*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #100 on: May 08, 2018, 08:00:26 PM »
Now, just waiting on a clear horizon. It's "June Gloom" time of year in SoCal when a low cloud cover called the marine layer persists for weeks, extending inland oftentimes over night and into late morning. It "burns off" as the day progresses (and land warms) but just moves off shore giving us clear skies but a heavy haze toward the horizon.

So I've been left with a haze or cloudy horizon; which might look like a horizon but it's false. Actual horizon is lower; hidden.

My set up: my orhogonal water level is now 1" vinyl tubing giving a better sight line (for pictures). I've got a tranverse leveler too, but that's just for making sure the cube is level for perspective/vanishing point analysis.

I stuck with twine interwoven through the grating. Found wire hard to work with and it would retain bends. I use a straight edge to adjust to twine (under tension) and can tweak its height to match the water level. Makes it much each to shoot a sighting across the two liquid reservoirs.



A solid platform that can be leveled is essential. Not carrying this stool up the mountain, so not sure what I'll use at that location.

Leveling is only necessary for the perspective part of the sighting. The water will do its own leveling. I just want the cube to be square and level too so that the vanishing lines are true and can compare with the water level sight line.

On setup, I make sure the cube is square and not sagging by measuring corner to corner. Also made sure the corners are as deep and secure in the apex connectors as possible, and zip tied all panels together so the don't come loose.

Use a pair of bubble levels (and my phone) to make sure all level in both axes, using shims under the stool legs to adjust.

Camera set up on tripod, can adjust height to gain different perspective angles, or line up with water, using guideline as a sighting aid. I prefer to take photos centered through the cube, but can shift left to overlap the two sighting tubes. It just alters the perspective.

As precise as I can be using basic items from home or hardware store, this is still a crude setup that can't measure precise angles. But all we want is to see if horizon is always at "eyelevel." I would wager that my approach is more meticulous and considered than was Samuel Rowbotham's in experiment 15.

Now, just give me a good view to the horizon and we'll see.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2018, 08:52:49 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #101 on: May 08, 2018, 08:42:39 PM »
Don't interpret these as answering the horizon question since the actual horizon is obscured by marine layer, but here are some examples of how this will be used:

Example 1 is view taken from a perspective of lining up the transverse guideline with the orthogonal water level. The camera is elevated to be "eye-level," meaning it is looking 90° to horizontal and in-line with the sighting water level. The camera is also centered laterally on the cube, so that all of the perspective lines should converge on the level line, as long as the cube is square and also horizontally leveled:



I could (and probably will) fill the water level so that it matches the half-point of the cube's elevation. It doesn't have to be, but it's easier to understand, possibly, if everything is centered.

 Example 2: the only adjustment here is to camera elevation. The cube/water level and camera centering is all the same. But now "eye-level" is with the cube centroid, which is slightly lower than the water levels. But using perspective, we can still find that the vanishing point lines converge.



It's not perfect and there is some margin for area in drawing the lines of perspective, so instead of a point, there's an area of uncertainty which I estimated by drawing a small red circle. Drawing in the perspectives lines is mainly an addition to the water level sighting line, which can also be imperfect due to the thickness of the transparent vinyl and any adhesion of the water to the inside of the tube that can add small amounts of error in the sighting line.

But I predict that horizon "rising" will be less than these margins of error/uncertainty such that even with them being accounted for, we'll see if the horizon doesn't rise to "eye-level" with increasing vantage point elevation. It may be not be definitive at 400' MSL (which is where these photos were shot), but at 700', 1100' and 1700' I anticipate less uncertainty.

If not; if the gap between "eye-level" line and the apparent horizon remains small and within the margins of error inherent in a homemade device like this, then that will score in favor of a flat earth topology.

Please...please: if there are any flat earth proponents who challenge this approach, please do so before I take actual sightings. But if you do, also explain why and maybe offer suggestions as to how to improve or correct any deficiencies in this methodology.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #102 on: May 08, 2018, 08:55:16 PM »
This is a very impressive bit of work and puts to shame the FE empiricists who are refusing to do any experiments and hiding behind things like a lack of funding - as though you're being sponsored to do any of this.

