*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8419
  • Boom
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2018, 11:11:23 PM »
Do not even attempt your usual BS tactics on this forum.

We are all away of rab's attitude. Refrain from addressing him like this, he will eventually get himself permanently banned if he falls back to his old ways. Stick to the arguments.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.

1. The Rules

2. The FAQ

3. The Wiki

You're doing God's work, junker.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #21 on: November 07, 2018, 05:46:35 AM »
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe.
Not quite. The "Sinking Ship Effect" was just one of the pieces of evidence.
Quote
Pythagoras' pupils, if not the great man himself, knew that the Earth is round. Traveller's tales of ships disappearing over the horizon and the Pole Star shifting to a higher position in the sky as one journeyed north suggested a curved Earth.
Quote
sometime between 500 B.C. and 430 B.C., a fellow called Anaxagoras determined the true cause of solar and lunar eclipses - and then the shape of the Earth's shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse was also used as evidence that the Earth was round.
Quote
Around 350 BC, the great Aristotle declared that the Earth was a sphere (based on observations he made about which constellations you could see in the sky as you travelled further and further away from the equator).
And during the Greek period there were measure of the:
      distance to the moon (not vastly different from the modern value),
      distance to the sun (vastly less than the modern value, but still some 9 million kilometers away) and
      the circumference of the earth (probably close to the modern value but doubts remain.
This was just the work of the early Greeks but that was extended and more accurate measurements done by the early Arabs, Persians and Indians in the latter half of the first millennium till around 1200 AD.

Some might think it strange that the observation that the sun (moon and stars) appear to rise from behind the horizon and to set behind the horizon was not one of these pieces of evidence.
But that was never an issue. The earlier flat-earth "models" of the Babylonians and earlier Greeks already included that as something quite obvious.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent.
I totally disagree. The variability of atmospheric conditions has been known and investigated for a long time.
A light path just skimming the water (or land) surface often produces anomalous propagation when the water (or land) surface temperature differs greatly from the air temperature.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.
As noted above, such variability is to be expected. To be meaningful these observations must be repeated under different conditions and in different seasons.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
In the experiment in the OP the flash of light appears exactly at the water line, no higher and no lower.
As I said above, "exactly at the water line, no higher and no lower" is precisely where the temperature gradient is highest.
If the water differs greatly from the air temperature some sort of anomalous propagation.

Bit so often flat-earthers quibble about the hidden height not matching the Globe expectations when if the earth were flat none should be hidden.

Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #22 on: November 07, 2018, 10:05:27 AM »
So because you have reached maximum zoom and the hull of the ship that is much further away can't be seen means earth is a globe? That is comical; if you would use some logic and not be so focused on proving science fiction to be correct, you would realize that what is happening to the ship that is further away is the same thing that happened before you zoomed in on the ship that is closer to you. You've maxed out your zoom so the bottom of the ship is hidden beyond the vanishing point!
...are you shitting me? Is that seriously your rebuttal?
So the zoom has "restored" the top of the ship but the bottom of the ship which obviously must be the same distance away as the top of the ship is behind the vanishing point?
Really?
Have you ever used a zoom? Have you ever seen a distant fuzzy blob come back entirely into view as you zoom, but it comes back into view top first?
That really isn't how things work in real life.
Small things get bigger. That's it. That's all optical zoom does. It doesn't restore things bit by bit. How would that work?
If something is going over a hill in front of you then it disappears bottom first. If only the top half of the thing is visible because of the hill then no amount of zoom will bring it back into view.
"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #23 on: November 07, 2018, 06:16:07 PM »
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.

That’s not entirely true. Take for example the Turning Torso discussion. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.40). You are correct in that RET wasn’t accurate. But FET was way more inaccurate than RET, and this was not accounting for any refraction for either theory.


What methodology was used to derive these error percentages?  How did you determine how much of a body "should" be visible on a globe earth vs. a flat earth as a function of observer elevation and observer distance from the body?

*

Online stack

  • *
  • Posts: 532
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #24 on: November 07, 2018, 06:22:25 PM »
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.

That’s not entirely true. Take for example the Turning Torso discussion. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.40). You are correct in that RET wasn’t accurate. But FET was way more inaccurate than RET, and this was not accounting for any refraction for either theory.


What methodology was used to derive these error percentages?  How did you determine how much of a body "should" be visible on a globe earth vs. a flat earth as a function of observer elevation and observer distance from the body?

Go back through the thread I referenced. It’s all there in excruciating detail.

Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2018, 06:58:10 PM »
It is on basis of the Sinking Ship Effect that the ancients declared the earth to be a globe. However, the inconsistency of the Sinking Ship effect is more evidence against the Round Earth Theory than it is for it. The Sinking Ship Effect is supposed to prove that the earth is a globe, but it is often inconsistent. More strikingly, it has been seen in previous threads that the Sinking Ship Effect does not reflect the Round Earth prediction for how much should be hidden.

