OOAK Table Tennis Forum

Of course you'll start to see it again - with a zoom lens as it's coming back in to your field of vision.

Convergence happens when it goes out your field of vision.

I watched a few vids last night taken from the beach zooming in to boats and out again.

With the naked eye most of them were not visible but with the magnification they came back in to view.

So when you see ships disappear it's taken for granted by many they disappear over the horizon.

Modern zoom cameras show this not to be the case.

Of course were the boats to travel say 10 miles plus away from shore - unlikely a zoom lens will have the magnification to pick them up again unless it's a very clear day.

No, they go over the horizon when you see the bottom half has gone below the horizon and you can see it when zoomed in so much the part of the boat above the horizon is so big you can see details. If they "disappear" because you zoom out that isn't going over the horizon, nor does anyone claim such boats have gone over the horizon. If the boat hasn't gone over the horizon, you can clearly see the horizon BEHIND the boat when you zoom in.

Like this.



I don't see how ANYONE can fail to acknowledge that THIS boat's hull is over the horizon. Not if you're being honest and open minded.



Mac, you still haven't told us whether you've actually tried the experiment of putting something on the ground and walking away, to see if the bottom half actually does disappear. It shouldn't matter if you zoom in or not, in the case of the above photo they HAVE zoomed in, the hull didn't "come back" even though the sails did. If distance really does cause the bottom of objects to disappear (what Ranty was trying to demonstrate) then they should disappear whether or not you have a P900 with you. They don't.

Iskandar

I have tried various experiments looking at different objects in a field.

They do not disappear as you walk away but converge somewhat so you see less of them.

I watched a video with I think it was Bill Ny who said when you see ships sail out and disappear they are going over the horizon,proving there is curvature. I can try and find it if required.

Mac even with this answer of yours you could understand that, what is triggering your interest in flat earth theory, is not the theory itself but the charm of revealing some kind of conspiracy.You are fond of feeling like an uncoventional activist regardless the theory.
What is triggering my interest is the behaviour of people like you.Not the theory itself.
if you read my messages , i am not questioning so much about the flat earth theory.I am questioning why you avoid to give straight answers to questions.Why you dont want to make a dialogue with the rules of dialogue.

*facepalm*

A "field"? Like a field 10 miles wide? Or a field 100 metres? Do you genuinely expect to see the curvature of an earth with a diameter of 12, 742 km (7, 917 miles) in a field?

FWIW. at a distance of 100 m. the curvature is so negligible as to appear non-existant. No one, repeat no one, claims objects start to disappear in a field. Please don't be a moron and suggest otherwise.

That's right! Well done! For them to approach the horizon - estimating that you're a male of average height - the object would need to be 4.8 km (almost 3 miles) away. Is that how far away you walked from said object? Did you have a telescope so you could see the towel you'd put on the ground?

Again, just to help you with the difficult task of thinking, when you say "so you see less of them", do you mean they looked smaller? I think every single one of us would expect that. I also think that we could "zoom in" and they would look bigger. But looking smaller (or bigger) is not the same as being beyond the horizon. Think, mac. Use that giant, planet-sized brain of yours.

To this point, you're not doing experiments with any degree of scientific rigour. You're making stuff up and expecting us to believe you know what you're talking about.

I have to admire the patience of some of the forum members. If someone said to me that unicorns are real but that their existence has been covered up by the government I would expect them to provide concrete evidence to substantiate their claim. Fringe conspiracy theorists don’t work like that. They make absurd claims supported by minimal, usually anecdotal evidence and expect others to waste their time refuting it. Also, to suggest that the closure of a 55 page nearly 4 year old thread is tantamount to censorship is a bit rich. I think the forums mods have been incredibly tolerant. Discussion of a wide range of topics has to be moderated to maintain civility and uphold the integrity and reputation of forums and it’s completely up to the site owner/mods to determine what is in the best interest of the forum. Same goes for trolling. I’m not suggesting that it should be closed. I’m not personally offended or inconvenienced by it. In fact it’s occasionally been entertaining. But after all this is a sports/hobby forum and as a mod on another forum I do understand their position.

