Sinking Effect 2

FE explains the sinking ship effect as a small wave getting in front of a ship and because the ship is farther away than the wave, it will be obstructed.

This is true.  However, let's take a deeper look.

SHORT




LONG




LONG (PERSPECTIVE)




In other words, when the point of the ship is taller than your eye level, the wave must be at a minimum at your eye level in order for the ship to completely disappear.

Now take a look at this picture:




Based upon the picture, I can conclude that, like my subjet above, the viewer is above or at the water line.  The waves also look relatively calm near the viewer.  Now based upon basic laws of perspective, in order for half the CN Tower to be obscured, a wave would have to be between ≈ 6 feet and ≈ 900 feet.  The highest wave ever recorded was a tsunami at 210 feet.  Therefore if that wave were obstructing our view, it would be about 2/9 of the way between the tower and the observer.  But I doubt there would be a tsunami in this picture.

THEREFORE WE CAN CONCLUDE:

The wave would have to very close to the observer.
Be > 6 feet.
Would have to have many other waves in order to create a smooth horizon line.

I just can't see this as plausible.

DISCUSS

It's a shame these side views don't showcase what really happens in perspective pictures.

Exactly. How can a large building be half covered up by a small wave?

It's a shame these side views don't showcase what really happens in perspective pictures.

The point is that they show the minimum and maximum height of the waves.  A 4 foot wave will not cover a boat when a person's eye level is 6 feet above the ground.

Thge "LONG" picture above completely owns Tom Bishop.

Perhaps the most visually stunning fact which proves the earth as a plane is the sinking ship effect. As a ship recedes into the ocean's horizon, distant from the observer, it will appear to the naked eye to sink from the bottom up into the sea when it touches the horizon line. It has been found that this effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship:











How does your model of the earth explain these explicitly detailed accounts?

I saw almost the exact same post from you before Tom. Owned owned owned.

I saw almost the exact same post from you before Tom. Owned owned owned.

Your model did not explain these detailed accounts in the previous thread I posted this in, and your model does not explain these accounts now.

How are these firsthand accounts from multiple sources possible on a globe earth if the ship is supposedly moving behind the convexity of the water?

Quote from: emailking on October 11, 2007, 12:13:53 PM

I saw almost the exact same post from you before Tom. Owned owned owned.

Oh, oops. I guess I am owned. I'll be leaving now.

Fixed*

Quote from: emailking on October 11, 2007, 12:13:53 PM

I saw almost the exact same post from you before Tom. Owned owned owned.

Your model did not explain these detailed accounts in the previous thread I posted this in, and your model does not explain these accounts now.

How are these firsthand accounts from multiple sources possible on a globe earth if the ship is supposedly moving behind the convexity of the water?

How does your model explain why I can't see mount everest with a telescope?

How does your model explain why I can't see mount everest with a telescope?

Elevation, atmospheric density, atmospheric distortion, and the vanishing point due to perspective.

and the vanishing point due to perspective.

I said WITH a telescope!

In order for half the tower to be obscured or desend 907.5ft via curvature, the observer has to be 36.9 miles away from the CN Tower.  To observe the tower directly, as shown in the image you would have to be in an area 36.9 miles south, or 3/4 of the sea width from Toronto.  In other words, this image would have to be taken from the sea and yet it has been taken on a coast.  This image must therefore be planted by the conspiracy.

The Communist = a troll

I said WITH a telescope!

You think the vanishing point disappears just because you can see farther?

The Communist = a troll

I gave you some mathematical proof.  Yet, you claim that I am trolling?

Nothing vanishes at the vanishing point. Objects appear and approach the vanishing point as they recede. A telescope magnifies these proportions and can make the object (in this case mt. everest) appear big again.

Quote from: emailking on October 11, 2007, 01:14:35 PM

The Communist = a troll

I gave you some mathematical proof.  Yet, you claim that I am trolling?

You did not provide mathematical proof. You provided BS that had some numbers in it.

Nothing vanishes at the vanishing point.

Well, not really anyways.

Objects appear and approach the vanishing point as they recede. A telescope magnifies these proportions and can make the object (in this case mt. everest) appear big again.

While a telescope can magnify (and the VP still exists), the other variables still exist as well.

How does your model explain why I can't see mount everest with a telescope?

Divito is absolutely correct. Ever notice how distant mountains are faded and discolored? That's because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

Atoms and molecules are not transparent and so distant objects will be faded with distance. For example, notice how these distant mountains tend to fade out and become discolored with distance. That's because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. When you look through the atmosphere you are looking through a fog of atoms and molecules. If the earth had no atmosphere those distant mountains would be as clear and sharp as the foreground.

So, again, how does your model explain the accounts I've given about the sinking ship effect?

Quote from: The Communist on October 11, 2007, 01:18:06 PM

Quote from: emailking on October 11, 2007, 01:14:35 PM

The Communist = a troll

I gave you some mathematical proof.  Yet, you claim that I am trolling?

You did not provide mathematical proof. You provided BS that had some numbers in it.

