Ships at sea

  • 31 Replies
  • 9585 Views
?

BuStErBuNkEr

  • 44
  • +0/-0
Ships at sea
« on: March 31, 2009, 08:09:00 AM »
Why do ships appear to "come over" the horizon, with masts visible first, then the hulls?

Such a simple disproof of your theory!

*

spanner34.5

  • 4639
  • +0/-0
  • feck arse drink
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #1 on: March 31, 2009, 08:39:23 AM »
Why do ships appear to "come over" the horizon, with masts visible first, then the hulls?

Such a simple disproof of your theory!

Several causes.

Bendy light maybe. Also is it possible the ship came from somewhere with the tide out, as so, would appear to rise when approaching.

Maybe a normal reply....read the faqs
My I.Q. is 85. Or was it 58?

?

niceguybut

  • 184
  • +0/-0
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2009, 11:01:23 AM »
Also is it possible the ship came from somewhere with the tide out, as so, would appear to rise when approaching.

Eh? ???
"The Zetetic Astronomy has come into my hands ... if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish."

A Budget of Paradoxes - A. de Morgan (pp 306-310)

?

Arcbishop

Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2009, 11:09:42 PM »
But theory to come from somewhere won't proof enough if earth is flat.

?

BuStErBuNkEr

  • 44
  • +0/-0
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #4 on: April 01, 2009, 01:26:14 AM »
Why do ships appear to "come over" the horizon, with masts visible first, then the hulls?

Such a simple disproof of your theory!

Several causes.

Bendy light maybe.

The concensus here seems to be that light doesnt bend.

Also is it possible the ship came from somewhere with the tide out, as so, would appear to rise when approaching.

Ummm. That makes no sense at all.

Maybe a normal reply....read the faqs

FAQ is nonsense.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45124
  • +90/-134
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #5 on: April 01, 2009, 06:21:18 AM »
Why do ships appear to "come over" the horizon, with masts visible first, then the hulls?

Such a simple disproof of your theory!

Several causes.

Bendy light maybe.

The concensus here seems to be that light doesnt bend.

There seems to be a continuing debate on that particular issue.  Several society members claim to be performing breakthrough research into that field as we speak (type, whatever).
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #6 on: April 01, 2009, 03:29:02 PM »
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #7 on: April 01, 2009, 03:57:24 PM »
The concensus here seems to be that light doesnt bend.

Concensus my bottom. I'm behind EAT all the way.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45124
  • +90/-134
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #8 on: April 01, 2009, 05:00:27 PM »
The concensus here seems to be that light doesnt bend.

Concensus my bottom. I'm behind EAT all the way.

Have you independently peer reviewed all of the published research?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #9 on: April 02, 2009, 02:10:49 AM »
The concensus here seems to be that light doesnt bend.

Concensus my bottom. I'm behind EAT all the way.

Have you independently peer reviewed all of the published research?

What published research?
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45124
  • +90/-134
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #10 on: April 02, 2009, 06:19:43 AM »
The concensus here seems to be that light doesnt bend.

Concensus my bottom. I'm behind EAT all the way.

Have you independently peer reviewed all of the published research?

What published research?

Exactly.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #11 on: April 02, 2009, 07:27:15 AM »
Exactly what? That there has been no research into a theory that doesn't really exist yet is hardly surprising.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45124
  • +90/-134
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #12 on: April 02, 2009, 09:29:04 AM »
Exactly what? That there has been no research into a theory that doesn't really exist yet is hardly surprising.

The concensus here seems to be that light doesnt bend.

Concensus my bottom. I'm behind EAT all the way.

So you fully support a theory that really doesn't exist and has no evidence or research to back it up?  Sounds like religion to me.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

DD2014

  • 60
  • +0/-0
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #13 on: April 02, 2009, 09:38:05 AM »

So you fully support a theory that really doesn't exist and has no evidence or research to back it up?  Sounds like religion to me.

AMEN
I am from NASA, and I am here to disinform you...

?

BuStErBuNkEr

  • 44
  • +0/-0
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #14 on: April 02, 2009, 10:02:36 AM »
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.

Light doesn't bend.

Light bending contradicts Maxwells equations... plus many others no doubt. (Relativity anyone?)

I think there was some ancient muslim mathmatician who showed that light didn;t bend. I'd try his stuff out first if I was you.

Googles... here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Haytham

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #15 on: April 02, 2009, 11:39:43 AM »
So you fully support a theory that really doesn't exist and has no evidence or research to back it up?  Sounds like religion to me.

By 'right behind it' I meant that I was behind the development of the theory. If that wasn't cleat, I'm sorry, but I don't think I said that I 'fully supported it' either. Are you against the development of EAT?
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2009, 11:49:23 AM »
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.

