Planes stopping and reversing in mid-air! - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Planes stopping and reversing in mid-air!
in Airplanes

By ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
This phenomenon is being reported across the plane and can't be officially explained. Are they drones? UFO'S? "Strong headwinds"? I could speculate all day, but I want other opinions. Without further ado:





































CuriousGeorgeSilverishGoldNovaEmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

Wayne Dyer
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • agsragsr 841 Pts
    edited June 2017
    @erfisflat , Are you recording these yourself, or these are various people posting?
    i wonder how much of it is optical illusion, because car is moving
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
    Live Long and Prosper
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    agsr said:
    @erfisflat , Are you recording these yourself, or these are various people posting?
    i wonder how much of it is optical illusion, because car is moving
    various people, I'd guess less than 10% there are more...
    passedbill
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • This can't be possible, unless there is some source of drift.
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    This can't be possible, unless there is some source of drift.
    Well of course it would be impossible, if they were planes, especially 747's. That's why I posted it. I could see someone disguising a drone as a plane.
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    This can't be possible, unless there is some source of drift.
    Unless of course, this is some supernatural phenomena. Just saying. 
    EmeryPearsonZombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  •   Obviously, following the law of physics, this isn't even close to possible. To start, a plane can't just stop in mid-air unless it ran out of fuel or there was engine failure. Even if these two rare events were to happen, it wouldn't just stop in mid-air. If the plane were to run out of fuel it would just keep moving forward but it would drop altitude extremely quick. Also, with the other idea of engine failure, the same thing would happen. (Referencing Boeing 787), if the three engines were to all go out the plane, yet again, still wouldn't just stop in mid-air. Personally, I just think that it's an illusion from the movement from the car and people trying to get attention. Again, for the plane to reverse that is simply impossible anyways. The engines don't work both ways so it would be physically impossible for the plane to a) stop in mid-air and b) start to reverse. Even if stopping the plane in mid-air was possible, for the plane to start reversing is just pathetic because the thrusters wouldn't be able to stop and start fast enough for the plane to be able to move backward. The plane would need extreme speed and power to be able to stop and reverse with exponential speed and without dropping a couple thousand feet. Realistically, with the speed of thrusters and flaps and speed brakes, the chance of the plane being able to reverse would result in damage because thrusters take time to slow the engines, flaps take over 30 seconds to come out of the plane, and slowing the plane down enough would take over 2 minutes. Keeping this in mind, there is around a 65% chance that the end result would be catastrophic because of the plane's limitations. If the pilots were to wait for every action to be taken to slow the plane this would result in the plane dropping around 8-10,000 feet which could be unsafe depending on the type of plane and altitude. 
  • If they were "UFO's" Which of course they're not. Because if aliens existed, we wouldn't be alive, because they'd invade earth and kill us all.

    But if the aliens were peaceful, why would they disguise as 747's?

    But here's the logical conclusion.

    Making more lies like the conspiracy theory addict you are 
    Erfisflat
  • If these videos aren’t fake, that means that there are some strong winds coming blowing in. The wind s would have to be strong enough to push back a 970,000 LB. PLANE GOING AT 180 MPH.
    Erfisflat
    Sovereignty for Kekistan
  • Yes, it's logical to assume ALL of these videos, from multiple sources, are faked, I guess. 
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @Erfisflat ;
    Here's the problem.

    You saw these videos and went "Hmm planes can't stop in mid-air and just go backward" Did you actually look up if this is possible?

    Because if this is possible, you're making this up like the tinfoil hat person you are
  • @Erfisflat ;
    Here's the problem.

    You saw these videos and went "Hmm planes can't stop in mid-air and just go backward" Did you actually look up if this is possible?

    Because if this is possible, you're making this up like the tinfoil hat person you are
    Here's the problem. How on the plane could I "make this up" by posting several recordings from several Youtube accounts? I don't think you are being logical.


    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @Erfisflat ;
    Or, maybe you should actually do some research.

    Here's the logical explination to this.

    https://www.quora.com/Can-an-airplane-stand-still-in-mid-air

    http://www.centeye.com/technology/optical-flow/

    The are't really stopping, or moving backwards. It's an opitcal illusion.

    Same thing happens to trains. at say half a mile, they appear to be ging ~20mph, but in reality are going 60. The videos are showing the plane from a huge distance, and as such give an illusion that they are stopped, or going backwards. (Also in some of them, they're are driving, which can affect the illusion to the max)
    Erfisflat
  • Erfisflat said:
    Yes, it's logical to assume ALL of these videos, from multiple sources, are faked, I guess. 
    So, if I post multiple videos from multiple sources showing the curvature of the earth: you will admit it is illogical to assume that they are faked: and give up your position on the earth being flat?
    Zombieguy1987
  • Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Yes, it's logical to assume ALL of these videos, from multiple sources, are faked, I guess. 
    So, if I post multiple videos from multiple sources showing the curvature of the earth: you will admit it is illogical to assume that they are faked: and give up your position on the earth being flat?
    I will do more than just assume they are fake, I will demonstrate it, always have.
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • JoesephJoeseph 479 Pts
    edited September 24

    Zombieguy1987
  • Joeseph said:

    I don't see any curvature in that image.


    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @Erfisflat

    You’re funny .....
    Zombieguy1987
  • Joeseph said:
    @Erfisflat

    You’re funny .....
    I don't see any curvature, and neither of those are videos.
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Yes, it's logical to assume ALL of these videos, from multiple sources, are faked, I guess. 
    So, if I post multiple videos from multiple sources showing the curvature of the earth: you will admit it is illogical to assume that they are faked: and give up your position on the earth being flat?
    I will do more than just assume they are fake, I will demonstrate it, always have.

    Only if by always, you mean never, and by demonstrate, you mean vehemently assert.
    Zombieguy1987
  • Zombieguy1987
  • I see no curvature in either post.
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Erfisflat said:
    I see no curvature in either post.
    Erf: SHOW ME CURVATURE

    Me: here is some curvature.

    Erf: THAT CURVATURE YOUR SEEING IS BECAUSE THE EARTH IS FLAT. 
    Zombieguy1987
  • Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    I see no curvature in either post.
    Erf: SHOW ME CURVATURE

    Me: here is some curvature.

    Erf: THAT CURVATURE YOUR SEEING IS BECAUSE THE EARTH IS FLAT. 

    Zombieguy1987Joeseph
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Zombieguy1987
  • Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    I see no curvature in either post.
    Erf: SHOW ME CURVATURE

    Me: here is some curvature.

    Erf: THAT CURVATURE YOUR SEEING IS BECAUSE THE EARTH IS FLAT. 





    You: THE CURVATURE YOU SEE IS BECAUSE THE EARTH IS FLAT! 
    Zombieguy1987Erfisflat
  • Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    I see no curvature in either post.
    Erf: SHOW ME CURVATURE

    Me: here is some curvature.

    Erf: THAT CURVATURE YOUR SEEING IS BECAUSE THE EARTH IS FLAT. 





    You: THE CURVATURE YOU SEE IS BECAUSE THE EARTH IS FLAT! 
    So, when you said:

    So, if I post multiple videos from multiple sources showing the curvature of the earth: you will admit it is illogical to assume that they are faked: and give up your position on the earth being flat?

    You didn't actually mean what you said, and it was a lie.
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • GooberryGooberry 521 Pts
    edited September 25
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    I see no curvature in either post.
    Erf: SHOW ME CURVATURE

    Me: here is some curvature.

    Erf: THAT CURVATURE YOUR SEEING IS BECAUSE THE EARTH IS FLAT. 





    You: THE CURVATURE YOU SEE IS BECAUSE THE EARTH IS FLAT! 
    So, when you said:

    So, if I post multiple videos from multiple sources showing the curvature of the earth: you will admit it is illogical to assume that they are faked: and give up your position on the earth being flat?