I'm interested to know what problem Tom will find with this to explain away the results when you have more conclusive ones. As you say, it would be nice if he states those before you waste your time. I honestly think he needs to conduct his own experiments - you have shown you can do this off your own back and you don't need a budget and if he's only going to believe his own experiments (or Rowbotham's) then he should do some himself.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #103 on: May 08, 2018, 09:51:03 PM »
Thanks; but even though I do hold to a prediction as to what this should demonstrate, I'm self-wary of introducing that bias into the setup or inadvertently skewing any observation just so it matches my preconceptions.

Which is why I'm strongly encouraging input beforehand vice having folks critique after the fact should results not be what some faction wants.

Ideally, it would be great if rather than depending on my observation, anyone could go out and assemble something like this and see if results differ from whatever I get. I don't even think you need an open water horizon. I think any flat plain will work as long as you can find sufficient elevation. A few stories of a building won't do given the margins of error a homemade device involves.

The cage/cube isn't necessary either. I just like the idea of mapping lines of perspective too since that's a key component of the flat earth ecplanation of "horizon." It just requires more care in squaring corners and getting the rig square to perpendicular, else the lines of perspective will point along an inclined plane.

But for just "eye-level" sighting, you don't need all that. All I suggest be added to those devices in the YouTube video is that the rig be mounted in a stable fashion rather than hand held. And if taking photos or video, have the camera stably mounted and well aligned before shooting.

An eye-level (viewline 90 degrees to perpendicular) vanishing point will rise with elevation. The question at hand is whether or not horizon line will follow and rise as well to match that horizontal vanishing point (line). FE says yes. GE says no.

Whatever the answer, it's been fun thinking it through.

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #104 on: May 09, 2018, 07:03:56 AM »
This is all very nice and demonstrates very well how perspective works in the real world, but I guess that will not impress any EnaG believer. If you look it up, they construct "perspective lines" in a very different way. First they place the vanishing point, which is given by a right-angled triangle, where the hypotenuse is the direct line between your eyes and the vanishing point. One cathetus is down from your eyes to sea level, the other one going from there to the vanishing point. The angle at the vanishing point is fixed, therefore the vanishing point is moving away if you go higher.

Everything behind this vanishing point you can't see, everything in front adopts in size so that it fits into the triangle. The angle is defined by the optical resolution of your eyes. Therefore, if you take a telescope, the angle changes and the vanishing point is moving further away, which leads to the recovery effect.

That's a kind of far-field perspective, where the Euclidean geometry is no longer valid. You demonstrate near-field perspective, which goes along with Euclidean geometry. To disprove this concept, you would need a device that goes from you to the horizon. But that's not possible. And something like railway tracks does not help, because that's give you no conclusive result. Because they are to narrow and apparently melt into a single point at the horizon and if you climb up, the horizon will indeed move away while the tracks apparently still melt into one point at the horizon.

It's a debate you can not win, because for every proof you show, they will demand another one that will set the level for you even higher...         
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 07:05:42 AM by hexagon »

Offline SiDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #105 on: May 10, 2018, 03:09:09 AM »
Very cool! I would draw a straight black vertical line on both "leveling tubes" and use the point that crosses the liquid as the guide (looks like you've just drawn two lines, one based on the middle of the liquid, one on the edge yeah? But the angle of the camera will affect both of those points). If you draw a line in exactly the same spot on both tubes it should fix that. That level line is crucial so prove you're not pointing "upwards" away from the horizon.
Quote from: Round Eyes
Long range, high altitude, potentially solar powered airplanes [...] If the planes are travelling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #106 on: May 10, 2018, 10:03:02 AM »
I would suggest ditching the flexi plastic tube, repeat the U-shaped assembly on the RHS, and link the horizontal members of each U across the cage. Then there will be just one body of water finding its level across the four corners, with each corner linked
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #107 on: May 10, 2018, 10:26:22 AM »
This is all very nice and demonstrates very well how perspective works in the real world, but I guess that will not impress any EnaG believer. If you look it up, they construct "perspective lines" in a very different way. First they place the vanishing point, which is given by a right-angled triangle, where the hypotenuse is the direct line between your eyes and the vanishing point. One cathetus is down from your eyes to sea level, the other one going from there to the vanishing point. The angle at the vanishing point is fixed, therefore the vanishing point is moving away if you go higher.

