Flat Earth Claim
YouTube video claims 'Ship visible at 12 miles on horizon':
The Facts
Seems to me either this ship is sinking or we have confirmed Earth's curvature.
I created some side-by-sides up to the 7.8 mile mark -- seems like the missing height is right about where it should be at 13.2 feet missing given your 7.5 foot high observation point.
 |
| Figure 1. captures of the ship at various distances, resized for comparison |
The last frame in this series shows the horizon/water line has risen to be all the way the back of the boat.
Given the observer height of 7.5 feet and a distance approximation of 7.8 miles we get a height Obscured at that distance of 158 inches (~13.2 feet) [see also derivation for this formula].
As we have reviewed previous, this is NOT explained by perspective.
BTW I think I ID'ed this ship as the CLARA.
This ship is not very high so the 13.2 feet is a very good match at this distance.
Beyond this point the ship becomes very difficult to see and we have no way to know if it's REALLY 11.8 miles out or not. This is a claim that would need to be substantiated before it's even worth investigating further, but even then the ship does continue to sink further below the horizon curvature but it's far too blurry to measure anything and there is too much water vapor in the atmosphere to tell if we're seeing the effects of refraction.
I think this video confirmed that the curvature estimate is pretty good and that the horizon lines falls where we would expect on a curved Earth.
Meanwhile, the Flat Earth model fails to account for the observation as we would expect to still see all the way down to the water-line with the same clarity that we can see the upper portion of the ship. There is nothing in the Flat Earth model that explains the sinking ship.
Given the observer height of 7.5 feet and a distance approximation of 7.8 miles we get a height Obscured at that distance of 158 inches (~13.2 feet) [see also derivation for this formula].
As we have reviewed previous, this is NOT explained by perspective.
BTW I think I ID'ed this ship as the CLARA.
This ship is not very high so the 13.2 feet is a very good match at this distance.
Beyond this point the ship becomes very difficult to see and we have no way to know if it's REALLY 11.8 miles out or not. This is a claim that would need to be substantiated before it's even worth investigating further, but even then the ship does continue to sink further below the horizon curvature but it's far too blurry to measure anything and there is too much water vapor in the atmosphere to tell if we're seeing the effects of refraction.
Conclusion
I think this video confirmed that the curvature estimate is pretty good and that the horizon lines falls where we would expect on a curved Earth.
Meanwhile, the Flat Earth model fails to account for the observation as we would expect to still see all the way down to the water-line with the same clarity that we can see the upper portion of the ship. There is nothing in the Flat Earth model that explains the sinking ship.
right, so at 12 miles the 'curve of the earth' is beginning to make the ship disappear, yet at 149 miles we can see the base of reunion island from mauritius?
ReplyDeletesimple observable proof will do it for me every time.
I'd like to see the details on that claim.
Delete'wheatchaff' -- you realize it's "149 miles" from CENTER TO CENTER of the islands right? Do you really want to start off your claim with a LIE? Or would you like to try that again?
DeleteHow about instead of acting like an ass you approach the subject with a true spirit of inquiry and we just work together to find out the truth?
If you are interested in an honest conversation (I absolutely am) then please link to your detailed evidence and include details such as exact observer latitude, longitude, and elevation and provide me the photographic evidences you wish me to consider and I'll take a look and give you my honest opinion. Note that observer elevation is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL information to have and to be able to verify. Verify Verify Verify.
But please know that I already have about 75% of a Reunion/Mauritius analysis done which shows, as it has shown Every Single Time I've done this, that Flat Earth claims are just wrong.
But I'm more than willing to look at new evidence.
If you can PROVE to me that you have an image TAKEN FROM SEA LEVEL on Mauritius where you can ABSOLUTELY clearly see the BASE of the island, all the way to the shore (verifiably) then I'd be WRONG. Period. There is NO amount of refraction that would explain that IF IT'S 149 miles. But it's always more like 185 km (115 miles) away and the observer is at 750 meters and so we only expect ~600 meters to be hidden and SURE ENOUGH you can NOT actually see the "base of the Island" and it ends up looking exactly as we would expect on a Globe.
I haven't done a post on it so far because I've lacked good photographic evidence with the details necessary such that I feel comfortable posting it but I would LOVE to do so.
When you looked at your images did you identify Cimendef and Roche Écrite peaks and the ~1611 meter high cliffs that form the saddle between them and did you superimpose an appropriately scaled image of the island onto the distant view to see how much of the Island was hidden by the horizon?
I mean you get that Reunion has 2000m+ high mountains right? It's not expected to be hard AT ALL to see them from 150 miles away with even a moderate about of viewer elevation.
You can look at the post I just did on Mt Rainer - that's 193.8 miles away. http://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/11/flat-earth-follies-another-mountain.html
But hey, when you are 8566 feet up viewing a 14,409 foot mountain it turns out only about half the distant mountain would be hidden and that's pretty much EXACTLY what we found.
Can you explain that one? Cuz Simple observable proof does it for me every time.
For example look at this #FlatEarth claim:
Deletehttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/CibQH14UgAAABM5.jpg
Look at the saddle between Cimendef and Roche Écrite -- that's SIXTEEN HUNDRED METERS and that liar claims he is "seeing straight across the ocean".
How is missing 1600 meters of the Island seeing "straight across"?
Do you really not see how utterly dishonest this is?