    You didn't actually mean what you said, and it was a lie.
    Wait - what?

    You’ve been shown to be wrong, now you’re trying to lawyer your way out?

    Thats hilarious!

    You: SHOW ME EVIDENCE OF A SPHERE!
    Me: Here you go, irrefutable visual evidence
    You: I SAID VIDEO EVIDENCE!
    Zombieguy1987
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 1603 Pts
    edited September 25
    Actually, I quoted the statement, and will again for you.


    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Yes, it's logical to assume ALL of these videos, from multiple sources, are faked, I guess. 
    So, if I post multiple videos from multiple sources showing the curvature of the earth: you will admit it is illogical to assume that they are faked: and give up your position on the earth being flat?
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Yes, it's logical to assume ALL of these videos, from multiple sources, are faked, I guess. 
    So, if I post multiple videos from multiple sources showing the curvature of the earth: you will admit it is illogical to assume that they are faked: and give up your position on the earth being flat?
    I will do more than just assume they are fake, I will demonstrate it, always have.
    Your pictures, the second and third are vague, I don't have any measurements, height of the observer, or anything, this could merely be waves several feet high hiding the bottom of the boat.



    PERSPECTIVE ON THE SEA.

    We have now to consider a very important modification of this phenomenon, namely, that whereas in the several instances illustrated by diagrams Nos. 71 to 84 inclusive, when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be. This fact is considered of such great importance, and so much is made of it as an argument for rotundity by the Newtonian philosophers, that it demands in this place special consideration. It has been already shown that the law of perspective, as commonly taught in our schools of art, is fallacious and contrary to every thing seen in nature. If an object be held up in the air, and gradually carried away from an observer who maintains his position, it is true that all its parts will converge to one and the same point--the centre, in relation to which the whole contracts and diminishes. But if the same object is placed on the ground, or on a board, as shown in diagram 74, and the lower part made distinctive in shape or colour, and similarly moved away from a fixed observer, the same predicate is false. In the first case the centre of the object is the datum to which every point of the exterior converges; but in the second

    p. 214

    case the ground or board practically becomes the datum in and towards which every part of the object converges in succession--beginning with the lowest, or that nearest to it.

    INSTANCES.--A man with light trowsers and black boots walking along a level path, will appear at a certain distance as though the boots had been removed and the trowsers brought in contact with the ground. On one occasion the author and several friends witnessed a kind of review or special drill of infantry in the open space behind the Horse Guards, at Whitehall. It was in the month of July, and the soldiers had on their summer clothing, all their "nether garments" were white, and when near to them the black well-polished boots were visible to the depth of three or four inches, standing distinctly between the white cloth of the trowsers, and the brown or yellowish gravel and sand of the parade ground. On moving a few hundred feet away, along one of the walks in St. James's Park, the three or four inches depth of black boots subtended an angle at the eye so acute that they were no longer visible, and the almost snow white trowsers of a line of men seemed to be in actual contact with the ground. Every man when turned away or whose back was towards the spectators, seemed to be footless. The effect was remarkable, and formed a very striking illustration of the true law of perspective. After observing the manœuvres for a short time. a party of soldiers were "told off" to relieve guard at St. James's and Buckingham Palaces, and on following then, down the avenue of the park we again noticed the perspective phenomenon of a line of soldiers marching apparently without feet.

    p. 215

    A small dog running along will appear to gradually shorten by the legs, which at a distance, of less than half-a-mile will be invisible, and the body or trunk of the animal will appear to glide upon the earth.

    Horses and cattle moving away from a given point upon horizontal ground, will seem to lose their hoofs, and to be walking on the bony extremities or stumps of the limbs.

    Carriages similarly receding will seem to lose that portion of the rim of the wheels which touches the earth. The axles also will seem to get lower, and at the distance of one or two miles, according to the diameter of the wheels, the body of the carriage will appear to drag along in contact with the ground.

    A young girl, with short garments terminating ten or twelve inches above the feet, will, on walking forward, appear to sink towards the earth, the space between which and the bottom of the frock will appear to gradually diminish, and in the distance of half-a-mile or less the limbs which were first seen for ten or twelve inches will be invisible--the bottom of the garment will seem to touch the ground. The whole body of the girl will, of course, gradually diminish as she recedes, but the depth of the limbs, or the lower part, will disappear before the shoulders and head--as illustrated in diagram 78.

    These instances which are but a few selected from a great number which have been collected, will be sufficient to prove beyond the power of doubt, or the necessity for controversy, that upon a plane or horizontal surface the lowest parts of bodies receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.

    p. 216

    This would be a sufficient explanation of the disappearance of a ship's hull before the rigging and mast-head; but as already stated in every one of the instances given, except that of the ship at sea, a telescope will restore to view whatever has disappeared to the naked eye. It would be the same in the case of the ship's hull were all the conditions the same. If the surface of the sea had no motion or irregularity, or if it were frozen and therefore stationary and uniform, a telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the distance, would at all times restore the hull to sight. On any frozen lake or canal, notably on the "Bedford Canal," in the county of Cambridge, in winter and on a clear day, skaters may be observed several miles away, seeming to glide along upon limbs without feet--skates and boots quite invisible to the unaided eye, but distinctly visible through a good telescope. But even on the sea, when the water is very calm, if a vessel is observed until it is just"hull down," a powerful telescope turned upon it will restore the hull to sight. From which it must be concluded that the lower part of a receding ship disappears through the influence of perspective, and not from sinking behind the summit of a convex surface. If not so it follows that the telescope either carries the line of sight through the mass of water, or over its surface and down the other side. This would indeed be "looking round a corner," a power which, nor that of penetrating a dense and extensive medium like water, has never yet been claimed for optical instruments of any kind.

    Upon the sea the law of perspective is modified because the leading condition, that of stability in the surface or

    p. 217

    datum line, is changed. When the surface is calm the/ hull of a vessel can be seen for a much greater distance than when it is rough and stormy. This can easily be verified by observations upon fixed objects at known distances, such as light-ships, light-houses, sea walls, head-lands, or the light-coloured masonry of batteries, such as are built on the coast in many parts of the world.

    In May, 1864, the author, with several gentlemen who bad attended his lectures at Gosport, made a number of observations on the "Nab" light-ship, from the landing stairs of the Victoria Pier, at Portsmouth. From an elevation of thirty-two inches above the water, when it was very calm, the greater part of the hull of the light vessel was, through a good telescope, plainly visible. But on other occasions, when the water was much disturbed, no portion of the hull could be seen from the same elevation, and with the same or even a more powerful telescope. At other times, when the water was more or less calm, only a small portion of the hull, and sometimes the upper part of the bulwarks only, could be seen. These observations not only prove that the distance at which objects at sea can be seen by a powerful telescope depends greatly on the state of the water, but they furnish a strong argument against rotundity. The "Nab" light-ship is eight statute miles from the Victoria pier, and allowing thirty-two inches for the altitude of the observers, and ten feet for the height of the bulwarks above the water line, we find that even if the water were perfectly smooth and stationary, the top of the hull should at all times be fourteen feet below the horizon. Many observations similar to the above have

    p. 218

    been made on the north-west light-ship, in Liverpool Bay and on light-vessels in various parts of the sea round; Great Britain and Ireland.

    It is a well known fact that the light of Eddystone lighthouse is often plainly visible from the beach in Plymouth Sound, and sometimes, when the sea is very calm, persons sitting in ordinary rowing boats can see the light distinctly from that part of the Sound which will allow the line of sight to pass between "Drake's Island" and the. western end of the Breakwater. The distance is fourteen statute miles. In the tables published by the Admiralty, and also by calculation according to the supposed rotundity of the earth, the light is stated to be visible thirteen nautical or over fifteen statute miles, yet often at the same distance, and in rough weather, not only is the light not visible but in the day time the top of the vane which surmounts the lantern, and which is nearly twenty feet higher than the centre of the reflectors or the focus of the light, is out of sight.

