cmon astral

It proves the sinking ship effect hasn't been debunked because it has been observed.

it proves that when u watch a ship go out to sea and watch it disappear bottom first its not going over the curve cause u can zoom in and see the ship still after it has fully disappeared

i mean u can do it at the beach go watch a ship sail out it will disappear pull out ur camera and you can bring the boat back into view

i dont think anyone is debating that anymore

thats an observable fact

Yes, you can do that, but once it passes the horizon line, it doesn't work anymore

that was the proof though before there was telescopes or zoom cameras

And we still observe that with optics

it wont work anymore becuase u cant see forever they heliocentric model has u gassed up thinkin u can see forever

u think u can see 300 light years away lol

polaris

It doesn't have anything to do with seeing forever. Just that when ships go out to sea, they reach a cutoff point and start to appear to sink.
The examples of bringing them back is just when it is far away but still in front of the horizon and the angular resolution has it unresolved so you need to zoom in to get a full view. But once you get a full view, you wait, and it starts dropping bottom first.

yes just like it did when u were watching it with no optics becuase even the zoom camera cant see forever

Not when it is in full resolved view, there is no reason for it to drop bottom first. It would have to go into a tiny diffracted blur again.
But the horizon cutoff line is too close for that to be the case for the cameras we have today, unfortunately for that explanation.

Well what about when u watch with no camera and it drops bottom first

Idk I feel like boats going over the curve has been debunked that was the proof before telescopes and zoom cameras

The angular resolution of the eye is probably just enough for the horizon at 3 miles at 6 foot observer height, where the angle of view is shallow to the point of the resolution angle.
In other words, just with your eyes, it is very hard to tell.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DirtyLiquidBlackbird-size_restricted.gif

Angular resolution is limited by diffraction. Diffraction is dependent on wavelength and arpeture size, defraction results in image blur, not disappearing of objects bottom first.

Well before we start talking about ships going over a hill of water we should first prove water curves.

Diffraction is also only significant with very large F numbers (extremely small arpeture sizes) or very large distances/objects with very small angular size.

The "sinking ship effect" is supposed to be evidence of water curving

Yeah I know but it’s up for debate so

gravitational pull curves water. as fluids do not have a fixed shape, they curve based on the surface

Have to prove gravity

So what's your alternative @jeremy ? Because curvature already explains our observations perfectly.

we've observed gravity enough times. whats your explanation?

I just wanna see the experiment where 2 objects of mass are drawn together because of their mass alone

So you don't have an alternate? Got it.

It’s a bold claim I just wanna see proof

I mean, we see obstruction, simplest explanation is that a bulge of water is obstructing the bottom of the ship

uranus and neptune. they discovered neptune after observing the orbit of uranus, and found out that there had to be another large mass distrubing it.

i heard that flat earthers replace gravity with buoyancy. is that true? @jeremy

Astral we see the ship being obstructed with our eyes

Then we zoom in and their it is

You said ships disappearing over the horizon has been debunked big time. And now you can't provide an alternative explanation that comes remotely close to describing what we see?

I’m not a flat earther

oh

then why are you fighting against the globe?

I’m saying it’s due to perspective