Everything behind this vanishing point you can't see, everything in front adopts in size so that it fits into the triangle. The angle is defined by the optical resolution of your eyes. Therefore, if you take a telescope, the angle changes and the vanishing point is moving further away, which leads to the recovery effect.

That's a kind of far-field perspective, where the Euclidean geometry is no longer valid. You demonstrate near-field perspective, which goes along with Euclidean geometry. To disprove this concept, you would need a device that goes from you to the horizon. But that's not possible. And something like railway tracks does not help, because that's give you no conclusive result. Because they are to narrow and apparently melt into a single point at the horizon and if you climb up, the horizon will indeed move away while the tracks apparently still melt into one point at the horizon.

It's a debate you can not win, because for every proof you show, they will demand another one that will set the level for you even higher...         

I see that someone here has actually read Earth Not a Globe.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #108 on: May 10, 2018, 03:15:15 PM »
Very cool! I would draw a straight black vertical line on both "leveling tubes" and use the point that crosses the liquid as the guide (looks like you've just drawn two lines, one based on the middle of the liquid, one on the edge yeah? But the angle of the camera will affect both of those points). If you draw a line in exactly the same spot on both tubes it should fix that. That level line is crucial so prove you're not pointing "upwards" away from the horizon.
Good idea.

I've also added some t-square stiffeners to limit any tendencies of the square to squash to a trapezoidal shape.
Added a torpedo level and a plumb bob.
Added caps to the tubes so that I didn't have to keep emptying to move and refilling to use. (Caps removed during leveling and sighting of course.)

The transverse sighting line actually tends to be more of a hindrance than an aid. Good for lining up and extending the sightline left-to-right from the two water level tubes, but then it obscures the horizon. So, I've made it so that I can adjust it a little. Use it to level, but then slide it up or down until flush with a cage othogonal wire. It'll still cross the field of view, but well above or below any possible horizon line I may observe at elevations I've chosen.

Or, I might get rid of it altogether. It's just that the best way to line up water levels is to move off center and line up the tubes. But I want shoot from the centroid, which is probably just an aesthetic choice. I want those perspective lines to be centered, if only to confirm that the whole rig is truly square and has been set up horizontally, with no introduced pitch or roll.


*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #109 on: May 10, 2018, 03:25:57 PM »
I would suggest ditching the flexi plastic tube, repeat the U-shaped assembly on the RHS, and link the horizontal members of each U across the cage. Then there will be just one body of water finding its level across the four corners, with each corner linked
I wasn't even going to put in that extra tubing. It's only there to add leveling confidence in the roll axis. But in light of the post I just made about the challenge of making a sight along the level lines, maybe that's a good idea. Without an actual horizon to shoot due to meteorological conditions, I find myself tinkering and tweaking this apparatus, so I could do that too.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #110 on: May 10, 2018, 03:33:03 PM »
This is all very nice and demonstrates very well how perspective works in the real world, but I guess that will not impress any EnaG believer. If you look it up, they construct "perspective lines" in a very different way. First they place the vanishing point, which is given by a right-angled triangle, where the hypotenuse is the direct line between your eyes and the vanishing point. One cathetus is down from your eyes to sea level, the other one going from there to the vanishing point. The angle at the vanishing point is fixed, therefore the vanishing point is moving away if you go higher.

Everything behind this vanishing point you can't see, everything in front adopts in size so that it fits into the triangle. The angle is defined by the optical resolution of your eyes. Therefore, if you take a telescope, the angle changes and the vanishing point is moving further away, which leads to the recovery effect.

That's a kind of far-field perspective, where the Euclidean geometry is no longer valid. You demonstrate near-field perspective, which goes along with Euclidean geometry. To disprove this concept, you would need a device that goes from you to the horizon. But that's not possible. And something like railway tracks does not help, because that's give you no conclusive result. Because they are to narrow and apparently melt into a single point at the horizon and if you climb up, the horizon will indeed move away while the tracks apparently still melt into one point at the horizon.

It's a debate you can not win, because for every proof you show, they will demand another one that will set the level for you even higher...         

I see that someone here has actually read Earth Not a Globe.
Well, I have too -- both editions. Can't say I understand the flat earth explanation for horizon, but for this effort, all that matters is whether or not the horizon is level with the eye, regardless of why or why not.

kasai

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #111 on: May 10, 2018, 06:10:35 PM »
...eye level would mean stand up straight and look straight out. Horizon will be at your eyes. Basically that's what eye level means.
I think we agreed that "eye-level" means straight out. We don't agree that that's where the horizon appears. That's what this discussion topic is addressing.
 
Horizon will be at straight out (no angle downward) according to flat surface earth explanation.


Horizon will be at an angle below straight out according to spherical surface explanation.


Determining if the horizon is always at eye level is the objective.

The stupid thing about all this is the reality if we did live on a flat earth is the horizon would still not be at eye level.
If I amend your diagram to show a flat plane instead of a curve and we agree that you can only see a finite distance then you'd still be looking down to as far as you can see:



The other stupid thing is that horizon dip can be measured. It is observable and the perspective lines idea makes it 4 different ways that has been shown on here recently which prove that. Why are FE people denying all this proof and if they dispute the findings they can devise their own experiments, but they don't.
Denying this proof?!?!? You're showing us a diagram, how can anyone just believe in this diagram. How would I know this is what happens. Get off this site.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #112 on: May 10, 2018, 06:17:26 PM »
Sit down before you hurt yourself.
The diagrams show the theory of why you should see horizon dip on a globe earth. The four different experiments which have been posted on here recently are the proof that the theoretical dip can be observed.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #113 on: May 11, 2018, 01:40:44 AM »
Get off this site.

Don't do that in the upper fora. Warned.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #114 on: May 11, 2018, 02:01:23 PM »
Without an actual horizon to shoot due to meteorological conditions, I find myself tinkering and tweaking this apparatus...
May be awhile before I can get a clear shot at a true horizon.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/weather/sd-me-may-gray-20180507-story.html

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #115 on: May 12, 2018, 09:24:24 PM »
I've also added some t-square stiffeners to limit any tendencies of the square to squash to a trapezoidal shape.
Added a torpedo level and a plumb bob.
Added caps to the tubes so that I didn't have to keep emptying to move and refilling to use. (Caps removed during leveling and sighting of course.)

The transverse sighting line actually tends to be more of a hindrance than an aid. Good for lining up and extending the sightline left-to-right from the two water level tubes, but then it obscures the horizon. So, I've made it so that I can adjust it a little. Use it to level, but then slide it up or down until flush with a cage othogonal wire. It'll still cross the field of view, but well above or below any possible horizon line I may observe at elevations I've chosen.

Or, I might get rid of it altogether. It's just that the best way to line up water levels is to move off center and line up the tubes. But I want shoot from the centroid, which is probably just an aesthetic choice. I want those perspective lines to be centered, if only to confirm that the whole rig is truly square and has been set up horizontally, with no introduced pitch or roll.
After over-engineering this thing, it was getting to unwieldy. I'm on v1.3.

1. I'm down to just the two large sighting tubes, connected by a single tube. I've ditched the cross-connecting tubing in favor a torpedo level and plumb bob to ensure the rig is square and level.
2. I can now break it down and build it up on site so it's more portable when hiking up to the highest planned survey point.
3. I am mounting it on angle irons, set on a cross plank that will balance nicely on a good, tripod (which also has leveling bubbles).
4. I moved the sighting tubes to the outside of the cube so that they don't obstruct the perspective lines of the cube.
5. I've got a sight line strung across the midpoint transverse that, along with the plumb bob line gives me an excellent centroid index.