    A remarkable instance of this is given in the Western Daily Mercury, of October 25th, 1864. After lectures by the author at the Plymouth Athenæum and the Devonport Mechanics' Institute, a committee was formed for the purpose of making experiments on this subject, and on the general question of the earth's form. A report and the names of the committee were published in the Journal above referred to; from which the following extract is made.

    "OBSERVATION 6TH.--On the beach, at five feet from the water level, the Eddystone was entirely out of sight."

    p. 219

    At any time when the sea is calm and the weather clear, the light of the Eddystone may be seen from an elevation of five feet above the water level; and according to the Admiralty directions, it "maybe seen thirteen nautical (or fifteen statute), miles," 1 or one mile further away than the position of the observers on the above-named occasion; yet, on that occasion, and at a distance of only fourteen statute miles, notwithstanding that it was a very fine autumn day, and a clear background existed, not only was the lantern, which is 80 feet high, not visible, but the top of the vane, which is 100 feet above the foundation, was, as stated in the report "entirely out of sight." There was, however, a considerable "swell" in the sea beyond the breakwater.

    That vessels, lighthouses, light-ships, buoys, signals, and other known and fixed objects are sometimes more distinctly seen than at other times, and are often, from the same common elevation, entirely out of sight when the sea is rough, cannot be denied or doubted by any one of experience in nautical matters.

    The conclusion which such observations necessitate and force upon us is, that the law of perspective, which is everywhere visible on land, is modified when observed in connection with objects on or near the sea. But howmodified? If the water were frozen and at perfect rest, any object on its surface would be seen again and again as often as it disappeared and as far as telescopic or magnifying power could be brought to bear upon it. But because this is not the case--because the water is always more or less in.

    p. 220

    motion, not only of progression but of fluctuation and undulation, the "swells" and waves into which the surface is broken, operate to prevent the line of sight from passing absolutely parallel to the horizontal water line.

    At page 60 it is shown that the surface of the sea appears to rise up to the level or altitude of the eye; and that at a certain distance, less or greater, according to the elevation of the observer, the line of sight and the surface of the water appear to converge to a "vanishing point," which is in reality "the horizon." If this horizon were formed by the apparent junction of two perfectly stationaryparallel lines, it could, as before stated, be penetrated by a telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the distance, however great, to which any vessel had sailed. But because the surface of the sea is not stationary, the line of sight must pass over the horizon, or vanishing point, at an angle at the eye of the observer depending on the amount of "swell" in the water. This will be rendered clear by the following diagram, fig. 85.

    Fig 85
    Fig. 85.

    Let C, D, represent the horizontal surface of the water. By the law of perspective operating without interferencefrom any local cause, the surface will appear to ascend to the point B, which is the horizon, or vanishing point to the observer at A; but because the water undulates, the line A, B, of necessity becomes A, H, S, and the angular direction of this line becomes

    p. 221

    less or greater if the "swell" at H increases or diminishes. Hence when a ship has reached the point H, the horizon; the line of sight begins to cut the rigging higher and higher towards the mast-head, as the vessel more and more recedes. In such a position a telescope will enlarge and render more visible all that part of the rigging which is above the line A, H, S, but cannot possibly restore that part including the hull, which is below it. The waves at the point H, whatever their real magnitude may be, are magnified and rendered more obstructive by the very instrument (the telescope), which is employed to make the objects beyond more plainly visible; and thus the phenomenon is often very strikingly observed, that while a powerful telescope will render the sails and rigging of a ship beyond the horizon H, so distinct that the different kinds of rope can be readily distinguished, not the slightest portion of the hull, large and solid as it is, can be seen. The "crested waters" form a barrier to the horizontal line of sight as substantial as would the summit of an intervening rock. And because the watery barrier is magnified and practically increased by the telescope, the paradoxical condition arises, that the greater the power of the instrument the less can be seen with it.

    Thus have we ascertained by a simple Zetetic process, regardless of all theories, and irrespective of consequences, that the disappearance of the hull of an outward bound vessel is the natural result of the law of perspective operating on a plane surface, but modified by the mobility of the water; and has logically no actual connection with the doctrine of the earth's rotundity. All that can be said for it is, that such a phenomenon would exist if the earth were a globe; but it cannot be employed as a proof that the assumption of rotundity is correct.


    And it's quite interesting that the body of water appears to be flat until a certain distance, where the water seem to drop, apparently by a vast amount. Are you accounting for atmospheric refraction? Oh that wouldn't be an issued at all in either image, would it. Only for images like this.



    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Erfisflat said:
    Actually, I quoted the statement, and will again for you.


    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Yes, it's logical to assume ALL of these videos, from multiple sources, are faked, I guess. 
    So, if I post multiple videos from multiple sources showing the curvature of the earth: you will admit it is illogical to assume that they are faked: and give up your position on the earth being flat?
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Yes, it's logical to assume ALL of these videos, from multiple sources, are faked, I guess. 
    So, if I post multiple videos from multiple sources showing the curvature of the earth: you will admit it is illogical to assume that they are faked: and give up your position on the earth being flat?
    I will do more than just assume they are fake, I will demonstrate it, always have.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kADO7nkt-rk


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7nUFLLUahSI


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nmy8x-AIBa0


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NPrTMz7a4X8


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3fDLf8tt0


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ygglEVb8rdM


    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bco_p4V7-QU


    I await your inevitable insane protestations and assertions that the every day observations we make that look exactly like curvature is actually because the earth is flat!

  • Erfisflat said:
    Actually, I quoted the statement, and will again for you.


    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Yes, it's logical to assume ALL of these videos, from multiple sources, are faked, I guess. 
    So, if I post multiple videos from multiple sources showing the curvature of the earth: you will admit it is illogical to assume that they are faked: and give up your position on the earth being flat?
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Yes, it's logical to assume ALL of these videos, from multiple sources, are faked, I guess. 
    So, if I post multiple videos from multiple sources showing the curvature of the earth: you will admit it is illogical to assume that they are faked: and give up your position on the earth being flat?
    I will do more than just assume they are fake, I will demonstrate it, always have.
    Your pictures, the second and third are vague, I don't have any measurements, height of the observer, or anything, this could merely be waves several feet high hiding the bottom of the boat.



    PERSPECTIVE ON THE SEA.

    We have now to consider a very important modification of this phenomenon, namely, that whereas in the several instances illustrated by diagrams Nos. 71 to 84 inclusive, when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be. This fact is considered of such great importance, and so much is made of it as an argument for rotundity by the Newtonian philosophers, that it demands in this place special consideration. It has been already shown that the law of perspective, as commonly taught in our schools of art, is fallacious and contrary to every thing seen in nature. If an object be held up in the air, and gradually carried away from an observer who maintains his position, it is true that all its parts will converge to one and the same point--the centre, in relation to which the whole contracts and diminishes. But if the same object is placed on the ground, or on a board, as shown in diagram 74, and the lower part made distinctive in shape or colour, and similarly moved away from a fixed observer, the same predicate is false. In the first case the centre of the object is the datum to which every point of the exterior converges; but in the second

    p. 214

    case the ground or board practically becomes the datum in and towards which every part of the object converges in succession--beginning with the lowest, or that nearest to it.

