The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: rabinoz on November 03, 2016, 08:14:52 AM
-
"TFES Wiki" contains the following claims:
Sinking Ship Effect
It is proven that the ship does not sink behind a hill of water, but that it is actually perspective which hides it. This demonstrates that the earth is not a globe. There have been experiments where half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes, showing that they are not actually hiding behind "hills of water".
This is presented in two parts:
- The claim " that the ship does not sink behind a hill of water"
The first claim is "It is proven that the ship does not sink behind a hill of water, but that it is actually perspective which hides it."
I can find claims to this effect, but no proof, simply the statement
"that it is actually perspective which hides it.", followed by Rowbotham''s explanation on his "proof",
which pre-supposes that the earth is flat. In other words, all we have is "If the earth were flat, this might explain the 'sinking ship' phenomenon."
Then the statement "This demonstrates that the earth is not a globe."
I do not regard any of this as proof, as it pre-supposes that the earth is flat.
- Then the claim "half-sunken ships have been restored"
Then simply a bald statement "There have been experiments where half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes".
The statement "There have been experiments" is exactly the thing that globe supporters are criticised for! Where are always told to show "the evidence"!
So, please publish the evidence that "half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes"
And boats that are simply too small to see on the horizon "restored" by a long zoom lens will not be considered as evidence.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect
Had you bothered to read my post it would be obvious that I had read that material and was definitely not asking for an explanation of "Sinking Ship Effect".
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This is presented in two parts:
- The claim " that the ship does not sink behind a hill of water"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Then the claim "half-sunken ships have been restored"
Then simply a bald statement "There have been experiments where half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes".
The statement "There have been experiments" is exactly the thing that globe supporters are criticised for! Where are always told to show "the evidence"!
So, please publish the evidence that "half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes"
And boats that are simply too small to see on the horizon "restored" by a long zoom lens will not be considered as evidence.
So, I repeat the question:
Then simply a bald statement
"There have been experiments where half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes".
So, please publish the evidence that "half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes"
I am asking for the evidence that is referred to in "the Wiki".
And as I said before a ship not visible because it is too small in the photo or video is useless. You posted this: Ships which seem to be half sunken can be restored with a telescope, proving that it is not really hidden behind a "hill of water":
Some video of the above effect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev_dw3GrEr0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev_dw3GrEr0)
That very video shows a ship too far away to see at wide-angle becoming visible at a long zoom. That is NOT a ship hidden by the horizon being restored.
Exactly that same effect could be observed in a video of a car a few miles away being "restored" by a telescope and is completely irrelevant.
So, please publish the existing evidence claimed in "the Wiki" that "half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes".
-
I think somebody in the FES should talk to somebody in the Navy about this subject.
But that is probably against their rules....or against their nature.
After all the Navy is just one more member of The Conspiracy anyway. Most sailors have some degree of security clearance and they would get court martialed if they said they were hiding the fact that the earth is flat. That is probably part of Classified Information.
I have a theory for this part of the flat earth wiki.
Rowbotham was eiither short sighted ..... or had cataracts......or both.
-
. . . . . . . . .
I have a theory for this part of the flat earth wiki.
Rowbotham was eiither short sighted ..... or had cataracts......or both.
Could we say There are none so blind as those who will not see. . . . , ,
John Heywood, 1546
Some real evidence could possiby change our minds.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect
Hey, he is alive!
I think rabinoz is referring to the suspicious lack of modern, visual evidence. Not the written account of a single person 100+ years ago.
(Also, shameless plug for this thread (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5431.0))
-
I heard about a guy who was sitting every day in a dock and watching the crossing by ships and had never seen any sunken ship,
Yet I do not say it doesn't happen, I truly say it happen but in certain times when the earth is changing phases and ground formation.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect
Had you bothered to read my post it would be obvious that I had read that material and was definitely not asking for an explanation of "Sinking Ship Effect".
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This is presented in two parts:
- The claim " that the ship does not sink behind a hill of water"
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- Then the claim "half-sunken ships have been restored"
Then simply a bald statement "There have been experiments where half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes".
The statement "There have been experiments" is exactly the thing that globe supporters are criticised for! Where are always told to show "the evidence"!
So, please publish the evidence that "half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes"
And boats that are simply too small to see on the horizon "restored" by a long zoom lens will not be considered as evidence.
So, I repeat the question:
Then simply a bald statement
"There have been experiments where half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes".
So, please publish the evidence that "half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes"
I am asking for the evidence that is referred to in "the Wiki".
And as I said before a ship not visible because it is too small in the photo or video is useless. You posted this: Ships which seem to be half sunken can be restored with a telescope, proving that it is not really hidden behind a "hill of water":
Some video of the above effect:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev_dw3GrEr0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev_dw3GrEr0)
That very video shows a ship too far away to see at wide-angle becoming visible at a long zoom. That is NOT a ship hidden by the horizon being restored.
Exactly that same effect could be observed in a video of a car a few miles away being "restored" by a telescope and is completely irrelevant.
So, please publish the existing evidence claimed in "the Wiki" that "half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes".
The article references accounts in two books of the effect. First hand observations are evidence.
-
The sinking ship is a absolutely a mirage - when hot air and cold water meets together the ship and its exhaust make it to seems dropping and go downwards.
The image is distorted according to the ability of the air portraying in such depths(most of the ships got the image in certain depths).
-
The sinking ship is a absolutely a mirage - when hot air and cold water meets together the ship and its exhaust make it to seems dropping and go downwards.
The image is distorted according to the ability of the air portraying in such depths(most of the ships got the image in certain depths).
Wait a sec, you are telling me that this boat isn't actually floating?
(http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/floating-Ghost-Boat-580x319.png)
Something something Eratosthenes...
-
Wait a sec, you are telling me that this boat isn't actually floating?
(http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/floating-Ghost-Boat-580x319.png)
Something something Eratosthenes...
I don't know where Eratosthenes comes into the argument, even I can recognise a ;D Flying Boat ;D when I see one.
And Planoterrestrialists (as Leo Ferrari called himself) doubt ;) refraction and mirages ;).
-
The sinking ship is a absolutely a mirage - when hot air and cold water meets together the ship and its exhaust make it to seems dropping and go downwards.
The image is distorted according to the ability of the air portraying in such depths(most of the ships got the image in certain depths).
Wait a sec, you are telling me that this boat isn't actually floating?