How is it BS?  It follows the curvature predicted by RE:


Earth radius (average) = 3956.545 miles
Theta = arcsin(36.9miles / 3956.545 miles) = .53437 degrees
3956.545 * cos (.53437) = 3956.373 miles
3956.545 - 3956.373 = .172 miles = 908.5 ft.

edit - swapped the 36 and 3956 mile figures around

Quote from: emailking on October 11, 2007, 01:20:13 PM

Quote from: The Communist on October 11, 2007, 01:18:06 PM

Quote from: emailking on October 11, 2007, 01:14:35 PM

The Communist = a troll

I gave you some mathematical proof.  Yet, you claim that I am trolling?

You did not provide mathematical proof. You provided BS that had some numbers in it.

How is it BS?  It follows the curvature predicted by RE:


Earth radius (average) = 3956.545 miles
Theta = arcsin(3956.545 miles / 36.9miles) = .53437 degrees
3956.545 * cos (.53437) = 3956.373 miles
3956.545 - 3956.373 = .172 miles = 908.5 ft.

Mathematical enough for you? (Emailking)

Quote

How does your model explain why I can't see mount everest with a telescope?

Divito is absolutely correct. Ever notice how distant mountains are faded and discolored? That's because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

Atoms and molecules are not transparent and so distant objects will be faded with distance. For example, notice how these distant mountains tend to fade out and become discolored with distance. That's because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent. When you look through the atmosphere you are looking through a fog of atoms and molecules. If the earth had no atmosphere those distant mountains would be as clear and sharp as the foreground.

So, again, how does your model explain the accounts I've given about the sinking ship effect?

I have yet to observe this effect as you see it and therefore using your own rules of only trusting firsthand accounts, I cannot give credit to your alleged effect.

Thus, accounting for it is a moot point.

This sinking ship account was a conspiracy intended to deceive the world that the earth was flat.

Wait, never mind. It supports the flat earth idea so every detail must be 100% fact.

Sorry, but naked eye estimations of distance, odometers from ships in the 1800s, and a complete disregard for the height of the observer just doesn't cut it for me. An approximate formula for maximum distance in miles seen from a height h in feet on the globe is sqrt(1.5h). So to see the hull of a ship 12 miles away, assuming that's the actual distance, you have to be 96 feet up. Hardly an impossible feat.

By the way, a globular theory will never go away just by seeing faraway stuff anyway. You can always conjecture it's just a bigger sphere.

What's really curious is how people can take ship-sighting account as biblical truth while simultaneously unscrupulously throwing all modern ideas in the trash.

If the Flat Earth Theory states that sinking ships are caused by waves blocking it, how can you see it again with a telescope?

A telescope would only help if the ship got to small to see.  The ship sinks.  Why would a telescope help?

VIEW OF SHIP:




THROUGH TELESCOPE:



Plus once again you have provided no proof, only a man's word.  Which I will not accept without backing.

Tom, you showed a picture of mountains that dissapear through atmospheric distortion. I agree with that, but ships dont just  slowls fade away. if you claim that that is what is happening, then the bottom of the mountains would be covered up first-- which they are not. the distortion seems to happen at a constant rate. the sinking ships dont. sorry Tom, but your wrong

If something is blocked by a object a telescope won't make the object appear in full again.

A telescope would only help if the ship got to small to see.  The ship sinks.  Why would a telescope help?

The sinking ship effect as described in Earth Not a Globe is purely perceptual. There is nothing blocking the ship when it sinks, but a natural occurrence form the laws of perception and bodies losing detail as they recede. The same effect happens on land.

Plus once again you have provided no proof, only a man's word.  Which I will not accept without backing.

If you read the testimonials I've provided you'll see that I've given the word of multiple parties. Why would multiple people claim to see the same exact effect if it did not exist?

How does your model of the earth explain the accounts of these multiple parties?

Quote

A telescope would only help if the ship got to small to see.  The ship sinks.  Why would a telescope help?

The sinking ship effect as described in Earth Not a Globe is purely perceptual. There is nothing blocking the ship when it sinks, but a natural occurrence form the laws of perception and bodies losing detail as they recede. The same effect happens on land.

Utter BS as usual. The diagrams in EnaG used to demonstrate these perspective effects are obviously not correct representations of what happens. They have to rely on the ground not appearing flat due to a specious argument about the ground rising to the horizon line, which is obvious bollocks. The ground does not in any way actually rise up. If you show us a diagram in which this happens, then you are full of ****. Thank you.

Tom, could you further explain how a ship seems to dissappear (what kind of perspectove phenomenon is this?) and how you can see it again with a telescope.

Quote

A telescope would only help if the ship got to small to see.  The ship sinks.  Why would a telescope help?

The sinking ship effect as described in Earth Not a Globe is purely perceptual. There is nothing blocking the ship when it sinks, but a natural occurrence form the laws of perception and bodies losing detail as they recede. The same effect happens on land.

Oh no that's not what you said.  Remember the apple picture?  How you put the vanishing point on the ground so that the apple got in front of the orange?  WRONG.  The vanishing point is at eye level.



This makes no sense.  Why would the vanishing point appear at the bottom of a specific point?