[Woody]

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

lol no, this is not how vision/line of sight works.

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

I'm not making a claim. I'm rejecting yours.

I presume you're familiar with the burden of proof.

I am, which is why it is on you to prove your stance. A claim with evidence has been put forth (by the wiki in this case), and your best refutation is "lol no." Quality round earth logic.

But, since you apparently don't have a claim (your words), I'll just assume you're retracting your nonsensical statement. Glad we could clear that up.

The evidence in the wiki about perspective does not explain why only things beyond the visible horizon become invisible from the bottom up. 

Daily observations suggest perspective makes things appear smaller and become less distinct. 

The only time you can not see part of something is it is being obstructed by something else or it is too far away to see.  Since part of the ship is visible it is logical to conclude under average condition the other part should be visible unless obstructed.

Waves would not account for this since the hull down effect can be observed when the waves are not large enough to obstruct the majority of the lower part of the ship.

[geckothegeek]

Some of the problems I have seen from flat earthers ....in the case of the sinking ship especially.
(1) If they have personally never observed this, they deny  that it exists.
(2) If someone other than themself have observed this, they say they are lying.

But for anyone who has ever been to sea, the sinking ship is one of the most common things observed.
(1) Ships sailing away from the observer disappear hull fiirst as they pass over the  horizon. The tops of the masts are the last to be seen.
(2) Ships sailing toward to the observer appear mast first, then hull.

The distance to the horizon is determined by the height of the observer.Since the distance is usually only a few  miiles, ships usually disappear in thiis manner rather than "fading away in the distance." As has been pointed out, the distance to the horizon can be estimated from the height of the observer. Lookouts in the crow's nest use this in reporting distances. Navy Manuals have charts showing distances for  various heights. The person in a rowboat at sea level can only see about 3 miles to the horizon. A person in the crow's nest , 100 feet high, can see about 12  miles. This is a well known fact and just one of many facts proving  curvature of the earth and that the earth is a sphere or a globe.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

The distance to the horizon is determined by the height of the observer.Since the distance is usually only a few  miiles, ships usually disappear in thiis manner rather than "fading away in the distance." As has been pointed out, the distance to the horizon can be estimated from the height of the observer. Lookouts in the crow's nest use this in reporting distances. Navy Manuals have charts showing distances for  various heights. The person in a rowboat at sea level can only see about 3 miles to the horizon. A person in the crow's nest , 100 feet high, can see about 12  miles. This is a well known fact and just one of many facts proving  curvature of the earth and that the earth is a sphere or a globe.

Why don't you understand that the viewing distance to the horizon would increase with height on a round or a flat earth? No things don't "fade away" into the distance unless it is a particularly hazy day. They shrink down to indistinguishable size according to the laws of perspectives. The reason you see waves over the bottom of the ship is because you are seeing waves in the foreground that appear larger because they are closer to you then the ones under the boat several miles away. You can cover a sky scraper with your thumb from the right distance. You can fit the Eiffel tower between your fingers from the right point of view.

[BlueMoon]

The distance to the horizon is determined by the height of the observer.Since the distance is usually only a few  miiles, ships usually disappear in thiis manner rather than "fading away in the distance." As has been pointed out, the distance to the horizon can be estimated from the height of the observer. Lookouts in the crow's nest use this in reporting distances. Navy Manuals have charts showing distances for  various heights. The person in a rowboat at sea level can only see about 3 miles to the horizon. A person in the crow's nest , 100 feet high, can see about 12  miles. This is a well known fact and just one of many facts proving  curvature of the earth and that the earth is a sphere or a globe.

Why don't you understand that the viewing distance to the horizon would increase with height on a round or a flat earth? No things don't "fade away" into the distance unless it is a particularly hazy day. They shrink down to indistinguishable size according to the laws of perspectives. The reason you see waves over the bottom of the ship is because you are seeing waves in the foreground that appear larger because they are closer to you then the ones under the boat several miles away. You can cover a sky scraper with your thumb from the right distance. You can fit the Eiffel tower between your fingers from the right point of view.

But if perspective is the only factor involved, objects will only meet the horizon at infinite distance.  We know it can't just be waves obscuring distant objects because we know the theoretical horizon, and distant objects sink below it. 

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

But if perspective is the only factor involved, objects will only meet the horizon at infinite distance.  We know it can't just be waves obscuring distant objects because we know the theoretical horizon, and distant objects sink below it.

Nothing meets the "horizon." It just appears to. Anyone that told you otherwise clearly misunderstood.

I still don't understand why you think, on a sphere, that you would be able to easily see the curvature of the earth in the distance but curvature on the horizon would be barely detectable at 50,000 feet in the air.

It would seem we live on a cylinder if that is the case. Pick up a roll of toilet paper if you want to see a handy example of a 3D object in which you can see the "edge," or curvature along one axis and not the other. Or, pick up a ball and try to see curvature along one axis and not the other on a sphere.

Point being. The horizon is not the curvature, on a flat or round earth. It is still just the distance in which your eyes can resolve a subject to the laws of perspective.

[TotesNotReptilian]

I still don't understand why you think, on a sphere, that you would be able to easily see the curvature of the earth in the distance but curvature on the horizon would be barely detectable at 50,000 feet in the air.

Instead of just guessing that we should be able to see some curvature, how about actually calculating how much curvature we should expect to see using actual math? Then we can compare that with reality and see who is right!

Why don't you understand that the viewing distance to the horizon would increase with height on a round or a flat earth? No things don't "fade away" into the distance unless it is a particularly hazy day. They shrink down to indistinguishable size according to the laws of perspectives. The reason you see waves over the bottom of the ship is because you are seeing waves in the foreground that appear larger because they are closer to you then the ones under the boat several miles away. You can cover a sky scraper with your thumb from the right distance. You can fit the Eiffel tower between your fingers from the right point of view.

Perspective causes things to appear smaller as they get farther away. Perspective does NOT negate line-of-sight. If you can geometrically draw a straight line between your eye and an object, then perspective will not cause it to be obscured by another object. For example, perspective cannot account for the sun sinking below the horizon (as claimed by several people on this site, forgive me if you aren't one of them).

If you want to argue that waves are blocking line of sight to the bottom portion of the ship, that's fine. But perspective is NOT the explanation.

[geckothegeek]

No..Perspective has little or no effect on this "ship passing over the horizon whether it is going away from the observer or a ship coming over the horizon toward the observer".

In many cases, such as an observer standing on the beach just a few feet above the level of the sea, the distance to the horizon will be so  near (about 3 miles for a person 6 feet tall) that the details of the ship wiill have not been so small as to have "shrunk" to such a small size as to have been undistinguishable.

All this is elementary. Unless you are going to dispute the Navy Manuals there is no question about the horizon. It is not an illusion . It is a well known fact.

And on clear calm days at sea, the horizon is always a definite line where sea and sky meet. Of course......Unless....If  you have never been down to the sea shore or been to sea on a ship in the middle of the ocean you might have trouble visualizing this if the only thing you based your belief that the earth is flat only from what you see from your window, far from the ocean.

And other than the obvious "sinking ship" you have to realize that even if you are the lookout in the crow's nest you are only seeing a circle with a 12 mile radius or a circle 24 miles in diameter . In comparison with the diameter of the earth of 25,000 miles you are not going to see as much curvature as you would from a space craft far above the earth. (I edited that to correct it.  It should h**àave been a 12 miles radius instead of the diameter of the circle of your line of sign.You would be able to see about half of a circle from the usual crow's nest.)
 

And in all reality  that the earth is a globe is just  "common knowledge."

[Rounder]

Unless you are going to dispute the Navy Manuals there is no question about the horizon.

Come now, Gecko, of course TTioH will dispute the Navy Manuals!  If you take together these two thoughts that A) one believes the world is flat, and B) US Navy ships sail all over the world and still manage to get home, every time, you can only conclude: then the US Navy must be a key player in The Conspiracy, and at that point why shouldn't they put out fake manuals for the public to see, or something?  Indeed, EVERY navy in the world (those who get their ships home again, anyway) would have to be in on the gag, or they would be losing ships at sea all the time! 

By now you should know the FE side will dispute anything!

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Unless you are going to dispute the Navy Manuals there is no question about the horizon.