(http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/floating-Ghost-Boat-580x319.png)
Something something Eratosthenes...
it is the result of the air trying to portrait accurately the forces press on it.
-
The sinking ship is a absolutely a mirage - when hot air and cold water meets together the ship and its exhaust make it to seems dropping and go downwards.
The image is distorted according to the ability of the air portraying in such depths(most of the ships got the image in certain depths).
Wait a sec, you are telling me that this boat isn't actually floating?
(http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/floating-Ghost-Boat-580x319.png)
Something something Eratosthenes...
it is the result of the air trying to portrait accurately the forces press on it.
I really have no idea what you mean.
This is nothing more than a superior mirage, sometimes called (probably not quite correctly) a "Fata Morgana".
See False wall of water created by 'Fata Morgana' mirage may have hidden iceberg from Titanic lookouts until it was too late. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2130598/False-wall-water-created-Fata-Morgana-mirage-hidden-iceberg-Titanic-late.html)
-
Here is a recent video showing a ship that is partially hidden behind the horizon. Zooming in does not bring the hull back into view. The relevant portion starts at about 0:40:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/S0e7BbAag1w
Further on there is a ship where the hull is visible both before and after zooming starting at about 4:10.
-
I think somebody in the FES should talk to somebody in the Navy about this subject.
But that is probably against their rules....or against their nature.
After all the Navy is just one more member of The Conspiracy anyway. Most sailors have some degree of security clearance and they would get court martialed if they said they were hiding the fact that the earth is flat. That is probably part of Classified Information.
I have a theory for this part of the flat earth wiki.
Rowbotham was eiither short sighted ..... or had cataracts......or both.
I'm in the Navy. In fact, I'm a submarine officer with 9 years in the Navy who has traveled over 50,000 miles at sea. Believe me, if the earth was flat I'd know lol. I've literally observed thousands of ships through a periscope either come over the horizon or go over the horizon. Because our periscope is only a few feet out of the water our distance to the horizon is only about 5,000 yards so ships coming over or going over the horizon is very commonplace. The phenomena is so well documented that we can actually calculate the distance to ships based on the known distance to the horizon and how much of the ship we can see over the horizon. Its also an easy trick to approximate the range of ships near the horizon. Furthermore, if we see the mast of a ship we can't identify we often stick our periscope more out of the water (by changing our depth) which changes our height of eye and therefore changes our distance to the horizon. Sure enough, when we do this more of the ship comes into view. We also have far more powerful magnification on our periscopes (along with night vision and infrared vision) then people have access to in the civilian sector and I can assure you that zooming does not bring the ship back into view if it goes over the horizon. Likewise, if a ship goes over the horizon you can't pick it up with night vision on infrared. If the earth was flat then we would be able to pick them up on infrared from pretty much any distance. Helicopters with infrared can easily pick up contacts from a hundred miles away if they are high enough.
And the final nail in the coffin is radar. The effective range of your radar is dependent on how high the radar is above the water line. This is because the curvature of the earth limits your radar. This is why ships always place their radar as high as possible. You can even test this out if you have your own boat and you buy a portable radar.
However, no flat earther will ever believe my testimony. I guess I'm a liar in their eyes lol.
-
I would like to see some cities that are over the horizon get restored through magnification.
https://youtu.be/P8U5aYH1yhk
-
I would like to see some cities that are over the horizon get restored through magnification.
https://youtu.be/P8U5aYH1yhk
Apparently you have not read Earth Not a Globe: http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm
-
I would like to see some cities that are over the horizon get restored through magnification.
https://youtu.be/P8U5aYH1yhk
Apparently you have not read Earth Not a Globe: http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm
Tom, please show me some objects that appear to be over horizon and are brought back over the horizon with greater magnification. In the video that I just posted the ship didn't rise up over the horizon when the magnification was increased. It just got bigger.
Better yet, I'd like a video of you wearing a frock. Id like to see your feet disappear via the law of perspective.
-
I would like to see some cities that are over the horizon get restored through magnification.
https://youtu.be/P8U5aYH1yhk
Apparently you have not read Earth Not a Globe: http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm
Interesting, would reading that book make him or the telescope able to see through the horizon?
-
I think somebody in the FES should talk to somebody in the Navy about this subject.
But that is probably against their rules....or against their nature.
After all the Navy is just one more member of The Conspiracy anyway. Most sailors have some degree of security clearance and they would get court martialed if they said they were hiding the fact that the earth is flat. That is probably part of Classified Information.
I have a theory for this part of the flat earth wiki.
Rowbotham was eiither short sighted ..... or had cataracts......or both.
I'm in the Navy. In fact, I'm a submarine officer with 9 years in the Navy who has traveled over 50,000 miles at sea. Believe me, if the earth was flat I'd know lol. I've literally observed thousands of ships through a periscope either come over the horizon or go over the horizon. Because our periscope is only a few feet out of the water our distance to the horizon is only about 5,000 yards so ships coming over or going over the horizon is very commonplace. The phenomena is so well documented that we can actually calculate the distance to ships based on the known distance to the horizon and how much of the ship we can see over the horizon. Its also an easy trick to approximate the range of ships near the horizon. Furthermore, if we see the mast of a ship we can't identify we often stick our periscope more out of the water (by changing our depth) which changes our height of eye and therefore changes our distance to the horizon. Sure enough, when we do this more of the ship comes into view. We also have far more powerful magnification on our periscopes (along with night vision and infrared vision) then people have access to in the civilian sector and I can assure you that zooming does not bring the ship back into view if it goes over the horizon. Likewise, if a ship goes over the horizon you can't pick it up with night vision on infrared. If the earth was flat then we would be able to pick them up on infrared from pretty much any distance. Helicopters with infrared can easily pick up contacts from a hundred miles away if they are high enough.
And the final nail in the coffin is radar. The effective range of your radar is dependent on how high the radar is above the water line. This is because the curvature of the earth limits your radar. This is why ships always place their radar as high as possible. You can even test this out if you have your own boat and you buy a portable radar.
However, no flat earther will ever believe my testimony. I guess I'm a liar in their eyes lol.
Well there you have it!
First hand observations are evidence.
-
I would like to see some cities that are over the horizon get restored through magnification.
https://youtu.be/P8U5aYH1yhk
Apparently you have not read Earth Not a Globe: http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm
Tom, please show me some objects that appear to be over horizon and are brought back over the horizon with greater magnification. In the video that I just posted the ship didn't rise up over the horizon when the magnification was increased. It just got bigger.