Light doesn't bend.

Light bending contradicts Maxwells equations... plus many others no doubt. (Relativity anyone?)

Light does bend in Relativity.  You might want to look up these topics before using them in your arguments.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

DD2014

  • 60
  • +0/-0
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #17 on: April 02, 2009, 11:53:35 AM »
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.

Light doesn't bend.

Light bending contradicts Maxwells equations... plus many others no doubt. (Relativity anyone?)

Light does bend in Relativity.  You might want to look up these topics before using them in your arguments.

Not to the extreme that FEers belive. Gravity can bend light over millions opon millions of miles, not 3000 miles

Feel free to prove me wrong with math
I am from NASA, and I am here to disinform you...

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #18 on: April 02, 2009, 11:54:51 AM »
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.

Light doesn't bend.

Light bending contradicts Maxwells equations... plus many others no doubt. (Relativity anyone?)

Light does bend in Relativity.  You might want to look up these topics before using them in your arguments.

Not to the extreme that FEers belive. Gravity can bend light over millions opon millions of miles, not 3000 miles

Feel free to prove me wrong with math


First please prove yourself right with math.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

DD2014

  • 60
  • +0/-0
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #19 on: April 02, 2009, 12:28:15 PM »

Don't need to its already been done



The works of the classical Indian astronomer and mathematician, Aryabhata (476-550 AD), deal with the sphericity of the Earth and the motion of the planets. The final two parts of his Sanskrit magnum opus, the Aryabhatiya, which were named the Kalakriya ("reckoning of time") and the Gola ("sphere"), state that the Earth is spherical and that its circumference is 4,967 yojanas, which in modern units is 39,968 km, which is only 62 km less than the current value of 40,030 km.[7][8] He also stated that the apparent rotation of the celestial objects was due to the actual rotation of the Earth, calculating the length of the sidereal day to be 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds, which is also surprisingly accurate. It is likely that Aryabhata's results influenced European astronomy, because the 8th century Arabic version of the Aryabhatiya was translated into Latin in the 13th century.


Anania Shirakatsi (Armenian: Անանիա Շիրակացի), also known as Ananias of Sirak, (610?685) was an Armenian scholar, mathematician, and geographer. His most famous works are Geography Guide (?Ashharatsuyts? in Armenian), and Cosmography (Tiezeragitutiun). He described the world as "being like an egg with a spherical yolk (the globe) surrounded by a layer of white (the atmosphere) and covered with a hard shell (the sky)."

Shirakatsi's work ?Ashharatsuyts? reports details and mapping of the ancient homeland of Bulgars in the Mount Imeon area of Central Asia.

 
Around 830 CE, Caliph al-Ma'mun commissioned a group of Muslim astronomers and geographers to measure the distance from Tadmur (Palmyra) to al-Raqqah, in modern Syria. They found the cities to be separated by one degree of latitude and the distance between them to be 66 2/3 miles and thus calculated the Earth's circumference to be 24,000 miles.

Another estimate given by his astronomers was 56 2/3 Arabic miles per degree, which corresponds to 111.8 km per degree and a circumference of 40,248 km, very close to the currently modern values of 111.3 km per degree and 40,068 km circumference, respectively.


Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī (973-1048) solved a complex geodesic equation in order to accurately compute the Earth's circumference, which was close to modern values of the Earth's circumference. His estimate of 6,339.9 km for the Earth radius was only 16.8 km less than the modern value of 6,356.7 km. In contrast to his predecessors who measured the Earth's circumference by sighting the Sun simultaneously from two different locations, al-Biruni developed a new method of using trigonometric calculations based on the angle between a plain and mountain top which yielded more accurate measurements of the Earth's circumference and made it possible for it to be measured by a single person from a single location.

John J. O'Connor and Edmund F. Robertson write in the MacTutor History of Mathematics archive:

"Important contributions to geodesy and geography were also made by Biruni. He introduced techniques to measure the earth and distances on it using triangulation. He found the radius of the earth to be 6339.6 km, a value not obtained in the West until the 16th century. His Masudic canon contains a table giving the coordinates of six hundred places, almost all of which he had direct knowledge."


Many Islamic scholars declared a mutual agreement (Ijma) that celestial bodies are round, among them Ibn Hazm (d. 1069), Abul-Faraj Ibn Al-Jawzi (d. 1200), and Ibn Taymiya (d. 1328). Ibn Taymiya said, "Celestial bodies are round?as it is the statement of astronomers and mathematicians?it is likewise the statement of the scholars of Islam". Abul-Hasan ibn al-Manaadi, Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm, and Abul-Faraj Ibn Al-Jawzi have said that the Muslim scholars are in agreement that all celestial bodies are round. Ibn Taymiyah also remarked that Allah has said, "And He (Allah) it is Who created the night and the day, the sun and the moon. They float, each in a Falak." Ibn Abbas says, "A Falaka like that of a spinning wheel." The word 'Falak' (in the Arabic language) means "that which is round."

