The claim is that nobody has ever done that

Lol no way, cruise lines do this everyday

The explanai on for ships disappearing over the horizon keeps changing also as I point out he doesn't know how refraction on lenses works.

Fixed.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Aug 23 2016 01:28pm

Still laughing about your claim that water vapor causes ships to disappear over the horizon. You can just test that with a small ship in an Olympic sized pool, but never-mind, that's asking you to actually do work to confirm your claim. We both know you aren't willing to do any more work than it takes to watch youtube videos.

yes cause a 164 foot pool allows the same amount of refraction as viewing miles and miles of water evaporation. Sounds like you did your research in the bathtub.



Also your statement shows you dont understand anything i say because ships dont go over the horizon, the horizon is the limit of sight and it appears closer because of the refraction of seeing miles of evaporation. To test to see if this statement is true, you shouldn't be testing in a pool, show me the exact same effect of a tall truck going over the land horizon.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Aug 23 2016 01:45pm

The effect would still be visible using a scale model. Using a 1 ft tall ship to simulate a super tanker you would have an effective pool length (scaled up) of 46 miles. So go do the test if you're confident. Just so you know, if you see the bottom of the ship down the pool over the waves that means you're wrong.

The only caveat is you would need a pretty still pool to not obstruct the bottom just from waves, but that should be easy enough if you could get an unused olympic size pool.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Aug 23 2016 01:46pm

water molecules don't scale down, which is im assuming what he means.

I mean its nonsense but the ship/pool scale doesn't really effect what he's saying I don't think, keep in mind i have no idea what he's talking about.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Aug 23 2016 01:47pm

No, because the refraction over a body of water is the result of the cummulative effect of that refraction, its like try to see through fog, is your vision the same seeing through 164 feet of fog and seeing through 20,000 feet of fog?

Basically he is saying that water vapor coming off the ocean refracts light and makes it look like the water is higher, covering the bottom of the ship. It's not an effect of a curved globe, it's an effect of the water acting like a lens.

It's total bullshit, and just shows he doesn't know how a lens works, but he tends to back off after I give him a simple experiment to disprove what he says. Last time he told me that it was caused by the binocular lenses apparently raising the water. I told him to go out on a blacktop with a basketball and test, so since he isn't going to actually take the time to do anything to confirm or refute his idea he dropped it like a hot potato.



Except refraction is nothing like fog.

If you're saying that the water vapor coming off the ocean creates a fog that obscures the bottom of the ship then you're just wrong. You can get a telescope or binoculars and see waves obscuring the bottom of the ship higher and higher as it goes out, not some kind of dense fog.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Aug 23 2016 01:52pm