Better yet, I'd like a video of you wearing a frock. Id like to see your feet disappear via the law of perspective.
In Earth Not a Globe the ship restoration experiments are done on lakes and flat bodies of water. In Cellular Cosmogony the ship restoration experiments are also done on lakes. Rowbotham dedicates an entire chapter, Perspective on the Sea (http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) in which he tells us that the effect at sea is inconsistent due to the uneven nature of the swells of the surface.
This criticism in the video is not staying true to the material, to act as a proof.
-
Interesting, would reading that book make him or the telescope able to see through the horizon?
Reading the book would tell us that the restoration experiments were carried out on calm bodies of water and was not able to be replicated on a consistent basis at sea. It is therefore not a proof against the work to find an observation of a half sunken ship or object at sea that was not restorable with a telescope.
-
Apparently you have not read Earth Not a Globe: http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm
Apparently you can't find anything more modern than that to support your position.
We have read it. In fact, I imagine that more roundies have read it than flatties, and with more care. I cannot take seriously as a science text a book that claims:
A) The landmasses of the earth float on the sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_189), and are restrained from wandering about by giant fingers of land (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_179) anchoring them to the southern ice
B) The ocean, in turn, floats on a bed of steam (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_193) above the Biblical lake of fire (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_192)
C) Ocean water is not as salty out at sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za31.htm#page_191) as it is near the shore
D) The far south is in perpetual darkness (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_115)
E) The South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm#page_117)
F) Sunlight puts out fire (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_142)
G) Moonlight has heat sucking powers (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm#page_141)
All of these preposterous statements MAY have sounded credible to the untraveled Victorians that Rowbotham targeted, but a twenty first century adult should know better.
-
Reading the book would tell us that the restoration experiments were carried out on calm bodies of water and was not able to be replicated on a consistent basis at sea. It is therefore not a proof against the work to find an observation of a half sunken ship or object at sea that was not restorable with a telescope.
That's a pretty weak cop-out, and you probably know it.
-
Interesting, would reading that book make him or the telescope able to see through the horizon?
Reading the book would tell us that the restoration experiments were carried out on calm bodies of water and was not able to be replicated on a consistent basis at sea. It is therefore not a proof against the work to find an observation of a half sunken ship or object at sea that was not restorable with a telescope.
I'd agree with you if it was a 20 foot fishing vessel or something but when its a tanker over 100 feet tall that's over half obscured you can't use that logic. The waves would have to be at least 50 feet in height in order to do that and we can clearly see in the foreground that the sea state is at MAXIMUM 5 foot waves (and I'm being very generous with that number.)
-
Interesting, would reading that book make him or the telescope able to see through the horizon?
Reading the book would tell us that the restoration experiments were carried out on calm bodies of water and was not able to be replicated on a consistent basis at sea. It is therefore not a proof against the work to find an observation of a half sunken ship or object at sea that was not restorable with a telescope.
I'd agree with you if it was a 20 foot fishing vessel or something but when its a tanker over 100 feet tall that's over half obscured you can't use that logic. The waves would have to be at least 50 feet in height in order to do that and we can clearly see in the foreground that the sea state is at MAXIMUM 5 foot waves (and I'm being very generous with that number.)
That is not true. The waves do not need to be as tall as something it obscures. If you hold a dime out in front of you, you can obscure an elephant. Is your dime as big as the elephant?
-
Interesting, would reading that book make him or the telescope able to see through the horizon?
Reading the book would tell us that the restoration experiments were carried out on calm bodies of water and was not able to be replicated on a consistent basis at sea. It is therefore not a proof against the work to find an observation of a half sunken ship or object at sea that was not restorable with a telescope.
I'd agree with you if it was a 20 foot fishing vessel or something but when its a tanker over 100 feet tall that's over half obscured you can't use that logic. The waves would have to be at least 50 feet in height in order to do that and we can clearly see in the foreground that the sea state is at MAXIMUM 5 foot waves (and I'm being very generous with that number.)
That is not true. The waves do not need to be as tall as something it obscures. If you hold a dime out in front of you, you can obscure an elephant. Is your dime as big as the elephant?
Then why aren't the waves obscuring the much smaller boat shown earlier in the video (from about 0:15 to 0:30 in the video)? Either waves are a factor or they are not. You can't say waves are obscuring a bigger boat while leaving a much smaller boat in plain view.
-
Interesting, would reading that book make him or the telescope able to see through the horizon?
Reading the book would tell us that the restoration experiments were carried out on calm bodies of water and was not able to be replicated on a consistent basis at sea. It is therefore not a proof against the work to find an observation of a half sunken ship or object at sea that was not restorable with a telescope.
I'd agree with you if it was a 20 foot fishing vessel or something but when its a tanker over 100 feet tall that's over half obscured you can't use that logic. The waves would have to be at least 50 feet in height in order to do that and we can clearly see in the foreground that the sea state is at MAXIMUM 5 foot waves (and I'm being very generous with that number.)
That is not true. The waves do not need to be as tall as something it obscures. If you hold a dime out in front of you, you can obscure an elephant. Is your dime as big as the elephant?
Then why aren't the waves obscuring the much smaller boat shown earlier in the video (from about 0:15 to 0:30 in the video)? Either waves are a factor or they are not. You can't say waves are obscuring a bigger boat while leaving a much smaller boat in plain view.
The bigger boat is further away. The variables are not the same.
-
And even though the bigger boat is farther away, it still appears larger than the smaller boat, so if there was wave action, it would only have the effect of hiding more of the smaller boat.
Again, it is clear that it is a much bigger boat, and yes the further distance of the bigger boat naturally makes it appear smaller than it would appear if it was closer. And yet the bigger boat is still hidden even though it is much bigger than the smaller boat. So waves could not hide the much bigger boat without also hiding the smaller boat.
So yes the variables are not the same, but they work against the possibility that the bigger boat is being hidden by waves when the smaller boat is still clearly visible.
-
The hull of the smaller boat seems to be obscured behind some water too. Look how close the waves get to the deck line:
(http://i.imgur.com/LBWo4OW.png)
It's not really that much more depth needed before the desk is submerged and little house structure is sticking out of the water like with the big boat. The big boat doesn't have a bow almost as tall as the bridge, but it it did that would be sticking out of the water as well.
-
The hull of the smaller boat seems to be obscured behind some water too. Look how close the waves get to the deck line:
(http://i.imgur.com/LBWo4OW.png)
It's not really that much more depth needed before the little house structure is sticking out of the water like with the big boat.