    INSTANCES.--A man with light trowsers and black boots walking along a level path, will appear at a certain distance as though the boots had been removed and the trowsers brought in contact with the ground. On one occasion the author and several friends witnessed a kind of review or special drill of infantry in the open space behind the Horse Guards, at Whitehall. It was in the month of July, and the soldiers had on their summer clothing, all their "nether garments" were white, and when near to them the black well-polished boots were visible to the depth of three or four inches, standing distinctly between the white cloth of the trowsers, and the brown or yellowish gravel and sand of the parade ground. On moving a few hundred feet away, along one of the walks in St. James's Park, the three or four inches depth of black boots subtended an angle at the eye so acute that they were no longer visible, and the almost snow white trowsers of a line of men seemed to be in actual contact with the ground. Every man when turned away or whose back was towards the spectators, seemed to be footless. The effect was remarkable, and formed a very striking illustration of the true law of perspective. After observing the manœuvres for a short time. a party of soldiers were "told off" to relieve guard at St. James's and Buckingham Palaces, and on following then, down the avenue of the park we again noticed the perspective phenomenon of a line of soldiers marching apparently without feet.

    p. 215

    A small dog running along will appear to gradually shorten by the legs, which at a distance, of less than half-a-mile will be invisible, and the body or trunk of the animal will appear to glide upon the earth.

    Horses and cattle moving away from a given point upon horizontal ground, will seem to lose their hoofs, and to be walking on the bony extremities or stumps of the limbs.

    Carriages similarly receding will seem to lose that portion of the rim of the wheels which touches the earth. The axles also will seem to get lower, and at the distance of one or two miles, according to the diameter of the wheels, the body of the carriage will appear to drag along in contact with the ground.

    A young girl, with short garments terminating ten or twelve inches above the feet, will, on walking forward, appear to sink towards the earth, the space between which and the bottom of the frock will appear to gradually diminish, and in the distance of half-a-mile or less the limbs which were first seen for ten or twelve inches will be invisible--the bottom of the garment will seem to touch the ground. The whole body of the girl will, of course, gradually diminish as she recedes, but the depth of the limbs, or the lower part, will disappear before the shoulders and head--as illustrated in diagram 78.

    These instances which are but a few selected from a great number which have been collected, will be sufficient to prove beyond the power of doubt, or the necessity for controversy, that upon a plane or horizontal surface the lowest parts of bodies receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.

    p. 216

    This would be a sufficient explanation of the disappearance of a ship's hull before the rigging and mast-head; but as already stated in every one of the instances given, except that of the ship at sea, a telescope will restore to view whatever has disappeared to the naked eye. It would be the same in the case of the ship's hull were all the conditions the same. If the surface of the sea had no motion or irregularity, or if it were frozen and therefore stationary and uniform, a telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the distance, would at all times restore the hull to sight. On any frozen lake or canal, notably on the "Bedford Canal," in the county of Cambridge, in winter and on a clear day, skaters may be observed several miles away, seeming to glide along upon limbs without feet--skates and boots quite invisible to the unaided eye, but distinctly visible through a good telescope. But even on the sea, when the water is very calm, if a vessel is observed until it is just"hull down," a powerful telescope turned upon it will restore the hull to sight. From which it must be concluded that the lower part of a receding ship disappears through the influence of perspective, and not from sinking behind the summit of a convex surface. If not so it follows that the telescope either carries the line of sight through the mass of water, or over its surface and down the other side. This would indeed be "looking round a corner," a power which, nor that of penetrating a dense and extensive medium like water, has never yet been claimed for optical instruments of any kind.

    Upon the sea the law of perspective is modified because the leading condition, that of stability in the surface or

    p. 217

    datum line, is changed. When the surface is calm the/ hull of a vessel can be seen for a much greater distance than when it is rough and stormy. This can easily be verified by observations upon fixed objects at known distances, such as light-ships, light-houses, sea walls, head-lands, or the light-coloured masonry of batteries, such as are built on the coast in many parts of the world.

    In May, 1864, the author, with several gentlemen who bad attended his lectures at Gosport, made a number of observations on the "Nab" light-ship, from the landing stairs of the Victoria Pier, at Portsmouth. From an elevation of thirty-two inches above the water, when it was very calm, the greater part of the hull of the light vessel was, through a good telescope, plainly visible. But on other occasions, when the water was much disturbed, no portion of the hull could be seen from the same elevation, and with the same or even a more powerful telescope. At other times, when the water was more or less calm, only a small portion of the hull, and sometimes the upper part of the bulwarks only, could be seen. These observations not only prove that the distance at which objects at sea can be seen by a powerful telescope depends greatly on the state of the water, but they furnish a strong argument against rotundity. The "Nab" light-ship is eight statute miles from the Victoria pier, and allowing thirty-two inches for the altitude of the observers, and ten feet for the height of the bulwarks above the water line, we find that even if the water were perfectly smooth and stationary, the top of the hull should at all times be fourteen feet below the horizon. Many observations similar to the above have

    p. 218

    been made on the north-west light-ship, in Liverpool Bay and on light-vessels in various parts of the sea round; Great Britain and Ireland.

    It is a well known fact that the light of Eddystone lighthouse is often plainly visible from the beach in Plymouth Sound, and sometimes, when the sea is very calm, persons sitting in ordinary rowing boats can see the light distinctly from that part of the Sound which will allow the line of sight to pass between "Drake's Island" and the. western end of the Breakwater. The distance is fourteen statute miles. In the tables published by the Admiralty, and also by calculation according to the supposed rotundity of the earth, the light is stated to be visible thirteen nautical or over fifteen statute miles, yet often at the same distance, and in rough weather, not only is the light not visible but in the day time the top of the vane which surmounts the lantern, and which is nearly twenty feet higher than the centre of the reflectors or the focus of the light, is out of sight.

    A remarkable instance of this is given in the Western Daily Mercury, of October 25th, 1864. After lectures by the author at the Plymouth Athenæum and the Devonport Mechanics' Institute, a committee was formed for the purpose of making experiments on this subject, and on the general question of the earth's form. A report and the names of the committee were published in the Journal above referred to; from which the following extract is made.

    "OBSERVATION 6TH.--On the beach, at five feet from the water level, the Eddystone was entirely out of sight."

    p. 219

    At any time when the sea is calm and the weather clear, the light of the Eddystone may be seen from an elevation of five feet above the water level; and according to the Admiralty directions, it "maybe seen thirteen nautical (or fifteen statute), miles," 1 or one mile further away than the position of the observers on the above-named occasion; yet, on that occasion, and at a distance of only fourteen statute miles, notwithstanding that it was a very fine autumn day, and a clear background existed, not only was the lantern, which is 80 feet high, not visible, but the top of the vane, which is 100 feet above the foundation, was, as stated in the report "entirely out of sight." There was, however, a considerable "swell" in the sea beyond the breakwater.

    That vessels, lighthouses, light-ships, buoys, signals, and other known and fixed objects are sometimes more distinctly seen than at other times, and are often, from the same common elevation, entirely out of sight when the sea is rough, cannot be denied or doubted by any one of experience in nautical matters.

    The conclusion which such observations necessitate and force upon us is, that the law of perspective, which is everywhere visible on land, is modified when observed in connection with objects on or near the sea. But howmodified? If the water were frozen and at perfect rest, any object on its surface would be seen again and again as often as it disappeared and as far as telescopic or magnifying power could be brought to bear upon it. But because this is not the case--because the water is always more or less in.

    p. 220

    motion, not only of progression but of fluctuation and undulation, the "swells" and waves into which the surface is broken, operate to prevent the line of sight from passing absolutely parallel to the horizontal water line.

    At page 60 it is shown that the surface of the sea appears to rise up to the level or altitude of the eye; and that at a certain distance, less or greater, according to the elevation of the observer, the line of sight and the surface of the water appear to converge to a "vanishing point," which is in reality "the horizon." If this horizon were formed by the apparent junction of two perfectly stationaryparallel lines, it could, as before stated, be penetrated by a telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the distance, however great, to which any vessel had sailed. But because the surface of the sea is not stationary, the line of sight must pass over the horizon, or vanishing point, at an angle at the eye of the observer depending on the amount of "swell" in the water. This will be rendered clear by the following diagram, fig. 85.