I've tested it and I can consistently get correlation between the converging perspective lines and the horizontal sight line of the water level tubes. Now, all I need is a horizon to "shoot." Waiting on the weather.

in the meantime, I did some calculating. If we are on a flat surface, I should find the horizon at level no matter what my elevation. But if we are on a convex surface of the size ascribed by globe advocates, then the following should be observed:

At 100' elevation, the visual horizon calculates to around 64,684' without refraction. (69,696' with standard atmospheric refraction; 74,691' on days with exceptional refraction index.)
With a camera set level, 30 inches back from my sighting guides, I should get a 0.089° drop of the horizon below level. Not much. My guide lines are 1/25th of an inch wide (0.039" = 1mm).
From 30" away, that 0.089° drop would measure 0.043-0.047", or just about 1 width of my guideline.

Doing the same thing for other elevations:
At 400', the measured drop would be 0.086-0.93" or ~2x the width of my sighting line.
At 700', the measured drop would be 0.114-0.123" or ~3x the width of my sighting line.
At 1160', the measured drop would be 0.147-0.158" or ~4x the width of my sighting line.
At  1380', the measured drop would be 0.16-0.172" or <4x the width of my sighting line.

I know all I'm doing really is detecting whether or not any drop below my sighting line occurs, but I wanted to see what to expect.
Though the main leveling tool is the water level, the added cube framework should provide lines of perspective that converge on the sight line rather than the horizon, as long as there is no pitch to the apparatus. The water levels, the torpedo level, the plumb bob and the tripod's level itself should all agree and confirm that there is no pitch tilt.

I feel this is much more precise (and duplicate-able) than the vague description given by Rowbotham in Experiment 15, that has supported the "horizon is always at eye-level" claim for years. Plus, I intend to attain elevations much higher than the top floor of the Grand Brighton.

If not--if there's something I'm missing or that's inherently flawed in this approach that Rowbotham avoided--speak up so I can address them before gathering measurements.
 

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #116 on: May 13, 2018, 02:08:21 AM »
I've also added some t-square stiffeners to limit any tendencies of the square to squash to a trapezoidal shape.
Added a torpedo level and a plumb bob.
Added caps to the tubes so that I didn't have to keep emptying to move and refilling to use. (Caps removed during leveling and sighting of course.)

The transverse sighting line actually tends to be more of a hindrance than an aid. Good for lining up and extending the sightline left-to-right from the two water level tubes, but then it obscures the horizon. So, I've made it so that I can adjust it a little. Use it to level, but then slide it up or down until flush with a cage othogonal wire. It'll still cross the field of view, but well above or below any possible horizon line I may observe at elevations I've chosen.

Or, I might get rid of it altogether. It's just that the best way to line up water levels is to move off center and line up the tubes. But I want shoot from the centroid, which is probably just an aesthetic choice. I want those perspective lines to be centered, if only to confirm that the whole rig is truly square and has been set up horizontally, with no introduced pitch or roll.
After over-engineering this thing, it was getting to unwieldy. I'm on v1.3.

1. I'm down to just the two large sighting tubes, connected by a single tube. I've ditched the cross-connecting tubing in favor a torpedo level and plumb bob to ensure the rig is square and level.
2. I can now break it down and build it up on site so it's more portable when hiking up to the highest planned survey point.
3. I am mounting it on angle irons, set on a cross plank that will balance nicely on a good, tripod (which also has leveling bubbles).
4. I moved the sighting tubes to the outside of the cube so that they don't obstruct the perspective lines of the cube.
5. I've got a sight line strung across the midpoint transverse that, along with the plumb bob line gives me an excellent centroid index.

