[geocentrism] Re: Ships Hull for Regner

  • From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:12:05 -0000

Dear Steven,
Could it be that the horizon (below the cross hairs) is too small to resolve as 
per the hull on it?


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steven Jones 
  To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 4:57 PM
  Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Ships Hull for Regner

  Hi Phillip,

  But the elevated view position is simply the laws of perspective again. 
Further, why is the following true:

  1. Observe with weak binoculars (5x) a ship disappearing until the hull is 
out of site
  2. Take a powerful landscape telescope (100x) and you'll see the hull is 
straight back in view again.
  3. If the powerful telescope is mercury leveled, and it has cross-hairs 
etched in the centre then why do we not see the horizon below the cross-hairs? 
The reality is, it's above!

  Proving the convexity of the Earth is going to be much harder than this, 
please try again all of you, I'm very interested.

  Best Wishes,


Other related posts: