Ships Disappearing Over Horizon - Experiments to propose an Alternative Hypothesis.

These videos are not meant to prove anything or refute anything, but just to provide an alternative hypothesis. When multiple reasonable hypothesis exist, then this opens up the topic to further research and testing.

Very simply, these experiments are done to see if there are any other phenomena that may be present that creates the appearance of ships disappearing behind the horizon. The first experiment was done by a Joseph Klimera. I saw several problems or questions that I had with his test, so I set off to replicate my own. The second video is my first experiment that I conducted. I commented on Joseph's video of his own experiment that I was unable to replicate his results. This was last night (July 23rd 2015). Today I took an objective look at my experiment and realized that I had made an error, or that there was something else that I had not tested. I reformed this experiment today (July 24th 2015), and even halfway through that experiment, I had not noticed the results.

Halfway through my second experiment, I noticed the signs of the phenomena that I was experimenting for. This point is easily noticeable in my video. Propelled to refine my experiment even more, I conducted my own third experiment. I believe that the results speak for themselves.

Again, before I link this video, I am not making any claims about what they prove or disprove. I claim nothing of the sort, but am just proposing alternative possibilities to the normal thought process of this phenomena. There are still some things that I want to test futher, different shaped containers, and different distances, so my experiments are not finished. But, Joseph Klimera did design an experiment that is able to be replicated and critiqued.


Joseph Klimera's first experiment - www.youtube.com...
- In this experiment, I am skeptical because the viewer is not sure if he has dropped the camera below the countertop or not. This plus the shaky nature of the camera prodded me to design my own test.

My first experiment and second both on same video - www.youtube.com...
- In the first experiment, I was using my tripod and holding the camera upside down close to the table. I was unahappy with the results and thought that they showed nothing. My second experiment, I see more of the phenomena because I back the objects away from the "lens". In the second experiment, I just slide the camera along the tabletop. I noticed the results about halfway through this test.

My third experiment - www.youtube.com...
- In my third experiment, I set my tripod up at the end of the table, and only move the container (which was creating a lens).


Conclusions
- It seems as if the water and container create a lens distortion on the objects. This distortion seemed maximum about 40% away from the camera (in relation to total distance).
- I wonder if atmospheric water vapor could attest for a similar lens affect, without a container?
- Due to my similar results, this gives me confidence in Joseph's original test
- I have no proposed source of this distortion or phenomena in nature
- With confidence in this test, I propose that it be replicated under different circumstances worldwide
- I plan to test this at longer distance with telescope, or telephoto camera lens.
- Also I feel it is important to consider different shaped containers, two curved sides, single curve, as the container that I tested was double flat
- If proposing an atmospheric lens, we must evaluate the experiment with possible other attributing factors that could play into the light phenomena (chemtrails, pollution, evaporation, high or low humidity, salt spray or waves)

Thank You all....... I would definitely love your input on this phenomena that we see. One thing that I was curious about, was that it could be the bottom of the container that is creating the distortion. Please judge for yourself, but I do not think that this was a factor in the perceived differences.

=ThreeDeuce

The earth is still a big blue ball.

Still.

I'll watch the videos when I get back to my computer, but really? You're trying to say that atmospheric water vapor creates some sort of lensing effect that just fools everyone into thinking they see the curvature of the Earth? Smh.


FYI, regardless of how many times you say that you're "not making any claims", everyone here is still well-aware that you're trying to push your archaic ideas of a flat Earth.

a reply to: ThreeDeuce

Love some good ol home experiments to try and figure stuff out. Good show. I'll wait for some experts to chime in.

For the record: my feet are flat, the earth is round

a reply to: ThreeDeuce Doing real science yourself is never a bad idea. On any topic. The Earth is still round. But S&F here, upvote there.

If the earth is flat then the moon is, too? I see it flipping end over end like a giant coin in the night sky, don't you?

originally posted by: intrptr


If the earth is flat then the moon is, too? I see it flipping end over end like a giant coin in the night sky, don't you?

Wouldn't storms that hit the end have to turn around and come back? Must be hell on those folks on either edge of the world.

The surface of the ocean is curved with the curvature of the earth. You can only see so far. This can be easily proven by adjusting your height above sea level and doing the same experiment. Try putting your head an inch above sea level, notice the range, then go up an a ladder and notice the difference.


from site...link


"Because of the curvature of our planet, the distance between you and the horizon when you look out over the ocean depends on your height above the surface of the water. The following diagram shows you how the distance to the horizon can change depending on the height of the observer:
So the distance to the horizon depends on the height of your eyes above the water. If your eyes are 8 inches (20 cm) above the water, the distance of the horizon is about 1 mile (1.6 km) away. A rough formula for calculating the distance to the horizon is:
SquareRoot(height above surface / 0.5736) = distance to horizon
where "height above surface" is in feet and "distance to horizon" is in miles. If you are 6 feet tall and standing right at the water's edge, then your eyes are about 5.5 feet above the surface. The distance to the horizon is:
SquareRoot(5.5 / 0.5736) = 3 miles
In metric, the equivalent is:
SquareRoot(height above surface / 6.752) = distance to horizon
where "height above surface" is in centimeters and "distance to horizon" is in kilometers."

