you can't see it? I'm not clear how that can be when you get such a sharp horizon line on a clear day.

The horizon can be anywhere around you, and is not defined by the surface of an object.  The horizon is the area where the perspective lines meet. If there were a skyscraper that was infinitely high, looking up from the base of the skyscraper would also create the effect of the perspective lines merging to a point. You would be looking at the skyscraper's horizon. If the skyscraper were not there, that horizon would still exist. It is just the area where the lines meet.

Correct, but I've highlighted the flaw in your thinking. They only appear to meet and they do so because of the limitation in your vision. If you zoom in you will still see a gap between the tracks because there IS a gap between them.

Yes, we agree with the idea that the perspective lines can be un-merged with telescopic zoom, and point to the experiments where half-sunken ships have been restored on calm bodies of water by viewing the scene with a telescope.

There is no way that perspective can explain the sun intersecting the horizon. And even if you think it can somehow, long shadows at sunset prove that the sun is physically low in the sky. Shadows angle and length depend on the physical relationship between light source and object.

But the sun is low in the sky -- due to perspective. Long shadows on the earth only tell us how close an object is to the earth's horizon.

If a build up of waves is blocking things, I've seen you claim this to explain how distant buildings are occluded by the sea, then how does the "Bishop Experiment" work then? Why are waves not blocking your view of the distant beach? You can't have it both ways.

I see you keep repeating this, but you have not thought out your criticism all the way through. For the beach to be obscured by waves on the horizon, the beach would have to be on the horizon.

[Tom Bishop]

I have a HUGE problem with the imperfections on the earth type explanation. Firstly, if you were to stand on a hill next to an ocean facing the setting sun, it would set. According to the theory, the imperfections on the Earth should block the sun. But when there is no imperfection to block it, where does the sun go?

You may argue that the sea will block the sun, but "water is always flat" is one of the arguments I always see for the FET. So again, where will the sun go? Are there massive waves hundreds of meters high out there? Has the government built some wall to 'hide the truth'?

This is because in perspective the horizon (the point where the perspective lines meet) is always at eye level, even from the top of a mountain.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

Since the horizon is always at eye level, any imperfection on the horizon will therefore be above the level of the eye, and create an area where something larger can shrink behind it from the bottom up. It does not matter if that mass is very small, because as I have said, it is possible for a dime to obscure an elephant. The object need only get far enough behind it to become obscured.

[inquisitive]

I have a HUGE problem with the imperfections on the earth type explanation. Firstly, if you were to stand on a hill next to an ocean facing the setting sun, it would set. According to the theory, the imperfections on the Earth should block the sun. But when there is no imperfection to block it, where does the sun go?

You may argue that the sea will block the sun, but "water is always flat" is one of the arguments I always see for the FET. So again, where will the sun go? Are there massive waves hundreds of meters high out there? Has the government built some wall to 'hide the truth'?

This is because in perspective the horizon (the point where the perspective lines meet) is always at eye level, even from the top of a mountain.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

Since the horizon is always at eye level, any imperfection on the horizon will therefore be above the level of the eye, and create an area where something larger can shrink behind it from the bottom up. It does not matter if that mass is very small, because as I have said, it is possible for a dime to obscure an elephant. The object need only get far enough behind it to become obscured.

Please define 'eye level'.