    Fig 85
    Fig. 85.

    Let C, D, represent the horizontal surface of the water. By the law of perspective operating without interferencefrom any local cause, the surface will appear to ascend to the point B, which is the horizon, or vanishing point to the observer at A; but because the water undulates, the line A, B, of necessity becomes A, H, S, and the angular direction of this line becomes

    p. 221

    less or greater if the "swell" at H increases or diminishes. Hence when a ship has reached the point H, the horizon; the line of sight begins to cut the rigging higher and higher towards the mast-head, as the vessel more and more recedes. In such a position a telescope will enlarge and render more visible all that part of the rigging which is above the line A, H, S, but cannot possibly restore that part including the hull, which is below it. The waves at the point H, whatever their real magnitude may be, are magnified and rendered more obstructive by the very instrument (the telescope), which is employed to make the objects beyond more plainly visible; and thus the phenomenon is often very strikingly observed, that while a powerful telescope will render the sails and rigging of a ship beyond the horizon H, so distinct that the different kinds of rope can be readily distinguished, not the slightest portion of the hull, large and solid as it is, can be seen. The "crested waters" form a barrier to the horizontal line of sight as substantial as would the summit of an intervening rock. And because the watery barrier is magnified and practically increased by the telescope, the paradoxical condition arises, that the greater the power of the instrument the less can be seen with it.

    Thus have we ascertained by a simple Zetetic process, regardless of all theories, and irrespective of consequences, that the disappearance of the hull of an outward bound vessel is the natural result of the law of perspective operating on a plane surface, but modified by the mobility of the water; and has logically no actual connection with the doctrine of the earth's rotundity. All that can be said for it is, that such a phenomenon would exist if the earth were a globe; but it cannot be employed as a proof that the assumption of rotundity is correct.


    And it's quite interesting that the body of water appears to be flat until a certain distance, where the water seem to drop, apparently by a vast amount. Are you accounting for atmospheric refraction? Oh that wouldn't be an issued at all in either image, would it. Only for images like this.



    Erfisflat said:
    Actually, I quoted the statement, and will again for you.


    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Yes, it's logical to assume ALL of these videos, from multiple sources, are faked, I guess. 
    So, if I post multiple videos from multiple sources showing the curvature of the earth: you will admit it is illogical to assume that they are faked: and give up your position on the earth being flat?
    Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Yes, it's logical to assume ALL of these videos, from multiple sources, are faked, I guess. 
    So, if I post multiple videos from multiple sources showing the curvature of the earth: you will admit it is illogical to assume that they are faked: and give up your position on the earth being flat?
    I will do more than just assume they are fake, I will demonstrate it, always have.
    Your pictures, the second and third are vague, I don't have any measurements, height of the observer, or anything, this could merely be waves several feet high hiding the bottom of the boat.



    PERSPECTIVE ON THE SEA.

    We have now to consider a very important modification of this phenomenon, namely, that whereas in the several instances illustrated by diagrams Nos. 71 to 84 inclusive, when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be. This fact is considered of such great importance, and so much is made of it as an argument for rotundity by the Newtonian philosophers, that it demands in this place special consideration. It has been already shown that the law of perspective, as commonly taught in our schools of art, is fallacious and contrary to every thing seen in nature. If an object be held up in the air, and gradually carried away from an observer who maintains his position, it is true that all its parts will converge to one and the same point--the centre, in relation to which the whole contracts and diminishes. But if the same object is placed on the ground, or on a board, as shown in diagram 74, and the lower part made distinctive in shape or colour, and similarly moved away from a fixed observer, the same predicate is false. In the first case the centre of the object is the datum to which every point of the exterior converges; but in the second

    p. 214

    case the ground or board practically becomes the datum in and towards which every part of the object converges in succession--beginning with the lowest, or that nearest to it.

    INSTANCES.--A man with light trowsers and black boots walking along a level path, will appear at a certain distance as though the boots had been removed and the trowsers brought in contact with the ground. On one occasion the author and several friends witnessed a kind of review or special drill of infantry in the open space behind the Horse Guards, at Whitehall. It was in the month of July, and the soldiers had on their summer clothing, all their "nether garments" were white, and when near to them the black well-polished boots were visible to the depth of three or four inches, standing distinctly between the white cloth of the trowsers, and the brown or yellowish gravel and sand of the parade ground. On moving a few hundred feet away, along one of the walks in St. James's Park, the three or four inches depth of black boots subtended an angle at the eye so acute that they were no longer visible, and the almost snow white trowsers of a line of men seemed to be in actual contact with the ground. Every man when turned away or whose back was towards the spectators, seemed to be footless. The effect was remarkable, and formed a very striking illustration of the true law of perspective. After observing the manœuvres for a short time. a party of soldiers were "told off" to relieve guard at St. James's and Buckingham Palaces, and on following then, down the avenue of the park we again noticed the perspective phenomenon of a line of soldiers marching apparently without feet.

    p. 215

    A small dog running along will appear to gradually shorten by the legs, which at a distance, of less than half-a-mile will be invisible, and the body or trunk of the animal will appear to glide upon the earth.

    Horses and cattle moving away from a given point upon horizontal ground, will seem to lose their hoofs, and to be walking on the bony extremities or stumps of the limbs.

    Carriages similarly receding will seem to lose that portion of the rim of the wheels which touches the earth. The axles also will seem to get lower, and at the distance of one or two miles, according to the diameter of the wheels, the body of the carriage will appear to drag along in contact with the ground.

    A young girl, with short garments terminating ten or twelve inches above the feet, will, on walking forward, appear to sink towards the earth, the space between which and the bottom of the frock will appear to gradually diminish, and in the distance of half-a-mile or less the limbs which were first seen for ten or twelve inches will be invisible--the bottom of the garment will seem to touch the ground. The whole body of the girl will, of course, gradually diminish as she recedes, but the depth of the limbs, or the lower part, will disappear before the shoulders and head--as illustrated in diagram 78.

    These instances which are but a few selected from a great number which have been collected, will be sufficient to prove beyond the power of doubt, or the necessity for controversy, that upon a plane or horizontal surface the lowest parts of bodies receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.

    p. 216

    This would be a sufficient explanation of the disappearance of a ship's hull before the rigging and mast-head; but as already stated in every one of the instances given, except that of the ship at sea, a telescope will restore to view whatever has disappeared to the naked eye. It would be the same in the case of the ship's hull were all the conditions the same. If the surface of the sea had no motion or irregularity, or if it were frozen and therefore stationary and uniform, a telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the distance, would at all times restore the hull to sight. On any frozen lake or canal, notably on the "Bedford Canal," in the county of Cambridge, in winter and on a clear day, skaters may be observed several miles away, seeming to glide along upon limbs without feet--skates and boots quite invisible to the unaided eye, but distinctly visible through a good telescope. But even on the sea, when the water is very calm, if a vessel is observed until it is just"hull down," a powerful telescope turned upon it will restore the hull to sight. From which it must be concluded that the lower part of a receding ship disappears through the influence of perspective, and not from sinking behind the summit of a convex surface. If not so it follows that the telescope either carries the line of sight through the mass of water, or over its surface and down the other side. This would indeed be "looking round a corner," a power which, nor that of penetrating a dense and extensive medium like water, has never yet been claimed for optical instruments of any kind.

    Upon the sea the law of perspective is modified because the leading condition, that of stability in the surface or

    p. 217

    datum line, is changed. When the surface is calm the/ hull of a vessel can be seen for a much greater distance than when it is rough and stormy. This can easily be verified by observations upon fixed objects at known distances, such as light-ships, light-houses, sea walls, head-lands, or the light-coloured masonry of batteries, such as are built on the coast in many parts of the world.