Correct. The waves do hide some of the small boat, but they would still hide less of the big boat. And the thing about boats is that they float on top of the waves. so if the waves were big enough to hide either boat, it would be intermittent as the boat itself would be rising and falling with the waves. You can see a little of this happening with the small boat, but the waves still never hide the hull of the small boat. Moving the small boat further away on a supposedly flat earth would make the waves and the boat both appear smaller, but it would not change the percentage of the boat appearing above the water (unless of course some other mechanism came into play and hid the hull....such as the curvature of the earth).
Waves that are too small to hide the small boat are way too small to hide the big boat. What is so hard to understand about that?
It is one of the most ridiculous claims of flat earthers that perspective can hide the bottom half of an object before it hides the upper half. Photons of light do not behave in such a ridiculous manner. If there is a line of sight between our eyes and an object, then moving further away does not change that fact. Any object that is above the plane of a flat earth would remain within our line of sight indefinitely up to the point where our eyes can no longer distinguish it from its surroundings, which is not even close to being the case with the larger ship. And even then it would be within our line of sight, so a telescope could bring it back into view. This does not happen as clearly shown in the video I posted earlier in this thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0e7BbAag1w
Distance does make an object appear smaller, but it does so equally in all directions, so if the bottom half of a ship is in our line of sight, it will still be in our line of site as it moves further away on a flat surface. And as the ship gradually appeared to be smaller, the waves would also gradually appear to be smaller also. Again they would both shrink by the same amount, so if waves cannot hide the smaller, closer ship, then those same waves which would appear smaller at the distance of the larger ship, would not be able to hide such a large portion of the larger ship.
The only explanation that makes sense for why the bottom half of the more distant ship is hidden is that the surface of the water is curved as predicted in a round earth model.
-
Here is an excellent explanation of what perspective really is and why the flat earth notion that perspective makes something disappear behind the horizon is completely bogus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGwS2Btnigo
Short version: Perspective is a phenomenon inside the eye or camera, but does not represent the actual size or spatial relationships of what is perceived. Ships do not get smaller as they move away from us. The actual ships stay the same size, but the image that forms on the retina or camera's recording surface gets smaller. Furthermore, the surface of the earth does not rise up on either a flat earth or a round earth. The only place the horizon rises is inside the eye or camera of the perceiver. In the actual earth, the surface either stays flat or curves as predicted by the two models. Since the actual surface never rises up, it can never hide an object that is above it.
-
I think that the best way to determine wheter the earth has a curve is using a laser pointer and a table with measurements to notice how the laser goes "higher" the farter we move from its origin.
-
I think that the best way to determine wheter the earth has a curve is using a laser pointer and a table with measurements to notice how the laser goes "higher" the farter we move from its origin.
Why use a laser with a beam that gets wider at farther distances? There is a thing that has been used to do this for nearly 100 years. It's call a theodolite. A used digital one can be acquired for under $500.
-
I think somebody in the FES should talk to somebody in the Navy about this subject.
But that is probably against their rules....or against their nature.
After all the Navy is just one more member of The Conspiracy anyway. Most sailors have some degree of security clearance and they would get court martialed if they said they were hiding the fact that the earth is flat. That is probably part of Classified Information.
I have a theory for this part of the flat earth wiki.
Rowbotham was eiither short sighted ..... or had cataracts......or both.
I'm in the Navy. In fact, I'm a submarine officer with 9 years in the Navy who has traveled over 50,000 miles at sea. Believe me, if the earth was flat I'd know lol. I've literally observed thousands of ships through a periscope either come over the horizon or go over the horizon. Because our periscope is only a few feet out of the water our distance to the horizon is only about 5,000 yards so ships coming over or going over the horizon is very commonplace. The phenomena is so well documented that we can actually calculate the distance to ships based on the known distance to the horizon and how much of the ship we can see over the horizon. Its also an easy trick to approximate the range of ships near the horizon. Furthermore, if we see the mast of a ship we can't identify we often stick our periscope more out of the water (by changing our depth) which changes our height of eye and therefore changes our distance to the horizon. Sure enough, when we do this more of the ship comes into view. We also have far more powerful magnification on our periscopes (along with night vision and infrared vision) then people have access to in the civilian sector and I can assure you that zooming does not bring the ship back into view if it goes over the horizon. Likewise, if a ship goes over the horizon you can't pick it up with night vision on infrared. If the earth was flat then we would be able to pick them up on infrared from pretty much any distance. Helicopters with infrared can easily pick up contacts from a hundred miles away if they are high enough.
And the final nail in the coffin is radar. The effective range of your radar is dependent on how high the radar is above the water line. This is because the curvature of the earth limits your radar. This is why ships always place their radar as high as possible. You can even test this out if you have your own boat and you buy a portable radar.
However, no flat earther will ever believe my testimony. I guess I'm a liar in their eyes lol.
Well there you have it!
First hand observations are evidence.
The crow's nest on the old ships as well as some of the more modern surface search radars were placed on the highest masts of the ship for the same reason. So they could "see" farther to the horizon.
The periscope on "SilentServices'" submarine could only "see" about 5000 yards to the horizon.
I was only just a petty officer (ET2) in the Navy, somewhat low on the ladder.
I just served 4 years and only 3 cruises to Japan and back on surface type ships but my experiences as far as ships coming and going, the distance to the horizon, etc. were about the same as "SilentServices."
The radars on the ships on which I served were mounted on masts about 100 feet above the waterline and had a range of about 12 miles to the horizon.
I suppose we - both of - us are liars, "SilentServices" ?
BTW. Where is the horizon on a flat earth ?
-
I think that the best way to determine wheter the earth has a curve is using a laser pointer and a table with measurements to notice how the laser goes "higher" the farter we move from its origin.
Why use a laser with a beam that gets wider at farther distances? There is a thing that has been used to do this for nearly 100 years. It's call a theodolite. A used digital one can be acquired for under $500.
im just saying, even if the beam gets wider, it should be noted the change in height it still shows on the measurement object on would be using. And lasers are very potent, there are some that can reach to cockpits in comercial planes.
-
I think that the best way to determine wheter the earth has a curve is using a laser pointer and a table with measurements to notice how the laser goes "higher" the farter we move from its origin.
Why use a laser with a beam that gets wider at farther distances? There is a thing that has been used to do this for nearly 100 years. It's call a theodolite. A used digital one can be acquired for under $500.
im just saying, even if the beam gets wider, it should be noted the change in height it still shows on the measurement object on would be using. And lasers are very potent, there are some that can reach to cockpits in comercial planes.