That’s not entirely true. Take for example the Turning Torso discussion. (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10486.40). You are correct in that RET wasn’t accurate. But FET was way more inaccurate than RET, and this was not accounting for any refraction for either theory.


What methodology was used to derive these error percentages?  How did you determine how much of a body "should" be visible on a globe earth vs. a flat earth as a function of observer elevation and observer distance from the body?

Go back through the thread I referenced. It’s all there in excruciating detail.
Okay, I'll read through that thread later.  The reason I ask is I don't see anything in that video that couldn't be explained by FE so I don't get where those large error percentages come from. If the ocean is essentially a very large flat plane as FE says the horizon should always be at eye level assuming the observer's eyes and the ground are parallel.  Once the distance between the observer and the observed body is such that the bottom of the observed body is at the same distance from the observer as the eye-level horizon is, the body will appear to be on top of the horizon, and as the distance is increased the body will seem to disappear bottom up at the same rate as the distance is increased.  That's what it looks like is happening in those photos.

*

Online stack

  • *
  • Posts: 532
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #26 on: November 07, 2018, 10:07:54 PM »
Okay, I'll read through that thread later.  The reason I ask is I don't see anything in that video that couldn't be explained by FE so I don't get where those large error percentages come from. If the ocean is essentially a very large flat plane as FE says the horizon should always be at eye level assuming the observer's eyes and the ground are parallel.  Once the distance between the observer and the observed body is such that the bottom of the observed body is at the same distance from the observer as the eye-level horizon is, the body will appear to be on top of the horizon, and as the distance is increased the body will seem to disappear bottom up at the same rate as the distance is increased.  That's what it looks like is happening in those photos.

I was responding to a broad statement that was made with an example as to how the statement was not entirely true and somewhat misrepresented. I was not intending to re-litigate the Turning Torso discussion here. If you would like to do so, we can over in that thread.

As for the video under discussion here, I don't currently have an explanation for it.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1436
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2018, 10:12:39 PM »
Nikon P900 debunks flat earth (again)... by MCtheEmcee1
Look from 0:15 on, with two large ships and far better visibility.
The closer ship is a little nearer than the horizon but the container ship has all of the hull and most of the containers hidden behind the ocean.

What the frell is this?
The Nikon P900 video was debunked a long time ago:
Quote
Rubbish!
(())

You haven't done your homework, as usual: read the COMMENTS.
Quote
What makes you think that I haven't? Those comments are meaningless twaddle.
Two youtube users, uriadelar and daniel purifoy simply destroy mctheemcee1's useless video.
Quote from: riadelar
So because you have reached maximum zoom and the hull of the ship that is much further away can't be seen means earth is a globe? That is comical; if you would use some logic and not be so focused on proving science fiction to be correct, you would realize that what is happening to the ship that is further away is the same thing that happened before you zoomed in on the ship that is closer to you. You've maxed out your zoom so the bottom of the ship is hidden beyond the vanishing point!
DEBUNKED!


Another user writes:
Quote
This video does nothing. You have to then zoom all the way in on that cargo ship and see if you can then see the bottom.'

"This debunks nothing! It doesn't show how the closer ship looks before he zoomed in and if the further ship was even visual. That he doesn't show the actual zooming in, says everything!
So what?

Because I was travelling I missed this but you need to get one thing straight!

"Zooming in" does not change the perspective in the slightest an I've seen no evidence to disprove that.
All "zooming in" or using a telescope can do is to magnify the image.
Look at these two screenshots:
         
There is no possible way that making the image larger will make the container ship become visible unless you can show how a zoom lens or telesope can bend distant light.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 368
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #28 on: November 09, 2018, 12:56:45 AM »
This view is pretty typical of a container ship starting to disappear below the curvature of the earth.  After going to sea for 20 years on ships, this was a typical sight that I saw all the time.  We had a big telescope mounted to the deck (it was that big) that could zoom in and see a hemorrhoid on a gnat's ass bending over, and you still wouldn't be able to see the hull disappearing over the horizon.  For the flat earth folks reading this; Rowbotham was a landlubber and didn't understand what happens to ships when they go over the horizon.  Please wise up and start reading about Nathaniel Bowditch and he will school you about what really happens on the globe earth.  I never got lost going to sea by using Bowditch's works so you know it isn't a bunch of BS.   
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #29 on: November 09, 2018, 04:49:50 PM »
The following video shows how easy it is to zoom in on a boat hull with a good zoom lens.

Flat earth proof - Nikon P900 - boat and buoy in far distant horizon (no drop)

« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 04:51:40 PM by Earthman »
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #30 on: November 09, 2018, 05:00:13 PM »
The following video shows how easy it is to zoom in on a boat hull with a good zoom lens.