Come now, Gecko, of course TTioH will dispute the Navy Manuals!  If you take together these two thoughts that A) one believes the world is flat, and B) US Navy ships sail all over the world and still manage to get home, every time, you can only conclude: then the US Navy must be a key player in The Conspiracy, and at that point why shouldn't they put out fake manuals for the public to see, or something?  Indeed, EVERY navy in the world (those who get their ships home again, anyway) would have to be in on the gag, or they would be losing ships at sea all the time! 

By now you should know the FE side will dispute anything!

Come on Rounder, don't knock down any good will and understanding we've been able to cultivate just in an attempt to be over the top sarcastic lol... I don't reply to Gecko anymore because all he does is regurgitate shit that Rabinoz says. I think Gecko is probably the only one who puts any study into rab's charts, tables and illustrations.

I still want to make it clear that I'm not on any side, however, I am not willing to accept as proof anything that can be logically eliminated or explained in a different way. Some here are under the impression that you would only be able to see further away with altitude on a round earth. And that is just bullshit. I know you it, you know it, and anyone with any amount of mental ability knows it.

[Love]

Truth:  I would be interested in your thoughts on what makes these debunkers engage in debate with the "lunatic fringe".  Why the animosity?   Why are they threatened by people they think are weak minded or dishonest?

It strikes me that internet debunkers are insecure to the point of needing counseling.  Do they really think that if they don't argue with flat earthers on the internet that their paradigms will dissolve like wet toilet paper and a new dark ages will ensue?  Is that all the confidence they have in their theories?  I would be impressed with indifference.  But with regards to their aggressive rhetoric I have to say:  Methinks thou protest too much! 

[andruszkow]

But if perspective is the only factor involved, objects will only meet the horizon at infinite distance.  We know it can't just be waves obscuring distant objects because we know the theoretical horizon, and distant objects sink below it.

Nothing meets the "horizon." It just appears to. Anyone that told you otherwise clearly misunderstood.

I still don't understand why you think, on a sphere, that you would be able to easily see the curvature of the earth in the distance but curvature on the horizon would be barely detectable at 50,000 feet in the air.

It would seem we live on a cylinder if that is the case. Pick up a roll of toilet paper if you want to see a handy example of a 3D object in which you can see the "edge," or curvature along one axis and not the other. Or, pick up a ball and try to see curvature along one axis and not the other on a sphere.

Point being. The horizon is not the curvature, on a flat or round earth. It is still just the distance in which your eyes can resolve a subject to the laws of perspective.

Look at this picture. Look closely: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wCFmC0SPZ2Q/Vb-BSxAXeiI/AAAAAAAAP68/QHWvfNb51O4/s1600/flat-earth-horizon-flat.jpg

Notice how its used to prove the flatness of the horizon, but that the red line in the bottom picture is in fact not touching the horizon far left and right? Not observable you say?

The real issue with people believing the earth is flat is that they have no apparent idea just how large the earth is. It requires an ability to think in more abstract lines, visualize, be creative. Not because that round earth is abstract or requires creativity to "believe" in (just nullifying future attempts to completely rape ambiguity here as per usual), but because some people just don't possess the ability to visualize anything within the realm of reality. They NEED to observe to understand. Which is why it's weird that you believe in a creator.

For a self declared by-stander, you seem very FE'ish to me. You just won't admit it because believing in a flat earth includes endless amounts of righteous ridicule.

[Rounder]

Come on Rounder, don't knock down any good will and understanding we've been able to cultivate just in an attempt to be over the top sarcastic lol

Sorry, couldn't resist!

[geckothegeek]

Come on Rounder, don't knock down any good will and understanding we've been able to cultivate just in an attempt to be over the top sarcastic lol

Sorry, couldn't resist!

I received a PM from a one time user of this website who did a lot of posting. He said he had gotten weary of all the flat earth nonsense. He hasn't been heard from since.
I have often thought of doing the same ,  but the temptation is too great to see what the flat earthers are going to come up with next. LOL.

I'm still wondering what the difference is between a "moonshrimp" or a "moonshramp".??😩

Just one more reason I can't resist sticking around for the comic relief.

Another group in "The Great Round Earth Conspiracy" are the "Ham" Radio Operators in their "Moon Bounce" measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon
In the eyes of the flat earthers they are all liars, too. The moon is 3000 miles above the earth and 32 miles in diameter. Their math must be way off to get 238150 miles and 2150 miles for the distance and the diameter....... And, oh yes ! It would take an antenna the size of a football field to do this and besides that, all the ham radio operators ever do is to sit in their "shacks" and talk to truckers ! ...........So say the flat earthers.