    In May, 1864, the author, with several gentlemen who bad attended his lectures at Gosport, made a number of observations on the "Nab" light-ship, from the landing stairs of the Victoria Pier, at Portsmouth. From an elevation of thirty-two inches above the water, when it was very calm, the greater part of the hull of the light vessel was, through a good telescope, plainly visible. But on other occasions, when the water was much disturbed, no portion of the hull could be seen from the same elevation, and with the same or even a more powerful telescope. At other times, when the water was more or less calm, only a small portion of the hull, and sometimes the upper part of the bulwarks only, could be seen. These observations not only prove that the distance at which objects at sea can be seen by a powerful telescope depends greatly on the state of the water, but they furnish a strong argument against rotundity. The "Nab" light-ship is eight statute miles from the Victoria pier, and allowing thirty-two inches for the altitude of the observers, and ten feet for the height of the bulwarks above the water line, we find that even if the water were perfectly smooth and stationary, the top of the hull should at all times be fourteen feet below the horizon. Many observations similar to the above have

    p. 218

    been made on the north-west light-ship, in Liverpool Bay and on light-vessels in various parts of the sea round; Great Britain and Ireland.

    It is a well known fact that the light of Eddystone lighthouse is often plainly visible from the beach in Plymouth Sound, and sometimes, when the sea is very calm, persons sitting in ordinary rowing boats can see the light distinctly from that part of the Sound which will allow the line of sight to pass between "Drake's Island" and the. western end of the Breakwater. The distance is fourteen statute miles. In the tables published by the Admiralty, and also by calculation according to the supposed rotundity of the earth, the light is stated to be visible thirteen nautical or over fifteen statute miles, yet often at the same distance, and in rough weather, not only is the light not visible but in the day time the top of the vane which surmounts the lantern, and which is nearly twenty feet higher than the centre of the reflectors or the focus of the light, is out of sight.

    A remarkable instance of this is given in the Western Daily Mercury, of October 25th, 1864. After lectures by the author at the Plymouth Athenæum and the Devonport Mechanics' Institute, a committee was formed for the purpose of making experiments on this subject, and on the general question of the earth's form. A report and the names of the committee were published in the Journal above referred to; from which the following extract is made.

    "OBSERVATION 6TH.--On the beach, at five feet from the water level, the Eddystone was entirely out of sight."

    p. 219

    At any time when the sea is calm and the weather clear, the light of the Eddystone may be seen from an elevation of five feet above the water level; and according to the Admiralty directions, it "maybe seen thirteen nautical (or fifteen statute), miles," 1 or one mile further away than the position of the observers on the above-named occasion; yet, on that occasion, and at a distance of only fourteen statute miles, notwithstanding that it was a very fine autumn day, and a clear background existed, not only was the lantern, which is 80 feet high, not visible, but the top of the vane, which is 100 feet above the foundation, was, as stated in the report "entirely out of sight." There was, however, a considerable "swell" in the sea beyond the breakwater.

    That vessels, lighthouses, light-ships, buoys, signals, and other known and fixed objects are sometimes more distinctly seen than at other times, and are often, from the same common elevation, entirely out of sight when the sea is rough, cannot be denied or doubted by any one of experience in nautical matters.

    The conclusion which such observations necessitate and force upon us is, that the law of perspective, which is everywhere visible on land, is modified when observed in connection with objects on or near the sea. But howmodified? If the water were frozen and at perfect rest, any object on its surface would be seen again and again as often as it disappeared and as far as telescopic or magnifying power could be brought to bear upon it. But because this is not the case--because the water is always more or less in.

    p. 220

    motion, not only of progression but of fluctuation and undulation, the "swells" and waves into which the surface is broken, operate to prevent the line of sight from passing absolutely parallel to the horizontal water line.

    At page 60 it is shown that the surface of the sea appears to rise up to the level or altitude of the eye; and that at a certain distance, less or greater, according to the elevation of the observer, the line of sight and the surface of the water appear to converge to a "vanishing point," which is in reality "the horizon." If this horizon were formed by the apparent junction of two perfectly stationaryparallel lines, it could, as before stated, be penetrated by a telescope of sufficient power to magnify at the distance, however great, to which any vessel had sailed. But because the surface of the sea is not stationary, the line of sight must pass over the horizon, or vanishing point, at an angle at the eye of the observer depending on the amount of "swell" in the water. This will be rendered clear by the following diagram, fig. 85.

    Fig 85
    Fig. 85.

    Let C, D, represent the horizontal surface of the water. By the law of perspective operating without interferencefrom any local cause, the surface will appear to ascend to the point B, which is the horizon, or vanishing point to the observer at A; but because the water undulates, the line A, B, of necessity becomes A, H, S, and the angular direction of this line becomes

    p. 221

    less or greater if the "swell" at H increases or diminishes. Hence when a ship has reached the point H, the horizon; the line of sight begins to cut the rigging higher and higher towards the mast-head, as the vessel more and more recedes. In such a position a telescope will enlarge and render more visible all that part of the rigging which is above the line A, H, S, but cannot possibly restore that part including the hull, which is below it. The waves at the point H, whatever their real magnitude may be, are magnified and rendered more obstructive by the very instrument (the telescope), which is employed to make the objects beyond more plainly visible; and thus the phenomenon is often very strikingly observed, that while a powerful telescope will render the sails and rigging of a ship beyond the horizon H, so distinct that the different kinds of rope can be readily distinguished, not the slightest portion of the hull, large and solid as it is, can be seen. The "crested waters" form a barrier to the horizontal line of sight as substantial as would the summit of an intervening rock. And because the watery barrier is magnified and practically increased by the telescope, the paradoxical condition arises, that the greater the power of the instrument the less can be seen with it.

    Thus have we ascertained by a simple Zetetic process, regardless of all theories, and irrespective of consequences, that the disappearance of the hull of an outward bound vessel is the natural result of the law of perspective operating on a plane surface, but modified by the mobility of the water; and has logically no actual connection with the doctrine of the earth's rotundity. All that can be said for it is, that such a phenomenon would exist if the earth were a globe; but it cannot be employed as a proof that the assumption of rotundity is correct.


    And it's quite interesting that the body of water appears to be flat until a certain distance, where the water seem to drop, apparently by a vast amount. Are you accounting for atmospheric refraction? Oh that wouldn't be an issued at all in either image, would it. Only for images like this.



    Wait. Are you quoting an unproven - unsourced book from 1881, from someone’s who wasn’t proven wrong by a surveyor on the Bedford level - and makes assertions that are at odds with modern science, geometry and the laws of perspective?
    JoesephZombieguy1987
  • @Gooberry

    Oh dear he’s back to quoting his poster boy the Victorian fruitcake Rowbotham who was proved to be an idiot by Wallace a very long time ago yet the flathead persists , talk about flogging a dead horse 
  • Joeseph said:
    @Gooberry

    Oh dear he’s back to quoting his poster boy the Victorian fruitcake Rowbotham who was proved to be an idiot by Wallace a very long time ago yet the flathead persists , talk about flogging a dead horse 
    I like that Rowbothams math requires two parallel lines to touch.


    Also, yet another example of Erf asserting without any evidence that the reason the earth invariably looks like a sphere in every observation is because it’s flat.

    You can’t even make this stuff up any more. It’s hilarious.
  • Joeseph said:
    @Gooberry

    Oh dear he’s back to quoting his poster boy the Victorian fruitcake Rowbotham who was proved to be an idiot by Wallace a very long time ago yet the flathead persists , talk about flogging a dead horse 
    Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other
    Zombieguy1987Joeseph
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Gooberry said:
    Joeseph said:
    @Gooberry

    Oh dear he’s back to quoting his poster boy the Victorian fruitcake Rowbotham who was proved to be an idiot by Wallace a very long time ago yet the flathead persists , talk about flogging a dead horse 
    I like that Rowbothams math requires two parallel lines to touch.