Flat earth proof - Nikon P900 - boat and buoy in far distant horizon (no drop)


The whole time he was zooming out, the amount of the bouy visible never changed so far as I could tell. It DID however shrink into a point where it was no longer discernible due to the zoom. I see no proof here for a FE, just more confirmation bias like most of your videos that you post. Seems to me the zoom actually works against you, as it makes it clear that rather than resolving them after vanishing over the horizon, they're simply vanishing from visible sight due to angular resolution.

Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #31 on: November 09, 2018, 05:19:57 PM »
The following video shows how easy it is to zoom in on a boat hull with a good zoom lens.

Flat earth proof - Nikon P900 - boat and buoy in far distant horizon (no drop)


The whole time he was zooming out, the amount of the bouy visible never changed so far as I could tell. It DID however shrink into a point where it was no longer discernible due to the zoom. I see no proof here for a FE, just more confirmation bias like most of your videos that you post. Seems to me the zoom actually works against you, as it makes it clear that rather than resolving them after vanishing over the horizon, they're simply vanishing from visible sight due to angular resolution.

Show us a screen shot of "the buoy at 34 seconds"  It's not there. You can't do it.

You can't even see the boat after he zoomed all the way out.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 05:21:33 PM by Earthman »
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2018, 05:36:52 PM »
Earthman, you need more then just a resolution issue to prove a flat Earth, that boat looked to be maybe a mile or a little more from the shore and too small to be easily visible in the viewfinder.  The boat was not past the horizon line in all likelihood.  Take a big telescope to  the waters edge and watch a container ship disappear over the curve such that part is hidden.  No amount of zooming will bring it back.  This is literally that easy.  If you can bring the bottom half of a container ship back into view from the waters edge after it somehow goes over the horizon and is hidden by curvature I will send you some money, $500 I can afford that.

Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2018, 05:40:30 PM »
I see it.



Zoom/telescoping doesn't restore hulls lost to the horizon. Elevating does.


Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #34 on: November 09, 2018, 05:49:43 PM »
I see it.



Zoom/telescoping doesn't restore hulls lost to the horizon. Elevating does.



 OPPS, try it at 38 seconds. Can you see the buoy?
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 05:56:09 PM by Earthman »
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #35 on: November 09, 2018, 06:00:49 PM »
I see it.

Zoom/telescoping doesn't restore hulls lost to the horizon. Elevating does.


Do you believe the Oceans are not horizontal in all directions?
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #36 on: November 09, 2018, 06:01:00 PM »

 OPPS, try it at 38 seconds. Can you see the hull?
No. Can't see the hull...or any part of the boat. It blinks out during the 36 second frameset. It shrinks to a dot and then becomes too small for the image resolution to display. It's detectable in one frame, and the very next frame it's lost.

It's not sinking from view bottom-up. It's diminishing to a point. The horizon is not what hides the boat. It's lost at the horizon due to resolution. Beyond the distance of the horizon, no telephoto zooming will restore a hidden object to sight. But climbing in height will, even with reduced zoom.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 06:05:00 PM by Bobby Shafto »

Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #37 on: November 09, 2018, 06:06:06 PM »

 OPPS, try it at 38 seconds. Can you see the hull?
No. Can't see the hull...or any part of the boat. It blinks out during the 36 second frameset. It shrinks to a dot and then becomes too small the image resolution to display. It's detectable in one frame, and the very next frame it's lost.

It's not sinking from view bottom-up. It's diminishing to a point. The horizon is not what hides the boat. It's lost at the horizon due to resolution. Beyond the distance of the horizon, no telephoto zooming will restore a hidden object to sight. But climbing in height will, even with reduced zoom.

OK, so you could see the hull after it was zoomed in, right?
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #38 on: November 09, 2018, 06:09:12 PM »
OK, so you could see the hull after it was zoomed in, right?
Yes. Mostly, which tells me the boat's not beyond the horizon. And even though I can't see it in the zoomed out image, I know it's still not beyond the horizon. I can't see the hull because of the resolution of the imagery.

Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: More on "13 Miles: 60 ft NOT Hidden".
« Reply #39 on: November 09, 2018, 06:25:03 PM »
OK, so you could see the hull after it was zoomed in, right?
Yes. Mostly, which tells me the boat's not beyond the horizon. And even though I can't see it in the zoomed out image, I know it's still not beyond the horizon. I can't see the hull because of the resolution of the imagery.

On a globe earth, the horizon (viewed from sea level) is a set distance no matter how good the visual optics are.

From what I understand, on a flat plane the distance to horizon (viewed from sea level) is not limited because it is based on how strong the visual optics are and subject to atmospheric condition. Distance to the horizon can vary by these conditions.  The video I post reveals this over a horizontal plane with a zoom lens.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2018, 06:40:34 PM by Earthman »
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.