_________________
2. S&T Black & White / Armstrong SH-I 1.8 / TSP Curl P3 Alpha R OX

That objects appear "smaller" the further away you get from them, and look "bigger" if you use a telescope or a camera with a telephoto lens isn't the issue - it's whether the BOTTOMS of objects disappear before the tops do. And as you can see from the photo I posted, it definitely does happen when a boat (or other object) goes over the horizon. Ranty tried to prove that the bottom of objects disappear simply when you get further away from them, but as you can see, it doesn't happen. Here's "SciManDan" and "Conspiracy Catz" close up.



And here they are 100 meters away (as seen though the viewfinder of a P900):



As you can see, the bottoms don't disappear. Note how he puts the camera on the ground - apparently Ranty was telling everyone that objects disappear from the bottom up due to "angle of attack" when the observer is close to the ground. Obviously does not work (until the object is far enough that it IS over the horizon - of course putting the camera on the ground WOULD bring the horizon in closer).



I've no idea who this person is or what he actually said, but I'm pretty sure he MEANT ships disappearing over the horizon, not just getting too small to see.

Iskandar

-The farthest object visible with the naked eye is the Andromeda galaxy, located an astonishing 2.6 million light-years from Earth.

-In standard atmospheric conditions, for an observer with eye level above sea level by 1.70 metres (5 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of about 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).

If you believe only in your eyes, how it is possible to see andromeda which is 2.6 million light-years from Earth and not a ship few miles from you.

I watched this 3 minute clip last night. It shows the Brisbane skyline from a claimed 47 kms away.

Notice the boat disappears completely from view but when he zooms in to the city skyline the whole of the boat reappears again.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=93TzAQP5RY0

Ship is not over the horizon.Its more than obvious.
Visibility is very low.
Also Brisbane appears when zoomed in and disappears when zoomed out.
Video is not taken at sea level.More than obvious too.
You must not be serious to post such videos to back your theory up.
What should the next video be? A Cartoon?
Could you please answer to my above post?

ps. other videos of the guy posted your videos..
-Positively False, HIV AIDS - Birth of a Heresy (Question Everything)
-Evolution is impossible and nobody understands it (Odiupicku)
-The LGBT Agenda (EvenAtTheDoors)
-William Shatner says Science and Science Fiction are the same
-whatever

Not sure what your point is?

its a bit childish question and a bit childish obseravtion.I am trying to think like a child and forget science in order to ask you this question. but since you believe only in your eyes i am trying to figure out why you believe in the surface of sea a human has limited vision concearning the horizon and why he has not the same limitation when he looks andromeda.

I see things up close well and as they get further away they become less clear and eventually disappear from my view.

As to your other point i cannot verify this distance nor can i verify other such vast distances that boggle the mind.

the fact that as you go further from an object you see it smaller its obvious for anyone and has nothing to do with flat earth.
objects disappear over the horizon. Its also a bit strange that you accept the existance and the explanation of the horizon and you dont accept that objects disappear over the horizon.And you cant recall them by zooming in.Its an easy test you can do by yourself and you dont need to watch videos from guys that they deny anything in general.
For the second part.. you mean that maybe Andromeda is not in the distance they say? You mean that Andromeda maybe is fictional?I really dont get you here..
You say that you cant verify distances that boggle your mind?Is'nt it a bit stupid to base your whole life theory in facts that dont boggle the mind?Is'nt it a bit stupid to deny anything you cant do?
Cant you see that science deals only with things that boggle the mind?And tries to resolve them by squeezing really capable brains in order to achieve even a small step?

And what about the photo that birchamboi posted with the sunset that the sun is 50% behind the horizon.You never responded.It is something that you surely saw sometimes by yourself.You think that with a superzoom you will be able to see the whole of the sun?

Beautiful photo.

The sun subtends half a degree of arc (and so, coincidentally, does the moon, which is why we get such nice solar eclipses). So from left to right this photo subtends 1.5 degrees. This was taken with either an extreme telephoto (or zoom) lens or with a telescope. Probably with a solar filter as well. In other words, you CAN'T zoom in any more, and the lower half of the sun isn't "coming back". Actually, since this is dawn, if you wait 1 minute the sun will climb enough (0.25 degree) that you'll see the whole disc. Impossible on a flat earth since the sun is supposedly circling above and should NEVER set.

Iskandar