Don't forget the ARRL and the RSGB !

Sorry ! I couldn't resist either.

[geckothegeek]

No..Perspective has little or no effect on this "ship passing over the horizon whether it is going away from the observer or a ship coming over the horizon toward the observer".

In many cases, such as an observer standing on the beach just a few feet above the level of the sea, the distance to the horizon will be so  near (about 3 miles for a person 6 feet tall) that the details of the ship wiill have not been so small as to have "shrunk" to such a small size as to have been undistinguishable.

All this is elementary. Unless you are going to dispute the Navy Manuals there is no question about the horizon. It is not an illusion . It is a well known fact.

And on clear calm days at sea, the horizon is always a definite line where sea and sky meet. Of course......Unless....If  you have never been down to the sea shore or been to sea on a ship in the middle of the ocean you might have trouble visualizing this if the only thing you based your belief that the earth is flat only from what you see from your window, far from the ocean.

And other than the obvious "sinking ship" you have to realize that even if you are the lookout in the crow's nest you are only seeing a circle with a 12 mile radius or a circle 24 miles in diameter . In comparison with the diameter of the earth of 25,000 miles you are not going to see as much curvature as you would from a space craft far above the earth. (I edited that to correct it.  It should have been a 12 miles radius instead of the diameter of the circle of your line of sign.You would be able to see about half of a circle from the usual crow's nest.)
 

And in all reality  that the earth is a globe is just  "common knowledge."

[geckothegeek]

The distance to the horizon is determined by the height of the observer.Since the distance is usually only a few  miiles, ships usually disappear in thiis manner rather than "fading away in the distance." As has been pointed out, the distance to the horizon can be estimated from the height of the observer. Lookouts in the crow's nest use this in reporting distances. Navy Manuals have charts showing distances for  various heights. The person in a rowboat at sea level can only see about 3 miles to the horizon. A person in the crow's nest , 100 feet high, can see about 12  miles. This is a well known fact and just one of many facts proving  curvature of the earth and that the earth is a sphere or a globe.

Why don't you understand that the viewing distance to the horizon would increase with height on a round or a flat earth? No things don't "fade away" into the distance unless it is a particularly hazy day. They shrink down to indistinguishable size according to the laws of perspectives. The reason you see waves over the bottom of the ship is because you are seeing waves in the foreground that appear larger because they are closer to you then the ones under the boat several miles away. You can cover a sky scraper with your thumb from the right distance. You can fit the Eiffel tower between your fingers from the right point of view.

Please don't take this as offensive, but I am wondering under what conditions you observed the comments you have about the waves, perspective, etc.because they are so different from my experience ?

Also, are we, or are we not in agreement on the distance you can see to the horizon ?

[Rounder]

I'm with you, because I have been on those Navy ships, I have used those Navy manuals, and I have taken visual observations from different decks at various heights above the ocean's surface and compared them to observations by radar.  It was part of earning qualifications on board, and the math worked.

[rabinoz]

But if perspective is the only factor involved, objects will only meet the horizon at infinite distance.  We know it can't just be waves obscuring distant objects because we know the theoretical horizon, and distant objects sink below it.

Nothing meets the "horizon." It just appears to. Anyone that told you otherwise clearly misunderstood.

I still don't understand why you think, on a sphere, that you would be able to easily see the curvature of the earth in the distance but curvature on the horizon would be barely detectable at 50,000 feet in the air.

It would seem we live on a cylinder if that is the case. Pick up a roll of toilet paper if you want to see a handy example of a 3D object in which you can see the "edge," or curvature along one axis and not the other. Or, pick up a ball and try to see curvature along one axis and not the other on a sphere.

Point being. The horizon is not the curvature, on a flat or round earth. It is still just the distance in which your eyes can resolve a subject to the laws of perspective.

I know this is late, but I hope it's better late than never. I made a reply to you in Flat Earth Debate / Re: Horizon. I hope you find it helpful. Some of the material there is relevant to the answer to this post.

