Of course. When things are too far off, they become 'too small' to see.
This and a ship dipping behind the horizon aren't mutually exclusive, but they also aren't the same thing. A ship can be behind the horizon partially. Looking at it through binocs doesn't magically cause it to 'resurface', if you will. As far as I'm aware, light doesn't curve around the earth in any meaningful way. (Earth's gravity has a miniscule effect on light's trajectory)
I can't tell you off the top of my head just how far it'd have to be to make a visible difference.
On the topic of Newton, though, it was a theory in his time, but after years upon years of his math checking out, one can start taking it as fact. Gravity has been proven to affect both light, time and even space, which we previously thought were immutable constants.
Also, a scientific 'theory' and a hypothesis are often confused. Theories are (as far as I'm aware) accepted as fact, whereas hypotheses are not.
Of course. When things are too far off, they become 'too small' to see. This and a ship dipping behind the horizon aren't mutually exclusive, but they also aren't the same thing. A ship can be behind the horizon partially. Looking at it through binocs doesn't magically cause it to 'resurface', if you will. As far as I'm aware, light doesn't curve around the earth in any meaningful way. (Earth's gravity has a miniscule effect on light's trajectory)
I can't tell you off the top of my head just how far it'd have to be to make a visible difference.
On the topic of Newton, though, it was a theory in his time, but after years upon years of his math checking out, one can start taking it as fact. Gravity has been proven to affect both light, time and even space, which we previously thought were immutable constants.
Also, a scientific 'theory' and a hypothesis are often confused. Theories are (as far as I'm aware) accepted as fact, whereas hypotheses are not.
Because the human brain likes to see patterns where there are not any.