Yes, but to to take accurate measurements one needs a screen that is larger than the beam so the center can be detected. Many flat earth experiments have failed for this reason. They assume that if they can see the laser that the center of the beam is at eye level.
-
I think that the best way to determine wheter the earth has a curve is using a laser pointer and a table with measurements to notice how the laser goes "higher" the farter we move from its origin.
Why use a laser with a beam that gets wider at farther distances? There is a thing that has been used to do this for nearly 100 years. It's call a theodolite. A used digital one can be acquired for under $500.
im just saying, even if the beam gets wider, it should be noted the change in height it still shows on the measurement object on would be using. And lasers are very potent, there are some that can reach to cockpits in comercial planes.
Yes, but to to take accurate measurements one needs a screen that is larger than the beam so the center can be detected. Many flat earth experiments have failed for this reason. They assume that if they can see the laser that the center of the beam is at eye level.
Has anyone ever observed, experimented on, or proven the existence of curved water, anywhere, ever?
-
Yes. I've measured the drop over water with my theodolite.
-
Has anyone ever observed, experimented on, or proven the existence of curved water, anywhere, ever?
(http://www-cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/4494/6/Phys_p10_Replace_Figure1_img.jpg)
-
Has anyone ever observed, experimented on, or proven the existence of curved water, anywhere, ever?
(http://www-cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/4494/6/Phys_p10_Replace_Figure1_img.jpg)
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
That's fake, did you take that image yourself? XD
-
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
That's fake, did you take that image yourself? XD
Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
-
I think that the best way to determine wheter the earth has a curve is using a laser pointer and a table with measurements to notice how the laser goes "higher" the farter we move from its origin.
Why use a laser with a beam that gets wider at farther distances? There is a thing that has been used to do this for nearly 100 years. It's call a theodolite. A used digital one can be acquired for under $500.
im just saying, even if the beam gets wider, it should be noted the change in height it still shows on the measurement object on would be using. And lasers are very potent, there are some that can reach to cockpits in comercial planes.
Yes, but to to take accurate measurements one needs a screen that is larger than the beam so the center can be detected. Many flat earth experiments have failed for this reason. They assume that if they can see the laser that the center of the beam is at eye level.
Has anyone ever observed, experimented on, or proven the existence of curved water, anywhere, ever?
I think, as usual, this thread has gotten de-railed from the subject at hand, that is, "Half sunken ships......."
But the simple truth is known , and it is not an experiment. It is an almost every day occurrence . At least for everyone who has ever been to sea, or been down to the shore , either as a civilian , or in the Navy , that ships disappear as they pass over the horizon and there is no way that "they can be restored to view with a telescope", either a half ship or the whole ship, AFTER the ship has passed OVER and BEYOND the horizon. Because of the curvature of the earth, because the earth is a globe. This subject has been gone over quite a few times.
In Rowbotham's time, the hull of ships was often the smallest part of the ship, and it would disappear first . But the hulls of ships are much larger today. They do disappear first as the go OVER the horizon, because of the curvature of the earth, etc...........
-
Has anyone ever observed, experimented on, or proven the existence of curved water, anywhere, ever?
(http://www-cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/4494/6/Phys_p10_Replace_Figure1_img.jpg)
So the roundness of the ocean, and the Earth in general is caused by surface tension?
-
Water is a fluid. It conforms and reaches equilibrium according to forces present. Here is a video of fluids in zero g on the Vomit Comet.
https://youtu.be/gTqLQO3L4Ko
-
Has anyone ever observed, experimented on, or proven the existence of curved water, anywhere, ever?
(http://www-cdn.sciencebuddies.org/Files/4494/6/Phys_p10_Replace_Figure1_img.jpg)
So the roundness of the ocean, and the Earth in general is caused by surface tension?
No, it is caused by gravity. You didn't ask for gravitationally curved water, you asked just for curved water.
I'm sure he would have shown you water curved gravitationally, except that it curves over much too large a scale to show it to you.
-
On this page, https://www.quora.com/At-what-altitude-do-you-see-the-curvature-of-the-Earth they show some photographic evidence of the curvature of water by compressing a picture taken of the sea from about 200 meters elevation to 10% of its orignal width and 2-4 times its original height. Attached are the before and after pictures:
-
PS: The photographer in the previous post was careful to select a picture where the horizon is in the lower half of the frame as that would tend to flatten the resulting curve, whereas when the horizon is in the top half of the frame, the lens would tend to exaggerate the curve. So the fact that the compressed picture clearly shows a curve is even more impressive.
-
Re:"Half-sunken ships Restored by simply lòoking at them through a Telescope"+
I think the OP has been answered.There is no way you can do this.
-
Re:"Half-sunken ships Restored by simply lòoking at them through a Telescope"+
I think the OP has been answered.There is no way you can do this.
Except when you grab a telescope and actually do it :-*
-
Re:"Half-sunken ships Restored by simply lòoking at them through a Telescope"+
I think the OP has been answered.There is no way you can do this.
Except when you grab a telescope and actually do it :-*
Do you have photographic evidence for this claim? None of the videos in this thread show such a phenomenon.
-
I think that the best way to determine wheter the earth has a curve is using a laser pointer and a table with measurements to notice how the laser goes "higher" the farter we move from its origin.
Why use a laser with a beam that gets wider at farther distances? There is a thing that has been used to do this for nearly 100 years. It's call a theodolite. A used digital one can be acquired for under $500.
im just saying, even if the beam gets wider, it should be noted the change in height it still shows on the measurement object on would be using. And lasers are very potent, there are some that can reach to cockpits in comercial planes.
Yes, but to to take accurate measurements one needs a screen that is larger than the beam so the center can be detected. Many flat earth experiments have failed for this reason. They assume that if they can see the laser that the center of the beam is at eye level.
Has anyone ever observed, experimented on, or proven the existence of curved water, anywhere, ever?
Anyone who has ever been to sea has observed, or proven the existence of curved water , has done it many times, at sea or from the shore looking out to sea.
-
Re:"Half-sunken ships Restored by simply lòoking at them through a Telescope"+
I think the OP has been answered.There is no way you can do this.
Except when you grab a telescope and actually do it :-*
Are you calling "SilentService" and myself liars ?
Have you ever been to sea and actually did it ?
Let's be sure we're talking about the same thing.
(1) Is this about a ship which has gone out of sight as it passed, or after it has passed, beyond the norizon ? You can't restore it with a telescope.
(2) Or is this about a ship which has become so small it can no longer be seen with the naked eye , but can be restored with a telescope before it has passed beyond the horizon ? You can restore it with a telescope.
Been there. Done that. Both of 'em.
-
Re:"Half-sunken ships Restored by simply lòoking at them through a Telescope"+
I think the OP has been answered.There is no way you can do this.
Except when you grab a telescope and actually do it :-*
Have you ever been to sea and actually did it ?
Are all you calling "SilentService" and myself liars ?
Let's be sure we're talking about the same thing.
Is this about a ship which has gone out of sight as it passed beyond the norizon ? You can't restore it with a telescope.
Or is this about a ship which has become so small it can no longer be seen with the naked eye , but can be restored with a telescope before it has passed beyond the horizon ? You can restore it with a telescope.
How about an island that seems to grow out of the sea as you sail closer?
-
Re:"Half-sunken ships Restored by simply lòoking at them through a Telescope"+
I think the OP has been answered.There is no way you can do this.
Except when you grab a telescope and actually do it :-*
Have you ever been to sea and actually did it ?
Are all you calling "SilentService" and myself liars ?
Let's be sure we're talking about the same thing.
Is this about a ship which has gone out of sight as it passed beyond the norizon ? You can't restore it with a telescope.
Or is this about a ship which has become so small it can no longer be seen with the naked eye , but can be restored with a telescope before it has passed beyond the horizon ? You can restore it with a telescope.
How about an island that seems to grow out of the sea as you sail closer?
Same thing. Like the island of Oahu.....or Guam....or Japan.
-
Re:"Half-sunken ships Restored by simply lòoking at them through a Telescope"+
I think the OP has been answered.There is no way you can do this.
Except when you grab a telescope and actually do it :-*
Have you ever been to sea and actually did it ?
Are all you calling "SilentService" and myself liars ?
Let's be sure we're talking about the same thing.
Is this about a ship which has gone out of sight as it passed beyond the norizon ? You can't restore it with a telescope.
Or is this about a ship which has become so small it can no longer be seen with the naked eye , but can be restored with a telescope before it has passed beyond the horizon ? You can restore it with a telescope.
How about an island that seems to grow out of the sea as you sail closer?
Same thing. Like the island of Oahu.....or Guam....or Japan.
I have never personally seen any of those, my sailing has all been in the Caribbean. Mountainous islands like St Lucia do appear to come up over the horizon as you approach. Been there, done that.
-
I have a question about these telescopes.
If they can restore ships after those have disappeared, can they restore the sun as well after it has set? After all, the sun is 1) remarkably larger than any ship, both absolutely and relatively, and 2) not claimed to be at or even close to the sea level, but a significant distance (whatever that is) above it.
The sun shrinks as it sets into the sea, first from a circle into a semicircle, and eventually into a dot, and then disappears. But if you use a good telescope – the same telescope you have used to see the ships – immediately after the dot has disappeared, can you then see the dot again, or better still, can you see the semicircle again?
Obviously you need to be on or near the shore to watch the sunset, the weather needs to be clear and there must not be any islands or something obstructing the view, but surely places like this exist within reach for most of us somewhere. Oh, and don't forget eye protection if you want to look directly at the sun.
-
I have a question about these telescopes.
If they can restore ships after those have disappeared, can they restore the sun as well after it has set? After all, the sun is 1) remarkably larger than any ship, both absolutely and relatively, and 2) not claimed to be at or even close to the sea level, but a significant distance (whatever that is) above it.
The sun shrinks as it sets into the sea, first from a circle into a semicircle, and eventually into a dot, and then disappears. But if you use a good telescope – the same telescope you have used to see the ships – immediately after the dot has disappeared, can you then see the dot again, or better still, can you see the semicircle again?
Obviously you need to be on or near the shore to watch the sunset, the weather needs to be clear and there must not be any islands or something obstructing the view, but surely places like this exist within reach for most of us somewhere. Oh, and don't forget eye protection if you want to look directly at the sun.
You need to be at sea or on the shore to observe "the sinking ship", too.
The navy has some very large and very powerful telescopes , too. If anyone could do it, they could. They can't.
Someone has suggested using a welding helmet to look diectly at the sun.
-
Someone has suggested using a welding helmet to look diectly at the sun.
It has to be a certain kind of welder's helmet for this to be safe:
http://www.giraffeboards.com/showthread.php?t=25899
-
I have a question about these telescopes.
If they can restore ships after those have disappeared, can they restore the sun as well after it has set? After all, the sun is 1) remarkably larger than any ship, both absolutely and relatively, and 2) not claimed to be at or even close to the sea level, but a significant distance (whatever that is) above it.
The sun shrinks as it sets into the sea, first from a circle into a semicircle, and eventually into a dot, and then disappears. But if you use a good telescope – the same telescope you have used to see the ships – immediately after the dot has disappeared, can you then see the dot again, or better still, can you see the semicircle again?
Obviously you need to be on or near the shore to watch the sunset, the weather needs to be clear and there must not be any islands or something obstructing the view, but surely places like this exist within reach for most of us somewhere. Oh, and don't forget eye protection if you want to look directly at the sun.
That is an amazing question and could only be answered yes if the flat earth model is correct. We have amateur telescopes that can see the rings of Saturn and the storm on Jupiter and we also have sun filters for same. This issue can be proven. Here is a link to said filters.
http://thousandoaksoptical.com/products/solar-filters/
If the sun is down and you look west from the coast with a powerful telescope you can see the sun if FE is correct. You may have to correct to the south a bit, right? This should be possible hours after sunset.
Who is willing to say "Case Closed"? I am willing to change my mind if this simple test can be done.
-
I have a question about these telescopes.
If they can restore ships after those have disappeared, can they restore the sun as well after it has set? After all, the sun is 1) remarkably larger than any ship, both absolutely and relatively, and 2) not claimed to be at or even close to the sea level, but a significant distance (whatever that is) above it.
The sun shrinks as it sets into the sea, first from a circle into a semicircle, and eventually into a dot, and then disappears. But if you use a good telescope – the same telescope you have used to see the ships – immediately after the dot has disappeared, can you then see the dot again, or better still, can you see the semicircle again?