You might try experimenting with a block of ice.
Warm air above a layer of very cold air can bend light too.
Have you ever been driving over a slight hill on a hot day and seen an odd
reflection of a distant car?
You might be also be observing a superior mirage, a very good explanation here www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: intrptr


If the earth is flat then the moon is, too? I see it flipping end over end like a giant coin in the night sky, don't you?

Wouldn't storms that hit the end have to turn around and come back? Must be hell on those folks on either edge of the world.

Yah, its why they used to say, don't sail to far, you'll fall off.

Why the oceans didn't drain away still confuses me to this day.

a reply to: intrptr

Why the oceans didn't drain away still confuses me to this day.

It's the waterfalls. They are all over instead of at the edge, much like one might imagine in a MC Escher drawing.

a reply to: Mandroid7

I'm not talking about the perceived height of the horizon. But, I do appreciate your comment.

originally posted by: Esarman
You might try experimenting with a block of ice.
Warm air above a layer of very cold air can bend light too.
Have you ever been driving over a slight hill on a hot day and seen an odd
reflection of a distant car?
You might be also be observing a superior mirage, a very good explanation here www.youtube.com...

Hey Esarman, your suggestion is a great one. I applaud you. I had not thought of heat differentials. Ice, warm water, hot water, etc etc. Also perhaps thermoclines between hot air and cooler water. I know that the mirages on land are formed from these thermoclines. I hadn't considered temperature at all. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Esarman, your reply should get tons of stars as it was useful and thoughtful. I'm sorry that you won't get that, because the majority of the stars will go to dissenters rather than contributors.

Ok...go out side....face east....

Start running....

See you in 80 days.

the ignorance of some people on this site is horrifying sometimes....

and im not talking about the flat earthers.

im talking about the masses with absolutely no imagination who just cant fathom things.

who cant think in ways that are out of the box.

like those who think if the earth was flat then the water would fall off the edge...

it shows how dumbed down our society has become

sad

a reply to: Another_Nut

So let's hear your reason of why no water leaves and stays in place?

Walls? Land?

What about plate tectonics? When a plate subducts, where does it go?

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity
a reply to: Another_Nut

So let's hear your reason of why no water leaves and stays in place?

Walls? Land?

What about plate tectonics? When a plate subducts, where does it go?

IF, and i say IF, the world was flat or nearly flat not much would change

first off water doesnt "stay in place" on a globe and it would be the same for a flat earth

in the flat earth idea the "edge" is antartica

nothing would change about plate tectonics that i know of

plates would still spread on a (nearly )flat earth just like a globe and subduct just the same

maybe you would enlighten me about why you think it would be different

ETA while i dont necessarily agree with flat earth i see it as a thought exercise

like in debate class when we were given topics

if i was given a topic i didnt agree with but had to be pro topic i would

this is the same thing

its the willingness to see the other side and not just be blindly "pro" anything

originally posted by: Another_Nut

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity
a reply to: Another_Nut

So let's hear your reason of why no water leaves and stays in place?

Walls? Land?

What about plate tectonics? When a plate subducts, where does it go?

IF, and i say IF, the world was flat or nearly flat not much would change

first off water doesnt "stay in place" on a globe and it would be the same for a flat earth

in the flat earth idea the "edge" is antartica

nothing would change about plate tectonics that i know of

plates would still spread on a (nearly )flat earth just like a globe and subduct just the same

maybe you would enlighten me about why you think it would be different

ETA while i dont necessarily agree with flat earth i see it as a thought exercise

like in debate class when we were given topics

if i was given a topic i didnt agree with but had to be pro topic i would

this is the same thing

its the willingness to see the other side and not just be blindly "pro" anything

Be "pro" on this. I want to hear it played out. I have read about the ideas and some things on plane flights and composite earth pics but I want to know what is the information that finally convinces someone to bye into this theory. No sarcasm

hey I got an idea!!!

take two poles each five feet long. give one to your buddy. tell him to go 20 miles down the road and find a level place to stand up your poll. meanwhile you do the same but in the opposite direction. at exactly noon both of you measure the length of the shadows on your polls. now reunite and compare results.

how are people still believing the world is flat when a simple children's experiment can prove without a shadow of a doubt its spherical.

a reply to: In4ormant

i havent bought into this idea (not theory) yet but i do find some of the ideas interesting

like with plate tectonics we have things like this...

Another useful simplification is that the kinematics of triple junctions on a flat Earth are essentially the same as those on the surface of a sphere. On a sphere, plate motions are described as relative rotations about Euler Poles (see Plate reconstruction), and the relative motion at every point along a plate boundary can be calculated from this rotation. But the area around a triple junction is small enough (relative to the size of the sphere) and (usually) far enough from the pole of rotation, that the relative motion across a boundary can be assumed to be constant along that boundary. Thus, analysis of triple junctions can usually be done on a flat surface with motions defined by vectors.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: BASSPLYR

this same experiment could be done on the surface of the superdome to get the circumference of a sphere

it would in no way mean the superdome is a sphere

this also depends on the distance to the sun

which flat earthers do not believe is the same distance distance as you do

this is just math

small sun that is closer will yield the same results as big sun farther away