I don't follow how you can state categorically "Nothing meets the 'horizon.' It just appears to. Anyone that told you otherwise clearly misunderstood."

Again this explanation applies to the Globe.
To explain why we do not see "curvature along the horizon", but do see its effects in the direction moving away from us,
just imagine you are on a tiny island in the middle of the ocean with your eyes an arbitrary 5 m above the ocean (nice and calm too!).

As you look all around, the horizon is exactly the same distance from you and would be about 8 km away, with a "dip angle" of a tiny 0.07°. In other words all around the horizon looks at the same level, though it is actually about 10 m below you eye-level. So, if the horizon is the same distance below you eye, there is no "curvature" to be seen. Though the horizon will look like a circle around you, but at the same level all around.

But, when a ship sailing away from you reaches 8 km it will appear "on the horizon" and any further away will start to be hidden by the horizon.

Even at 1000 m elevation (some tiny island with a 1000 m tower!) the same thing applies, the only difference being that the horizon distance will be about 113 km (more if we have typical refraction) and the horizon will be 1.0° below our eye-level.  This is still not enough "dip" to be noliceable, or for the circle of the horizon around us to show noticeable curvature. Even if it did, the field of view of a standard 50 mm camera lens at 113 km would be about only about 20 km each side of the axis. The "curvature" in this would only be about 30 m (I am hurrying, so could make misteaks!). This (30/20,000) would not be measurable. In any case I don see it as existing at all.

But, this is the reason that "curvature" going away from us IS very noticeable (objects like ships, buildings and mountains can be hidden by it, while "side-to-side" curvature is a few metres in 10's of km, so simply would not show.

Now, let's get up real high, say 20,000 m. Again the horizon is the same all around us, but is now about 4.5° below the true horizontal. This IS starting to get noticeable to the naked eye. I have never been to that altitude, but reports from Concorde passengers and crew are that the "curvature" can be seen.

The horizon would still look like a flat circle below, but noticeably below eye-level - in other words, it would be a bit like looking down on a large disk. On the globe that disk would have a radius of about 500 km.

This is where many Flat Earth supporters also accept that we see a disk below us - they claim the disk is the "disk of the earth illuminated by the sun". Of course I don't go with that explanation, but I suppose it is an out if you really don't like the Globe. Even a 1,000 mile diameter chunk of the Globe would not look that curved from above.

I should have thought this out better, but this is all the time I can spend. I hope it's not completely wasted.

[geckothegeek]

I'm with you, because I have been on those Navy ships, I have used those Navy manuals, and I have taken visual observations from different decks at various heights above the ocean's surface and compared them to observations by radar.  It was part of earning qualifications on board, and the math worked.

I am also with you. However, I dIdn't think about using the manuals for estimating the distances. My "rating" and assignment was as a technician and my particular assignment was on the ship's surface search radar. On my daily checks I would observe ships , etc., at sea and then check their ranges and bearings on the radar. Not being a lookout, I would have to confess not even knowing that there was a Navy Manual with those charts for estimating the distances. I was just checking to see if the radar was agreeeing with my visual sightings. I just had a vague idea of the distances involved. I guess I trusted my radar more than my eyes. LOL.

But I did notice that the horizon was very , very distinct line. And there was a distinct distance to it. And from radar theory I knew the radar antenna was that high on the mast so that it could "see" the farthest distance. And I just guessed the crow's nest was that high for the same reason  . I don't  know if the crow's nest was even manned. Another technician said he had worked on the antenna and had never seen anyone in the crow's nest. And as far as the question of the horizon is concerned , that is about the extent of my experience on the subject at hand.

So I would just be interested on the experiences of the flat earthers are for comparison of their "facts" about the horizon and distances to it.

[geckothegeek]

When ships are moving across the horizon, the masts will appear before the body.

What say you?

Holy shit. No one's ever thought to bring that up before.

That's it, Flat Earth Mixer is canceled!

Whaaaat You know ships do come and go .

[geckothegeek]

I've looked at it and it isnt even close to convincing. Plus, interaction with experts is always more fruitful than simply ingesting textual information. I'm hoping some of you fine folks can enlighten me through enjoyable conversation.

I'm no expert and I make no claims at  being one .
But on this subject of "the horizon" I have had considerable experience at sea at watching it. LOL