Obviously you need to be on or near the shore to watch the sunset, the weather needs to be clear and there must not be any islands or something obstructing the view, but surely places like this exist within reach for most of us somewhere. Oh, and don't forget eye protection if you want to look directly at the sun.
That is an amazing question and could only be answered yes if the flat earth model is correct. We have amateur telescopes that can see the rings of Saturn and the storm on Jupiter and we also have sun filters for same. This issue can be proven. Here is a link to said filters.
http://thousandoaksoptical.com/products/solar-filters/
If the sun is down and you look west from the coast with a powerful telescope you can see the sun if FE is correct. You may have to correct to the south a bit, right? This should be possible hours after sunset.
Who is willing to say "Case Closed"? I am willing to change my mind if this simple test can be done.
I would be willing to say "Case Closed" ! LOL
It can only be IMPOSSIBLE because the earth is NOT flat.
To anyone who is or has ever been in the navy, this old "recovering the sinking ship" is one of the greatest , if not THE greatest of the flat earth fallacies. Might as well say you could recover San Diego or Honolulu to view with a telescope when you are at sea halfway between them . ROFLOL.
Just an aside on sun filters and that "shadow object." Using sun filters, we can take photos of the transits of Mercury, Venus or even the ISS across the sun. We should be able to do the same for the "shadow object".....Unless it becomes magically invisible......???
-
Someone has suggested using a welding helmet to look diectly at the sun.
As I said in another topic, I used to do orientation up to the accuracy of 0.1 degrees with the help of the sun while in the army. We had theodolites that had attachable solar filters, especially made for this purpose.
It's worth noting that while anyone can buy theodolites for civilian use as well, they don't necessarily have solar filters as default: the method used is needlessly complicated for civilian use, because in civilian use there usually are some fixed points available for accurate orientation (unlike in enemy territory), and apart from that there's just no reason to use the theodolite to look at the sun. So if someone wants to try this, make sure you use a solar filter purposefully intended for this use.
This silly debate just isn't worth blindness.
-
Just an aside on sun filters and that "shadow object." Using sun filters, we can take photos of the transits of Mercury, Venus or even the ISS across the sun. We should be able to do the same for the "shadow object".....Unless it becomes magically invisible......???
I think that a flat earther would call a transit of the shadow object a solar eclipse.
-
Someone has suggested using a welding helmet to look diectly at the sun.
As I said in another topic, I used to do orientation up to the accuracy of 0.1 degrees with the help of the sun while in the army. We had theodolites that had attachable solar filters, especially made for this purpose.
It's worth noting that while anyone can buy theodolites for civilian use as well, they don't necessarily have solar filters as default: the method used is needlessly complicated for civilian use, because in civilian use there usually are some fixed points available for accurate orientation (unlike in enemy territory), and apart from that there's just no reason to use the theodolite to look at the sun. So if someone wants to try this, make sure you use a solar filter purposefully intended for this use.
This silly debate just isn't worth blindness.
I am a relative newcomer to the FES websites. I have only been here about 3 years. But it has just gotten worse and worse over that time. Most of what you get from FE's now are.:
(1) Ignored
(2) "It's fake !"
(3) Insults
(4) Profanity
(5) Vulgarity
(6) And probably a lot of the other
I could give you some examples, but you've probably seen them all.
One had to with the distance from the earth to the moon and how the measurements were done.
But it is becoming an interesting website for the interesting facts posted by the so-called "globulists" , "roundies", "round earthers", et cetera, et cetera, and so forth !
In a way it has become educational and entertaining.
As I said previously this old "sinking ship" is an example of your "This silly debate just isn't worth blindness." to us ancient mariners and navy veterans.LOL.
-
Someone has suggested using a welding helmet to look diectly at the sun.
As I said in another topic, I used to do orientation up to the accuracy of 0.1 degrees with the help of the sun while in the army. We had theodolites that had attachable solar filters, especially made for this purpose.
It's worth noting that while anyone can buy theodolites for civilian use as well, they don't necessarily have solar filters as default: the method used is needlessly complicated for civilian use, because in civilian use there usually are some fixed points available for accurate orientation (unlike in enemy territory), and apart from that there's just no reason to use the theodolite to look at the sun. So if someone wants to try this, make sure you use a solar filter purposefully intended for this use.
This silly debate just isn't worth blindness.
I am a relative newcomer to the FES websites. I have only been here about 3 years. But it has just gotten worse and worse over that time. Most of what you get from FE's now are.:
(1) Ignored
(2) "It's fake !"
(3) Insults
(4) Profanity
(5) Vulgarity
(6) And probably a lot of the other
I could give you some examples, but you've probably seen them all.
One had to with the distance from the earth to the moon and how the measurements were done.
But it is becoming an interesting website for the interesting facts posted by the so-called "globulists" , "roundies", "round earthers", et cetera, et cetera, and so forth !
In a way it has become educational and entertaining.
As I said previously this old "sinking ship" is an example of your "This silly debate just isn't worth blindness." to us ancient mariners and navy veterans.LOL.
If they went by the mission they proclaim in the Wiki "This website is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax." it would be an interesting mental exercise in logic and reason. Seems the FE'ers are not interested in debate. I also notice bans seem to only go out to RE'ers from my limited viewing.
My logical questions go unanswered.
-
I am a relative newcomer to the FES websites. I have only been here about 3 years. But it has just gotten worse and worse over that time. Most of what you get from FE's now are.:
--
I could give you some examples, but you've probably seen them all.
Simply being banned was not on your list, and that often happens elsewhere. You have been here 3 years and still are: that's encouraging.
As I said previously this old "sinking ship" is an example of your "This silly debate just isn't worth blindness." to us ancient mariners and navy veterans.LOL.
Right, but just in case I wasn't clear enough, that was meant to be taken literally. For anyone who wishes to experiment with theodolites and the sun.
-
I am a relative newcomer to the FES websites. I have only been here about 3 years. But it has just gotten worse and worse over that time. Most of what you get from FE's now are.:
--
I could give you some examples, but you've probably seen them all.
Simply being banned was not on your list, and that often happens elsewhere. You have been here 3 years and still are: that's encouraging.
As I said previously this old "sinking ship" is an example of your "This silly debate just isn't worth blindness." to us ancient mariners and navy veterans.LOL.
Right, but just in case I wasn't clear enough, that was meant to be taken literally. For anyone who wishes to experiment with theodolites and the sun.
I have been banned several times for various reasons.
-
Someone has suggested using a welding helmet to look diectly at the sun.