The Muslim scholars who held to the round-Earth theory used it in an impeccably Islamic manner, to calculate the distance and direction from any given point on the Earth to Mecca. This determined the Qibla, or Muslim direction of prayer. Muslim mathematicians developed spherical trigonometry which was used in these calculations. Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), in his Muqaddimah, also identified the world as spherical.
I am from NASA, and I am here to disinform you...

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #20 on: April 02, 2009, 12:33:16 PM »

Don't need to its already been done

yackety yackety...

Please troll less.  None of this has anything to do with what I asked for.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45124
  • +90/-134
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #21 on: April 02, 2009, 02:56:31 PM »
So you fully support a theory that really doesn't exist and has no evidence or research to back it up?  Sounds like religion to me.

By 'right behind it' I meant that I was behind the development of the theory. If that wasn't cleat, I'm sorry, but I don't think I said that I 'fully supported it' either. Are you against the development of EAT?

I'm not against the development of EAT as a theory.  I'm against EAT being presented as a viable theory when it isn't.  All I can say is good luck in developing EAT into a workable theory.  You're going to need it.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 12086
  • +3/-3
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #22 on: April 02, 2009, 03:41:52 PM »
You could say the same thing about string theory, yet it's a very fashionable field of study.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

zork

  • 3338
  • +0/-0
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2009, 01:03:28 AM »
You could say the same thing about string theory, yet it's a very fashionable field of study.
But there is a little difference there. I guess that if I bother to search a little I can find some names of people with scientific credits and who study string theory. But I fail to find any names for people with scientific credits who do Flat Earth Theory research.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

BuStErBuNkEr

  • 44
  • +0/-0
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2009, 07:11:45 AM »
You could say the same thing about string theory, yet it's a very fashionable field of study.

Except string theory attempts to answer unanswered questions.

There are no unanswered questions for Flat Earthers. Light doesn't bend.

If you want to go researching and theorising from a faulty premise theres a bazillion things you could do.


Why is disease carried by bad smells?

Why does Mountain Dew cause cancer?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2009, 11:23:46 AM »
You could say the same thing about string theory, yet it's a very fashionable field of study.

Except string theory attempts to answer unanswered questions.

There are no unanswered questions for Flat Earthers. Light doesn't bend.

If you want to go researching and theorising from a faulty premise theres a bazillion things you could do.


Why is disease carried by bad smells?

Why does Mountain Dew cause cancer?

Neither of those things has been demonstrated with the rigor a flat Earth has.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

BuStErBuNkEr

  • 44
  • +0/-0
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2009, 11:27:28 AM »
Neither of those things has been demonstrated with the rigor a flat Earth has.

The crap about bendy light is founded on a faulty premise. FE offers no explanation about simple observations of ships at sea.

?

DunkMe

  • 43
  • +0/-0
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2009, 04:44:59 PM »
Quote
FE offers no explanation about simple observations of ships at sea.

Thank you for saving me the time to try to scour this site to find an explanation. I've sailed toward and away from objects and watched them disappear over the horizon too many times to count.

If the sea is flat, why can't we see 1,000 miles on a really clear day?

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2734
  • +0/-0
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2009, 07:25:09 PM »
Quote
FE offers no explanation about simple observations of ships at sea.

Thank you for saving me the time to try to scour this site to find an explanation. I've sailed toward and away from objects and watched them disappear over the horizon too many times to count.

If the sea is flat, why can't we see 1,000 miles on a really clear day?
First of all, air is not transparent. Secondly light has been observed to bend upwards.

?

DunkMe

  • 43
  • +0/-0
Re: Ships at sea
« Reply #29 on: April 09, 2009, 08:35:06 AM »
Quote
FE offers no explanation about simple observations of ships at sea.

If the sea is flat, why can't we see 1,000 miles on a really clear day?
First of all, air is not transparent. Secondly light has been observed to bend upwards.

Where is the science that proves light bends upwards and thus makes it appear that ships sail over the horizon? I'm not talking about your idea or an idea you borrowed from someone else. I'm talking about scientifically sound, proven fact. Where is it published for review?

Air may not be completely transparent. But when standing atop a mountain on one Hawaiian island, one can see the top of a neighboring island's mountain, which looks like it grows out of the sea because the rounded horizon covers the lower portion of the land mass. Use your bendy light theory to explain that. If all light bends upward and makes objects on the flat plane of Earth invisible, howcome only the lower potions of very tall objects like moutains disappear?