I've tested it and I can consistently get correlation between the converging perspective lines and the horizontal sight line of the water level tubes. Now, all I need is a horizon to "shoot." Waiting on the weather.

in the meantime, I did some calculating. If we are on a flat surface, I should find the horizon at level no matter what my elevation. But if we are on a convex surface of the size ascribed by globe advocates, then the following should be observed:

At 100' elevation, the visual horizon calculates to around 64,684' without refraction. (69,696' with standard atmospheric refraction; 74,691' on days with exceptional refraction index.)
With a camera set level, 30 inches back from my sighting guides, I should get a 0.089° drop of the horizon below level. Not much. My guide lines are 1/25th of an inch wide (0.039" = 1mm).
From 30" away, that 0.089° drop would measure 0.043-0.047", or just about 1 width of my guideline.

Doing the same thing for other elevations:
At 400', the measured drop would be 0.086-0.93" or ~2x the width of my sighting line.
At 700', the measured drop would be 0.114-0.123" or ~3x the width of my sighting line.
At 1160', the measured drop would be 0.147-0.158" or ~4x the width of my sighting line.
At  1380', the measured drop would be 0.16-0.172" or <4x the width of my sighting line.

I know all I'm doing really is detecting whether or not any drop below my sighting line occurs, but I wanted to see what to expect.
Though the main leveling tool is the water level, the added cube framework should provide lines of perspective that converge on the sight line rather than the horizon, as long as there is no pitch to the apparatus. The water levels, the torpedo level, the plumb bob and the tripod's level itself should all agree and confirm that there is no pitch tilt.

I feel this is much more precise (and duplicate-able) than the vague description given by Rowbotham in Experiment 15, that has supported the "horizon is always at eye-level" claim for years. Plus, I intend to attain elevations much higher than the top floor of the Grand Brighton.

If not--if there's something I'm missing or that's inherently flawed in this approach that Rowbotham avoided--speak up so I can address them before gathering measurements.

The experiment sounds great, and am eagerly waiting for the results, even though i am pretty sure i know what they will be.

If you want to cross check your calculations with the tables we use for dip of the sea horizon for navigating, i have attached them. They are good for lower elevations. I think we do have the ones for higher elevations, just let me know if your want them.

Good luck, and hope the horizon clears soon!
« Last Edit: May 13, 2018, 02:10:13 AM by Tontogary »

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #117 on: May 13, 2018, 08:30:13 PM »
Thanks.

I had a whisper of a seaward horizon today, so I set up on a 700' viewpoint about 10 miles (est.) inland, just to see if the setup was useful. I confess, I don't like the vinyl tubing for the water level sighting. It's too thick and the fluid leeches up the side a bit to make getting a sharp sighting edge difficult. I feel like the combination of my torpedo level, plumb bob and the bullet level on the tripod offer more confidence that I've got a good level line than the water. And with the "crosshair" of the plumb line and a horizontal transverse sighting line, I can shoot the horizon quite well.

The water level looks nice and maybe adds a supplemental degree of confidence to being level, but shooting the horizon with those level lines is way too coarse, at least with the tubing I'm using. I'd rather be using glass beakers connected by tubing.

Or, I see Walmart has a water leveling kit for about $20, for site construction purposes, like building a deck on uneven ground. Might look into that.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2018, 09:56:09 PM by Bobby Shafto »

Offline SiDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 142
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #118 on: May 14, 2018, 03:11:39 AM »
You're showing us a diagram, how can anyone just believe in this diagram. How would I know this is what happens.

Huh? What ELSE would happen? You don't need to BELIEVE in a diagram, it's representing what we know to be true... Feel free to draw your own diagram
Quote from: Round Eyes
Long range, high altitude, potentially solar powered airplanes [...] If the planes are travelling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3

Offline jimbob

  • *
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #119 on: May 14, 2018, 09:25:16 AM »
Define "eye-level".

And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.

OK imagine standing on a flat earth, the horizon at eye level then going up 1 light year, how could the horizon still be at eye level now the flat earth is 1 light year below you. The horizon is going to be straight down.

Quote from 9 out of 10 doctors
jimbob is the best person on this site. No, seriously, jimbob is why I stay on this site.           I was going to say Junker is, but OK