As I said in another topic, I used to do orientation up to the accuracy of 0.1 degrees with the help of the sun while in the army. We had theodolites that had attachable solar filters, especially made for this purpose.
It's worth noting that while anyone can buy theodolites for civilian use as well, they don't necessarily have solar filters as default: the method used is needlessly complicated for civilian use, because in civilian use there usually are some fixed points available for accurate orientation (unlike in enemy territory), and apart from that there's just no reason to use the theodolite to look at the sun. So if someone wants to try this, make sure you use a solar filter purposefully intended for this use.
This silly debate just isn't worth blindness.
There are many sources of sextants, too, if you wanted to experiment taking sights on the sun, moon, stars, etc.
But.......Still waiting for answers.
-
Someone has suggested using a welding helmet to look diectly at the sun.
As I said in another topic, I used to do orientation up to the accuracy of 0.1 degrees with the help of the sun while in the army. We had theodolites that had attachable solar filters, especially made for this purpose.
It's worth noting that while anyone can buy theodolites for civilian use as well, they don't necessarily have solar filters as default: the method used is needlessly complicated for civilian use, because in civilian use there usually are some fixed points available for accurate orientation (unlike in enemy territory), and apart from that there's just no reason to use the theodolite to look at the sun. So if someone wants to try this, make sure you use a solar filter purposefully intended for this use.
This silly debate just isn't worth blindness.
I am a relative newcomer to the FES websites. I have only been here about 3 years. But it has just gotten worse and worse over that time. Most of what you get from FE's now are.:
(1) Ignored
(2) "It's fake !"
(3) Insults
(4) Profanity
(5) Vulgarity
(6) And probably a lot of the other
I could give you some examples, but you've probably seen them all.
One had to with the distance from the earth to the moon and how the measurements were done.
But it is becoming an interesting website for the interesting facts posted by the so-called "globulists" , "roundies", "round earthers", et cetera, et cetera, and so forth !
In a way it has become educational and entertaining.
As I said previously this old "sinking ship" is an example of your "This silly debate just isn't worth blindness." to us ancient mariners and navy veterans.LOL.
If they went by the mission they proclaim in the Wiki "This website is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax." it would be an interesting mental exercise in logic and reason. Seems the FE'ers are not interested in debate. I also notice bans seem to only go out to RE'ers from my limited viewing.
My logical questions go unanswered.
I think this website would be just as interesting to me if they went by this statement.:
"We all know that the earth is a globe. But just think ! What if the earth was a flat disc ? This website is for ideas on how things would have to be if this was so."
-
Someone has suggested using a welding helmet to look diectly at the sun.
As I said in another topic, I used to do orientation up to the accuracy of 0.1 degrees with the help of the sun while in the army. We had theodolites that had attachable solar filters, especially made for this purpose.
It's worth noting that while anyone can buy theodolites for civilian use as well, they don't necessarily have solar filters as default: the method used is needlessly complicated for civilian use, because in civilian use there usually are some fixed points available for accurate orientation (unlike in enemy territory), and apart from that there's just no reason to use the theodolite to look at the sun. So if someone wants to try this, make sure you use a solar filter purposefully intended for this use.
This silly debate just isn't worth blindness.
I am a relative newcomer to the FES websites. I have only been here about 3 years. But it has just gotten worse and worse over that time. Most of what you get from FE's now are.:
(1) Ignored
(2) "It's fake !"
(3) Insults
(4) Profanity
(5) Vulgarity
(6) And probably a lot of the other
I could give you some examples, but you've probably seen them all.
One had to with the distance from the earth to the moon and how the measurements were done.
But it is becoming an interesting website for the interesting facts posted by the so-called "globulists" , "roundies", "round earthers", et cetera, et cetera, and so forth !
In a way it has become educational and entertaining.
As I said previously this old "sinking ship" is an example of your "This silly debate just isn't worth blindness." to us ancient mariners and navy veterans.LOL.
If they went by the mission they proclaim in the Wiki "This website is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax." it would be an interesting mental exercise in logic and reason. Seems the FE'ers are not interested in debate. I also notice bans seem to only go out to RE'ers from my limited viewing.
My logical questions go unanswered.
I think this website would be just as interesting to me if they went by this statement.:
"We all know that the earth is a globe. But just think ! What if the earth was a flat disc ? This website is for ideas on how things would have to be if this was so."
Not me, I truly want to talk with people about the things they believe. It's fascinating.
-
Someone has suggested using a welding helmet to look diectly at the sun.
As I said in another topic, I used to do orientation up to the accuracy of 0.1 degrees with the help of the sun while in the army. We had theodolites that had attachable solar filters, especially made for this purpose.
It's worth noting that while anyone can buy theodolites for civilian use as well, they don't necessarily have solar filters as default: the method used is needlessly complicated for civilian use, because in civilian use there usually are some fixed points available for accurate orientation (unlike in enemy territory), and apart from that there's just no reason to use the theodolite to look at the sun. So if someone wants to try this, make sure you use a solar filter purposefully intended for this use.
This silly debate just isn't worth blindness.
I am a relative newcomer to the FES websites. I have only been here about 3 years. But it has just gotten worse and worse over that time. Most of what you get from FE's now are.:
(1) Ignored
(2) "It's fake !"
(3) Insults
(4) Profanity
(5) Vulgarity
(6) And probably a lot of the other
I could give you some examples, but you've probably seen them all.
One had to with the distance from the earth to the moon and how the measurements were done.
But it is becoming an interesting website for the interesting facts posted by the so-called "globulists" , "roundies", "round earthers", et cetera, et cetera, and so forth !
In a way it has become educational and entertaining.
As I said previously this old "sinking ship" is an example of your "This silly debate just isn't worth blindness." to us ancient mariners and navy veterans.LOL.
If they went by the mission they proclaim in the Wiki "This website is dedicated to unraveling the true mysteries of the universe and demonstrating that the earth is flat and that Round Earth doctrine is little more than an elaborate hoax." it would be an interesting mental exercise in logic and reason. Seems the FE'ers are not interested in debate. I also notice bans seem to only go out to RE'ers from my limited viewing.
My logical questions go unanswered.
I think this website would be just as interesting to me if they went by this statement.:
"We all know that the earth is a globe. But just think ! What if the earth was a flat disc ? This website is for ideas on how things would have to be if this was so."
Not me, I truly want to talk with people about the things they believe. It's fascinating.
It's just too hard to believe that anyone would really believe that the earth was flat. LOL.