    Also, yet another example of Erf asserting without any evidence that the reason the earth invariably looks like a sphere in every observation is because it’s flat.

    You can’t even make this stuff up any more. It’s hilarious.

    Zombieguy1987
    11.jpg 142.5K
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:
    Joeseph said:
    @Gooberry

    Oh dear he’s back to quoting his poster boy the Victorian fruitcake Rowbotham who was proved to be an idiot by Wallace a very long time ago yet the flathead persists , talk about flogging a dead horse 
    I like that Rowbothams math requires two parallel lines to touch.


    Also, yet another example of Erf asserting without any evidence that the reason the earth invariably looks like a sphere in every observation is because it’s flat.

    You can’t even make this stuff up any more. It’s hilarious.


    Posting an image that doesn’t show two parallel lines touching, nor the sea, nor objects disappearing over the horizon doesn’t show that two parallel lines can intersect in order to make objects appear to disappear below the horizon at sea.

    Zombieguy1987


  • Excerpt from the English - Flatearther dictionary.

    Demonstrate. (Verb). To deliberately ignore, and obfuscate to give a rhetorical pretext for ignoring people’s later comments.

    eg: “Erf said he would demonstrate that a video was fake: instead he ignored every video posted and simply copy pasted a chapter of a book written in 1881 without any references, context, explanation or justification as to how the chapter even applies or is even relevant, nor why it should be viewed as legitimate given the writer was referred to as a “charlatan” by scientific contemporaries. He did this because his position is vacuous and without merit, but he needs to throw something long at his opponents to maintain a facade that he has a valid position before he inevitably resorting to assertions that the plaurized pages lazily copy pasted constitute proof, so he can continue to refuse producing any scientific evidence for his claims”
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Erfisflat

    You say ....Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other

    My reply ..... If you feel that strongly about it maybe you should stop doing it ?

    incidentally what I said about Rowbotham is factual he was a recognised fruitcake and Wallace proved this , also you are indeed flogging a dead horse but self awareness is a trait you lack so lazily you resort to lying again and claim what I say is fallacious, do you ever get sick of being wrong?

    Zombieguy1987
  • Gooberry said:


    Excerpt from the English - Flatearther dictionary.

    Demonstrate. (Verb). To deliberately ignore, and obfuscate to give a rhetorical pretext for ignoring people’s later comments.

    eg: “Erf said he would demonstrate that a video was fake: instead he ignored every video posted and simply copy pasted a chapter of a book written in 1881 without any references, context, explanation or justification as to how the chapter even applies or is even relevant, nor why it should be viewed as legitimate given the writer was referred to as a “charlatan” by scientific contemporaries. He did this because his position is vacuous and without merit, but he needs to throw something long at his opponents to maintain a facade that he has a valid position before he inevitably resorting to assertions that the plaurized pages lazily copy pasted constitute proof, so he can continue to refuse producing any scientific evidence for his claims”
    You seem to be confused. The chapter was directed at your images. The rebuttal to your videos post is in progress. I simply don't have as much time in my day as you appear to. Nonetheless, you still use ad hominem, whether it be yours or "scientific contemporaries" ad hominem. You choose to ignore the chapter because it is scientifically and logically sound and irrefutable.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @Gooberry it seems that you have the need to attack me before you even realize what's going on. You are one of the most harrassing people I've ever met. How many people do you tell that you stalk a flat earther, just to dishonestly spar with him? 

    I think you are insecure.
    Zombieguy1987
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Joeseph said:
    @Erfisflat

    You say ....Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other

    My reply ..... If you feel that strongly about it maybe you should stop doing it ?

    incidentally what I said about Rowbotham is factual he was a recognised fruitcake and Wallace proved this , also you are indeed flogging a dead horse but self awareness is a trait you lack so lazily you resort to lying again and claim what I say is fallacious, do you ever get sick of being wrong?

    How exactly did "Wallace prove this"?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Erfisflat said:
    Gooberry said:


    Excerpt from the English - Flatearther dictionary.

    Demonstrate. (Verb). To deliberately ignore, and obfuscate to give a rhetorical pretext for ignoring people’s later comments.

    eg: “Erf said he would demonstrate that a video was fake: instead he ignored every video posted and simply copy pasted a chapter of a book written in 1881 without any references, context, explanation or justification as to how the chapter even applies or is even relevant, nor why it should be viewed as legitimate given the writer was referred to as a “charlatan” by scientific contemporaries. He did this because his position is vacuous and without merit, but he needs to throw something long at his opponents to maintain a facade that he has a valid position before he inevitably resorting to assertions that the plaurized pages lazily copy pasted constitute proof, so he can continue to refuse producing any scientific evidence for his claims”
    You seem to be confused. The chapter was directed at your images. The rebuttal to your videos post is in progress. I simply don't have as much time in my day as you appear to. Nonetheless, you still use ad hominem, whether it be yours or "scientific contemporaries" ad hominem. You choose to ignore the chapter because it is scientifically and logically sound and irrefutable.
    I chose to mostly just skirt the chapter As/

    - you don’t explain why its relevant
    - you don’t provided any summary or explanation of what to even is.
    - it contains no citations, and itself is not published as a reputable source
    - dropping a chapter of a book because you’re not lazy, and then expect everyone to refute it is not how debate, science, or a valid conversation works.
    - you won’t provide any reasons it is irrefutable, any measurements to confirm it nor any experiment to validate it, nor does the article
    - the article assumes two parallel lines: a site line, and the ground line literally meet. 
    - it was written by someone regarded as a charlatan by his contemporaries, and a cursory google search reveal no validating experiment one measurements.


    You have no answer to the evidence: and instead of actually making an argument, you copy and paste some obvious nonsense from very a 140 year old book, that you won’t justify, annotated or defend.

    Its as if you don’t want to actually defend anything, just throw whatever nonsense you can at the real scientists and pretend you’ve made an argument.


    Also: attacking the validity of a source is not an ad hominem.

    As you provided the source, it’s up to you to defend the validity of that source, which you don’t seem to want to do (it’s like you don’t want to defend what you claim!)


    Note: telling us how irrefutable the paper is, without any explanation is what is referred to as an assertion.






     


  • https://www.energymuse.com/blog/beginners-guide-to-healing-crystals/

    This is a blog on healing crystals.

    This is irrefutable proof the earth is a sphere.

    Any attacks on this source will be considered an Ad-hominem.

  • Erfisflat said:
    Joeseph said:
    @Erfisflat

    You say ....Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other

    My reply ..... If you feel that strongly about it maybe you should stop doing it ?

    incidentally what I said about Rowbotham is factual he was a recognised fruitcake and Wallace proved this , also you are indeed flogging a dead horse but self awareness is a trait you lack so lazily you resort to lying again and claim what I say is fallacious, do you ever get sick of being wrong?

    How exactly did "Wallace prove this"?

    Great question!

    I’ve already mentioned it about 4829148382 times.

    Surveyors know that the lapse rate of air produces downward refraction near the surface - especially above water. One surveyor realized this made the beford level look flatter because light just above the surface was beings refracted.

    As light travelling higher above the earth isnt refracted as much, Wallace’s played fixed length poles at specific locations. While the level would look flat due rock refraction - the higher poles would not be refracted, and the pole in the middle would be higher than the ones either side: you see this effect in lake pontechartrain. And I pointed it out in the mobile bay video you said didn’t show curvature but did.

    Wallace won the bet: but for some reason the “flat earther” wouldnt accept the result, issued death threats, sued, publicaly pushed pamphlets calling wallace a liar and a fraud.

    Kinda makes me think of  the type of think you would do if you lived in the 1800s, and had money.


