Go to hell... I mean GO HOME SHILL.Please stop with all the shilliness. It is only Eric Dubay that thinks this. No one is paid to promote flat earth, neither is anyone who comes to this site likely to be a paid government stooge. Use your brains. You are making our society seem paranoid, cultish, delusional and childish.
It answers the question quite nicely. You are looking at the swells in front of you, which causes you to look slightly upward. Boats in the distance will appear to sink because you can only see as much of the boat as the swells will permit.
I don't expect morons to possess the comprehension skills to get it.
Man, you would think they would pay intelligent people to be shills. I feel gipped, all we get are the idiots. ;)
—
The answer is simple. Light waves are repelled by gravity. As the light from the ship travels towards you, it is pushed upwards. The further away it gets, the further the light is bent.
Sent from my YOGA Tablet 2-830L using Tapatalk
It has nothing to do with gravity.
Masts sink over the horizon because of the curvature, it's that simple. With specific weather conditions, it will even appear to be more hidden, or more visible on certain days, given the same distance.
Atmospheric refraction is the same reason why the Moon can appear to "ripple" given certain weather conditions, and also what causes you too see a mirror-like illusion on road on very hot summerdays.
No offense Thork, but as I've pointed out, go over the the hollow earth forums. They don't have people trying to convince them the earth is a ball.
Aren't ships supposed to lean backwards when they disappear over the horizon? The same thing should be true for tall buildings.
Aren't ships supposed to lean backwards when they disappear over the horizon? The same thing should be true for tall buildings.
The answer is simple. Light waves are repelled by gravity. As the light from the ship travels towards you, it is pushed upwards. The further away it gets, the further the light is bent.
But those are not Maxwell's equations at all; on the contrary, they are the Heaviside-Lorentz equations:
The Allias effect breaks no laws put forward by relativity as far as I can tell, it simply suggests that something else is going on that nobody is accounting for.
I am currently banned from the flat Earth society forum, so I can't view your sources for the ether experiments.
Your other sources started loosing credibility when one said that modern physics denies the existence of centrifugal force as if physicists believe that a spinning object would not feel an aperent outward pull. Physicists don't deny that an aperent outward pull exists, what they deny is the notion that it's an actual force field pushing something out as the term "centrifugal force" implies. The point is, my confidence in the credibility of your sources is deminishing by the minute. Another one of your sources flat out lied about what relativity predicts about gravity. Seriously, find better sources.
Your logic seems to be "Maxwell was right about electromagnetism, and he believed that Aether exists so he must be right about that too. Einstein was the one who debunked the notion of Aether, and since he apears to be wrong about that he must be wrong about everything else too".
How about this: I will accept that relativity is false once you produce one observation that contradicts a relativistic prediction. Should be easy enough, right?
I am currently banned from the flat Earth society forum, so I can't view your sources for the ether experiments.
Your other sources started loosing credibility when one said that modern physics denies the existence of centrifugal force as if physicists believe that a spinning object would not feel an aperent outward pull. Physicists don't deny that an aperent outward pull exists, what they deny is the notion that it's an actual force field pushing something out as the term "centrifugal force" implies. The point is, my confidence in the credibility of your sources is deminishing by the minute. Another one of your sources flat out lied about what relativity predicts about gravity. Seriously, find better sources.
Your logic seems to be "Maxwell was right about electromagnetism, and he believed that Aether exists so he must be right about that too. Einstein was the one who debunked the notion of Aether, and since he apears to be wrong about that he must be wrong about everything else too".
How about this: I will accept that relativity is false once you produce one observation that contradicts a relativistic prediction. Should be easy enough, right?
I am also currently banned from The Flat Earth Society Forum. If it's any consolation, you are not alone. ;D I've just about had it with that website and trying to break the habit. I'm ashamed and embarrassed to admit I visit that website, much less that I post on it. :-[ For all the vulgarity that is permitted, that website is a disgrace to the Internet......At least IMHO.
I just happened on this thread and I'm not as familiar with your discussion, so I will leave it with you and sandokhan. Therefore, it just looks to me as if sandokhan has once again attempted to derail the simple subject of "Why ship masts appear to sink over the horizon." The highest I ever got in that subject was an ET1 in the U.S. Navy (Electronic Technician, First Class Petty Officer)So at least I am familiar with that thing called "the distance to the horizon" as far as the particular radar on the ship on which I served as a radar technician.
I wouldn't be surprised if sandokhan would say that since there is no horizon or there is no such thing as the speed of radio waves that that radar wouldn't work. And if so it wouldn't be accurate. But if you will take my word for it, it worked just fine according to the specifications in the technical manual.
The answer to the question is of course simple....It is because there is something called "the horizon" and there is something called "the curvature of the earth" and there is something called "the globe."
If the earth was flat , there would be no horizon- there would just be a blur that fades away into the distance - You know - "'Way beyond the blue" LOL. There would be no curvature. There would be no globe. It seems that to be a flat earther you have to take an oath to deny all the facts of life ?
This "ship over the horizon" seems to be one of the worsttheoriesfallacies of flat earth and the easiest de-bunked of them by simple observations.
Well......At least.....Just one of many.
Let me know (flat-earthers) how you think I can improve this illustration.This is what I get:
This is what I get:(http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z336/RegencyRon/View%20Distance%20at%20Sea%20finished_zps9k88hkma.png)The text is so small I cannot make any of it out. I must admit I am not a flat earther, but if I cannot read it I cannot get any information from it.
Same problem here with the fine print. ???Photobucket seems to be quite unintuitive - at least two people couldn't figure out how to zoom in. To hopefully alleviate this at least partially, I re-uploaded the image to my own server.
Relativity is based on Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism, so you can start by proving that magnetism, electricity, and light don't exist.
Einstein made the very same mistake:
Einstein, 1905:
"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations”
But those are not Maxwell's equations at all; on the contrary, they are the Heaviside-Lorentz equations:
(http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/annotations/annot1420a.gif)
In fact, NdG Tyson shows the same ignorance on the subject:
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/mxl1_zps4aef76b3.jpg)
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/mxl2_zpsa4365261.jpg)
(from the Cosmos series)
HERE ARE THE REAL ETHER MAXWELL'S EQUATIONS:
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/maxwell1_zps50d1cc1a.jpg)
THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE, AND NOT CONSTANT.
The Speed of Light
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/5373
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/030706.htm
(step by step demonstration how the set of Maxwell's original equations was censored/modified)
The much-reduced Heaviside-Gibbs-Hertz limited version of Maxwell's theory, with the added Lorentz symmetrization and arbitrary discarding of all asymmetrical Maxwellian systems, has since been taught as "Maxwell's theory". It is Heaviside's equations and Heaviside's notations, as further limited by Lorentz.
In 1892 Lorentz added the coup de grace to even this much-reduced Heaviside vector theory with simple equations and much fewer potentials. Lorentz arbitrarily symmetrized the equations to make them simpler yet, so that closed algebraic solutions could usually be found and one would not have to use numerical methods so widely. He did it merely to simplify the equations to NEW equations having much easier solutions! That he changed the potentials was considered of no consequence, so long as no NET translation force field emerged (even though two new force fields were arbitrarily introduced).
http://www.cheniere.org/articles/Deliberate%20Discard.htm
(superb documentation on the reasons why Maxwell's original set of equations was deliberately eliminated from textbooks)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1639521#msg1639521
unless you debunk relativity
This has to be a joke, right?
There is no such thing as the theory of relativity:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2715.msg80203#msg80203