    Zombieguy1987
  • Erfisflat said:
    @Gooberry it seems that you have the need to attack me before you even realize what's going on. You are one of the most harrassing people I've ever met. How many people do you tell that you stalk a flat earther, just to dishonestly spar with him? 

    I think you are insecure.

    JoesephErfisflat
  • JoesephJoeseph 479 Pts
    edited September 26
    @Erfisflat

    Really? You want the whole history of the event posted up yet again ? This has been posted up ad nauseum and all you do is parrot the same debunked reply again and again so why not save yourself time and go through our previous debate where I thrashed you by 70 - 30 ? 


    Update I see @Gooberry has patiently posted up a reply for you to deny again , is it not time for you to don your top hat and get on your penny farthing to perambulate your way to to the metropolis as it appears your arguments like you are stuck in a Victorian time warp 


    A demonstration below of @Erfisflat demonstrating the tricky dismounting of his favourite mode of transportation to his Victorian Flatards .....


    Zombieguy1987
  • @Erfisflat

    Just briefly, if you pay attention, I spend 99.9% of my time attacking your arguments, the way you present your arguments and trends, tactics, and general behaviour in the arguments you have provided. I often do it with mockery and a rhetorical flourish: but it’s your arguments (or lack there of that I’m attacking).

    The 0.1% are the odd time I call you a cretin. And I will place my hand on my heart and pledge to you - that it’s accurate, and I’m probably going to do it again.

    Here, I was pointing out that your argument is incoherent - you implied that it’s illogical to assume multiple videos are fakes - whilst assuming multiple videos are fakes when it comes to a spherical earth.

    With a healthy amount of mockery for you position - which it deserves as your arguments in defense of flat earth are a list of assertions where you effectively say the earth looks like a sphere - because the earth is flat. (And then contradict yourself by claiming that there is no observation where the earth looks like a sphere).

    But anyhoo: long story short - you may not like it, but I attack your arguments. I do it a lot, I do it consistently, and thus far you are barely able to respond to any of it.


    It may make you feel better to tell yourself that, say, I didn’t write multiple dissproofs of flat earth based on geometry, or that I didn’t resoundingly beat you in multiple debates, or that you - as yet - have acknowledged multiple issues: and any argument to the contrary is just “me attacking you”. But that’s not true.

    Thus far, you’ve started dozens of forum posts, and getting up towatds 100 debates on the subject of flat earth.

    You seem to be opportunistically looking for naive or less experienced people that you can win against by bombarding them with the same
    8 arguments and 8 replies you’ve been using for the last 4 years.


    Also, when you ask me a question about details or specifics - you can’t shut me up. I’ll do pages, provides maths, link experiments, explain how Wallace proved Rowbotham wrong, etc.

    When we ask you questions, you’re slippery and evasive, if you even respond.

    So it strikes me that when it comes to issues of insecurity Methinks the lady doth protest too much.





    Zombieguy1987Joeseph
  • Gooberry said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Joeseph said:
    @Erfisflat

    You say ....Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other

    My reply ..... If you feel that strongly about it maybe you should stop doing it ?

    incidentally what I said about Rowbotham is factual he was a recognised fruitcake and Wallace proved this , also you are indeed flogging a dead horse but self awareness is a trait you lack so lazily you resort to lying again and claim what I say is fallacious, do you ever get sick of being wrong?

    How exactly did "Wallace prove this"?

    Great question!

    I’ve already mentioned it about 4829148382 times.

    Surveyors know that the lapse rate of air produces downward refraction near the surface - especially above water. One surveyor realized this made the beford level look flatter because light just above the surface was beings refracted.

    As light travelling higher above the earth isnt refracted as much, Wallace’s played fixed length poles at specific locations. While the level would look flat due rock refraction - the higher poles would not be refracted, and the pole in the middle would be higher than the ones either side: you see this effect in lake pontechartrain. And I pointed it out in the mobile bay video you said didn’t show curvature but did.

    Wallace won the bet: but for some reason the “flat earther” wouldnt accept the result, issued death threats, sued, publicaly pushed pamphlets calling wallace a liar and a fraud.

    Kinda makes me think of  the type of think you would do if you lived in the 1800s, and had money.


    So, without supporting evidence, you assert, once again, that "surveyors know" that the lapse rate of air produces downward refraction near the surface - especially above water. Why do they assume this? 

    According to the official documents from wallace about the event, the center flag was at the same distance from the water, despite your assertion:

    "The iron parapet of Welney bridge was thirteen feet three inches above the water of the canal. The Old Bedford bridge, about six miles off, was of brick and somewhat higher. On this bridge I fixed a large sheet of white calico, six feet long and three feet deep, with a thick black band along the centre, the lower edge of which was the same height from the water as the parapet of Welney bridge; so that the centre of it would be as high as the line of sight of the large six-inch telescope I had brought with me. At the centre point, about three miles from each bridge, I fixed up a long pole with two red discs on it, the upper one having its centre the same height above the water as the centre of the black band and of the telescope, while the second disc was four feet lower down. It is evident that if the surface of the water is a perfectly straight line for the six miles, then the three objects—the telescope, the top disc, and the black band—being all exactly the same height above the water, the disc would be seen in the telescope projected upon the black band; whereas, if the six-mile surface of the water is convexly curved, then the top disc would appear to be decidedly higher than the black band, the amount due to the known size of the earth being five feet eight inches, which amount will be reduced a little by refraction to perhaps about five feet."

    So, you are probably making it up as you go.

    Also, please clarify what "while the level would look flat due rock refraction".

    You actually got a trophy for this unsourced and baseless claim!
    Gooberry
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • @Erfisflat

    Okay let’s play a game. Let’s make it interesting.

    You basically claim that basic history, or commonly known physics is “unsupported assumption”.

    This is because you don’t normally have much of an ability to actually logically defend you’re position, so you use it as a rhetorical ploy to make it sound like youve made an argument.

    So, here’s the game. When I cite stuff: when it’s fairly common information or basic comfortable history - I won’t post a link.



    How about every time you claim that basic science that I quote is “unsupported assertion”, if I can then post this basic science: you agree that I can call you a dishonest retard?


    Sound fair?


    At least it will stop you from throwing “omg unsupported assertion” around every time I claim 7 is greater than 8 without posting ten links.


    Zombieguy1987
  • @Erfisflat

    “According to the official documents from wallace about the event, the center flag was at the same distance from the water, despite your assertion:”

    Yes: that’s what I said. Perhaps you didn’t understand what I meant by “fixed length poles” - a fixed length above the water. Or what I meant by the poles being higher above the water aren’t refracted as much. Or when I said the pole in the middle is higher?


    It’s as if you’re deliberately trying to misrepresent what I’ve said - I say deliberately because I’ve described this point many times before, and your excerpt describes exactly what I’m talking about - and yet you tell us all I’m making an assertion?


    It’s like you use the words but don’t know what they mean.


    This should also cover the basics of the refraction I’m talking about - and have provided visual examples of.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#Terrestrial_refraction

  • Gooberry said:
    @Erfisflat

    “According to the official documents from wallace about the event, the center flag was at the same distance from the water, despite your assertion:”

    Yes: that’s what I said. Perhaps you didn’t understand what I meant by “fixed length poles” - a fixed length above the water. Or what I meant by the poles being higher above the water aren’t refracted as much. Or when I said the pole in the middle is higher?


    It’s as if you’re deliberately trying to misrepresent what I’ve said - I say deliberately because I’ve described this point many times before, and your excerpt describes exactly what I’m talking about - and yet you tell us all I’m making an assertion?


    It’s like you use the words but don’t know what they mean.


    This should also cover the basics of the refraction I’m talking about - and have provided visual examples of.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction#Terrestrial_refraction

    And these visual examples are... Do you have any scientific evidence to support this claim?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    https://www.gofundme.com/mwmvf-is-the-earth-flat

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch