*

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 #60 on: April 30, 2018, 06:11:17 PM »
If Sam Rowbotham's method was acceptable, we should be able to replicate it, and for elevations quite higher than the top floor of the Grand Brighton.

I like the idea of a single container, but I don't want to be lugging a lot of water up the trails to my planned viewing spots (or depending on "donations" from other hikers ;->).
But a simple pyrex dish could serve as a kind of mini "infinity pool" and would take minimal set up. I might do that alongside the tube hydrostatic leveler, just to provide a double check.

There's an estate on a 2000' peak just 7 miles from the ocean that sold at auction not too long ago, giving the public some video and photo of the mansion and grounds. It has a long infinity pool pointed directly toward the western horizon. What a great setting that would be for a "horizon rises to eye level" proof demonstration:

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #61 on: April 30, 2018, 06:15:18 PM »
The fundamental problem here is the FE belief is not based on evidence, it is despite the evidence.
They say they rely on empirical measurements but they don't, or rather they dismiss any empirical evidence which doesn't fit with their world view.
Witness how Tom tried all kinds of things to discredit the laser and boat experiment before finally understanding it...and declaring it fraudulent anyway despite none of the objections standing up to scrutiny.
And now he's been shown 3 different ways of showing horizon dip which all give the same result - but it's a result he doesn't want so he dismisses all of them on spurious grounds.

The only solution is for him to do some experiments himself to demonstrate his claims. We can do them all day - and people have - and he will dismiss all of them if they don't show what he wants. He claims to be an empiricist but he refuses to do any empirical measurements. Funny that. The only hint of him doing anything along these lines is the "Bishop Experiment" which he has no documentation of and he's pretty clearly lying about.

The mindset is based on this Wiki page which has been deleted, I don't know why as it perfectly describes the prevailing FE mindset on here:

Quote
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth

(My emphasis). So we are wasting our time. Tom can't personally verify the results of our experiments and he refuses to do so himself.
Checkmate.
He demands "irrefutable evidence" but that doesn't exist. You can refute any evidence if you're bloody minded enough.
As I said some time ago, you can do this about anything:

"I don't believe kangaroos exist".
"What?! Here's a Wiki page about them."
"Cool. Here's a Wiki page about dragons, do they exist too?"
"Here's a video of a kangaroo!"
"That's fake. Have you heard of CGI?"
"Right. We're at a zoo. Look. There's a kangaroo!"
"Looks like animatronic to me..."

And so on. It's ridiculous, of course, but if you're only interested in sticking to your guns come what may then you can dismiss anything, even if the dismissals become increasingly stupid.

Which leaves me with the thought that he's just here for fun, enjoys trying to debate from indefensible positions and doesn't believe any of this.

This is a particularly interesting one because it's a simple claim that can be rebutted very simply. It's not possible to rationally deny it. When you're up a mountain looking out to sea, the horizon is not at eye level. There's no sensible argument to refute this. We've shown that it's true beyond any reasonable doubt, and anyone who does the same test will find the same thing.

So at this stage, the interest is psychological. How fixed is the idea so that the denial is persisted with in spite of any evidence?

*

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 #62 on: April 30, 2018, 06:42:54 PM »
There's an estate on a 2000' peak just 7 miles from the ocean that sold at auction not too long ago, giving the public some video and photo of the mansion and grounds. It has a long infinity pool pointed directly toward the western horizon. What a great setting that would be for a "horizon rises to eye level" proof demonstration:

Same pool, but with better images, and from a great vantage point.



Now with 1px perspective lines (black) and horizon (white)



Camera leveling won't change the perspective lines. If the architecture isn't square and/or the pool is actually titled up (so that water flows away from the infinity edge), then they shouldn't converge to a perspective vanishing point above the horizon, IF it's true that the horizon rises to eye-level.

Unless I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

I'm not using it as proof of anything. Just a hint of what we might expect the results to be of a controlled observation.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2018, 06:45:19 PM by Bobby Shafto »

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #63 on: April 30, 2018, 11:08:11 PM »
There's an estate on a 2000' peak just 7 miles from the ocean that sold at auction not too long ago, giving the public some video and photo of the mansion and grounds. It has a long infinity pool pointed directly toward the western horizon. What a great setting that would be for a "horizon rises to eye level" proof demonstration:

Same pool, but with better images, and from a great vantage point.



Now with 1px perspective lines (black) and horizon (white)



Camera leveling won't change the perspective lines. If the architecture isn't square and/or the pool is actually titled up (so that water flows away from the infinity edge), then they shouldn't converge to a perspective vanishing point above the horizon, IF it's true that the horizon rises to eye-level.

Unless I'm interpreting this incorrectly.

I'm not using it as proof of anything. Just a hint of what we might expect the results to be of a controlled observation.

That's pretty conclusive, but it would be nice if you could get a sunset in the same picture. A fake sunset, of course!

*

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 #64 on: May 01, 2018, 07:09:58 AM »
That's pretty conclusive, but it would be nice if you could get a sunset in the same picture. A fake sunset, of course!
Not a fan of the design of that mansion, but I would love have access to that infinity pool sight line on a clear evening at sunset with a sharp horizon.

Checking out the direction of that pool, it looks like the sun would set right down the centerline in late February or March. Not sure of the exact azimuth that pool is aimed at, but makes me wonder if it lines up with the equinox sunset.

Another photo, from further back. I drew in lines of perspective from three planes, based on the parallel lines of edges I could find. The merge at a  vanishing point on a line above the horizon. Is this a valid analysis of perspective that could demonstrate the horizon doesn't rise to "eye level?"


*

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 #65 on: May 01, 2018, 07:20:32 AM »
Checking out the direction of that pool, it looks like the sun would set right down the centerline in late February or March. Not sure of the exact azimuth that pool is aimed at, but makes me wonder if it lines up with the equinox sunset.
Nope. It's about a month off. Sun sets right down the chute on February 20th and October 20th; not the equinoxes. Oh well.

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #66 on: May 01, 2018, 07:28:01 AM »
Checking out the direction of that pool, it looks like the sun would set right down the centerline in late February or March. Not sure of the exact azimuth that pool is aimed at, but makes me wonder if it lines up with the equinox sunset.
Nope. It's about a month off. Sun sets right down the chute on February 20th and October 20th; not the equinoxes. Oh well.

Somewhere out there there's a similar shot from a building with the Sun setting below the lines of perspective. Well done anyway for finding this one, and entirely refuting the "horizon rises to eye level" concept. It quite clearly shows how perspective works, and the key thing is that it works just as our experience would expect it to work. Put the observer at ground level, and the perspective lines converge at ground level. Put the observer above ground level, and the perspective lines converge as shown.

Alter that picture to make the perspective lines converge on the horizon, and it would look very strange indeed - as if it were tilting away from us.

*

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 #67 on: May 01, 2018, 08:25:11 PM »
place on a reasonably flat surface, and fill with coloured water. The water will find its own level, and give a long edge to sight along. No issues/concerns over water flow.

Alternatively, take a clear plastic bag, part-fill with coloured water, and place on absolutely anything. The water, again, will find its own level, and a sighting can be taken along the top of the water's surface.

Inclement weather last few days, but took advantage of a little bit of visible horizon today to try your idea, using a fish bowl and food-dyed water. Fluid had a little dish soap in it which I forgot about and got a bit of foam bubbles. Didn't have time to wait for them to dissipate, but just wanted to give it a try.

Didn't even bother trying to find a level spot. Just used the hood of my car. Water finds it's own level.

Lined up my phone (also using a leveling app as a double check).



This was taken at an elevation about 400' above sealevel.

Don't take this as proof of anything other than concept. It's a valid critique to say the weather at the surface has provided a false horizon.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2018, 08:28:22 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 #68 on: May 01, 2018, 08:36:57 PM »
Don't take this as proof of anything other than concept. It's a valid critique to say the weather at the surface has provided a false horizon.
But the water container idea, along with the square lines of perspective above, has given me the idea to combine the two, using a square glass water container, like a cheap aquarium, and "shooting" the horizon through that, using the flat plane of the water as a reference to level. The additional corner edges of a rectangular tank would reinforce the level line of the water, creating means to not just compare against a vertical line, but a vanishing point.

According to FE prediction, the vanishing point should be on the horizon regardless of elevation. According to GE prediction, the vanishing point should be above the horizon, except when viewed on the surface.

This would take hardly any setup and all. I'm probably not going to haul a fish tank up a mountain, but at viewing locations near a parking area, it'd be easy.

*

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 #69 on: May 01, 2018, 11:12:50 PM »
... the water container idea, along with the square lines of perspective above, has given me the idea to combine the two, using a square glass water container, like a cheap aquarium, and "shooting" the horizon through that, using the flat plane of the water as a reference to level. The additional corner edges of a rectangular tank would reinforce the level line of the water, creating means to not just compare against a vertical line, but a vanishing point.

According to FE prediction, the vanishing point should be on the horizon regardless of elevation. According to GE prediction, the vanishing point should be above the horizon, except when viewed on the surface.

This would take hardly any setup and all. I'm probably not going to haul a fish tank up a mountain, but at viewing locations near a parking area, it'd be easy.
Like this:

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #70 on: May 01, 2018, 11:54:53 PM »
Like this:


I'm impressed by the effort going into this. Of course, it won't convert one person - but it will be revealing. Note that no flat Earthers are confidently proclaiming that this will confirm their assertions because they know in their heart of hearts that it won't.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #71 on: May 02, 2018, 01:11:24 AM »
Like this:


I'm impressed by the effort going into this. Of course, it won't convert one person - but it will be revealing. Note that no flat Earthers are confidently proclaiming that this will confirm their assertions because they know in their heart of hearts that it won't.

If the FEers were as confident as they appear to be they will be welcoming the potential for putting the seal on one of the fundamental proofs of the FE.

I suspect at present they are waiting for the outcome, and trying to find ways in advance to refute the observation/experiment, and to try to divert the discussion or to ask about ridiculous details to claim that it is not a worthy experiment.

I am pretty certain it will be unambiguous, and look forward to the pictures taken at different heights to show that there is a dip of the horizon.

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 AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #72 on: May 02, 2018, 06:40:38 AM »
Like this:


I'm impressed by the effort going into this. Of course, it won't convert one person - but it will be revealing. Note that no flat Earthers are confidently proclaiming that this will confirm their assertions because they know in their heart of hearts that it won't.

It is telling that it's RE people who are making effort, doing empirical experiments and it's FE people who, instead of devising their own experiments and publishing the results, are just doing everything they can to deny the results of these experiments even when they are right there in front of their eyes.

It shows that you don't need "organisation" or "funding" to do experiments, you can do some yourself at little or no cost. So why don't they? (Rhetorical question)
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 Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #73 on: May 02, 2018, 08:04:33 AM »
Like this:


I'm impressed by the effort going into this. Of course, it won't convert one person - but it will be revealing. Note that no flat Earthers are confidently proclaiming that this will confirm their assertions because they know in their heart of hearts that it won't.

It is telling that it's RE people who are making effort, doing empirical experiments and it's FE people who, instead of devising their own experiments and publishing the results, are just doing everything they can to deny the results of these experiments even when they are right there in front of their eyes.

It shows that you don't need "organisation" or "funding" to do experiments, you can do some yourself at little or no cost. So why don't they? (Rhetorical question)

We see regular demands that we do research. "Think for yourself!" Here's someone actually devising an experiment that can verify a key element of flat Earth theory. Since this is something that the propagandists for a globe Earth deny is real, it means that a genuine crack exists in the whole conspiracy. Ordinary people can start checking for themselves. "Wow! The horizon really does rise to eye level! Everything I know is a lie!" The Illuminati will be overthrown. The world will enter a new era of truth.

Obviously every experiment can be critiqued. What if the levelling device is sloshing around and the photo is taken when it happens to be on a slant? I would welcome every helpful suggestion to make sure that these experiments work perfectly.

Given that we are on the verge of a real breakthrough in flat Earth theory, I can't help but notice - it's a bit quiet. There's not a lot of response from the flat Earth community here. It's almost as if... kind of... they don't think that these experiments will actually support their theory. I know that can't be true, so there must be some other explanation.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #74 on: May 02, 2018, 08:25:29 AM »
Like this:


I'm impressed by the effort going into this. Of course, it won't convert one person - but it will be revealing. Note that no flat Earthers are confidently proclaiming that this will confirm their assertions because they know in their heart of hearts that it won't.

It is telling that it's RE people who are making effort, doing empirical experiments and it's FE people who, instead of devising their own experiments and publishing the results, are just doing everything they can to deny the results of these experiments even when they are right there in front of their eyes.

It shows that you don't need "organisation" or "funding" to do experiments, you can do some yourself at little or no cost. So why don't they? (Rhetorical question)

We see regular demands that we do research. "Think for yourself!" Here's someone actually devising an experiment that can verify a key element of flat Earth theory. Since this is something that the propagandists for a globe Earth deny is real, it means that a genuine crack exists in the whole conspiracy. Ordinary people can start checking for themselves. "Wow! The horizon really does rise to eye level! Everything I know is a lie!" The Illuminati will be overthrown. The world will enter a new era of truth.

Obviously every experiment can be critiqued. What if the levelling device is sloshing around and the photo is taken when it happens to be on a slant? I would welcome every helpful suggestion to make sure that these experiments work perfectly.

Given that we are on the verge of a real breakthrough in flat Earth theory, I can't help but notice - it's a bit quiet. There's not a lot of response from the flat Earth community here. It's almost as if... kind of... they don't think that these experiments will actually support their theory. I know that can't be true, so there must be some other explanation.

Surey the best way to show that there is no sloshing is to take a short video. 10 seconds would be enough to show the water was still. After all the New Bedford experiments fundamental truth is that water MUST be level when at rest. Denying the water is level would be to deny the fundamental proofs of EnaG and the FE theory.

Another enhancement of the experiment would be to place a ruler against the glass on the far side. Knowing the length of the tank, and the amount of dip observed, one could roughly measure the angular dip, and compare it to the expected calculated amount. This would surely add substance to the calculated values available?

Eagerly awaiting the results, even though i know what they are likely to be.

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 Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #75 on: May 02, 2018, 09:43:09 AM »
If Sam Rowbotham's method was acceptable, we should be able to replicate it, and for elevations quite higher than the top floor of the Grand Brighton.


I think it would strike me and perhaps most people that the diagram he used to show the Grand Hotel towering over the globe like a nail driven into an orange was not quite to scale, and the difference between inclination to the horizon at sea level and on the second floor of the hotel was unlikely to be significant.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #76 on: May 02, 2018, 09:53:02 AM »
If Sam Rowbotham's method was acceptable, we should be able to replicate it, and for elevations quite higher than the top floor of the Grand Brighton.


I think it would strike me and perhaps most people that the diagram he used to show the Grand Hotel towering over the globe like a nail driven into an orange was not quite to scale, and the difference between inclination to the horizon at sea level and on the second floor of the hotel was unlikely to be significant.

Like many of his diagrams to try and prove his point.

The diagrams 15 show the piers inclined approx 20 degrees to the horizontal, just as other diagrams showing the earth, such as 20 and 24 are exaggerated to try to prove his point, and attempt make it look ridiculous for the earth to be round.
Almost all of his diagrams have errors in principle or exaggeration in them, so cannot be used as indications of much at all.

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 Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #77 on: May 02, 2018, 10:10:10 AM »
If Sam Rowbotham's method was acceptable, we should be able to replicate it, and for elevations quite higher than the top floor of the Grand Brighton.


I think it would strike me and perhaps most people that the diagram he used to show the Grand Hotel towering over the globe like a nail driven into an orange was not quite to scale, and the difference between inclination to the horizon at sea level and on the second floor of the hotel was unlikely to be significant.

Like many of his diagrams to try and prove his point.

The diagrams 15 show the piers inclined approx 20 degrees to the horizontal, just as other diagrams showing the earth, such as 20 and 24 are exaggerated to try to prove his point, and attempt make it look ridiculous for the earth to be round.
Almost all of his diagrams have errors in principle or exaggeration in them, so cannot be used as indications of much at all.

Problems with that measurement -

  • He doesn't give the height of the hotel
  • He doesn't describe his equipment in detail
  • He doesn't calculate the expected angle to a horizon on the globe
  • He doesn't express the degree of accuracy of his equipment

The chief merit of his experiment is to show his capacities and a thinker and a scientist.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #78 on: May 02, 2018, 11:10:30 AM »
If Sam Rowbotham's method was acceptable, we should be able to replicate it, and for elevations quite higher than the top floor of the Grand Brighton.


I think it would strike me and perhaps most people that the diagram he used to show the Grand Hotel towering over the globe like a nail driven into an orange was not quite to scale, and the difference between inclination to the horizon at sea level and on the second floor of the hotel was unlikely to be significant.

Like many of his diagrams to try and prove his point.

The diagrams 15 show the piers inclined approx 20 degrees to the horizontal, just as other diagrams showing the earth, such as 20 and 24 are exaggerated to try to prove his point, and attempt make it look ridiculous for the earth to be round.
Almost all of his diagrams have errors in principle or exaggeration in them, so cannot be used as indications of much at all.

Problems with that measurement -

  • He doesn't give the height of the hotel
  • He doesn't describe his equipment in detail
  • He doesn't calculate the expected angle to a horizon on the globe
  • He doesn't express the degree of accuracy of his equipment

The chief merit of his experiment is to show his capacities and a thinker and a scientist.

I would hesitate to call him a scientist, as he does not show method, and he uses preconceived ideas, ie the world is flat, to justify some of his arguments.
The later chapters on daylight in the Antarctic says that as he has proved the world is flat, and evidence to the contrary must be false and discarded.
Hardly the approach of a scientist.
A real scientist would have described the instruments in his method, and addressed the list you noted as well.

Luckily for us the Grand hotel in Brighton still stands, and we can find pictures of it, and have an idea of what his experiment was looking at, and understand that he was not really high off the ground.

In October i will have a reason to go near the old Bedford river, and have a mind to get in a small boat, and see if i can actually see the bridge in the experiment. Maybe if it is calm enough, even take a picture. I wonder if that would show anything interesting?

Not sure hope to describe him really, a philosopher? Pseudoscientist? Or just religious preacher? Or a combination?
Not a scientist for sure.

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 #79 on: May 02, 2018, 06:44:34 PM »
Eagerly awaiting the results, even though i know what they are likely to be.
Even though it's been overcast, it's a ceiling and I had a sharp contrast horizon today, so I took a cheap plastic aquarium to just try out proof of concept.

Not good. The tank really needs to be good and square (not rounded corners) and the sight through the transparent layer (glass, plastic) very clear. I measured and drew in index lines at every 1" horizontal on the tank itself, but when I tried to draw in perspective lines in the captured images, I got two different apparent focal points (and even those merged to a small area of uncertainty and not a precise fix).

This is just for fun, mainly, so I'm hesitant to go out and spend over $20 on a rectangular glass fish tank just for this. Maybe I can find one at a swap meet or garage sale this weekend for under $10.

One thing that did become apparent was water tension wouldn't give me a clean level line. Maybe it was the plastic. Or maybe I need to add something like antifreeze or dish soap. I just used plain bottled water with some food dye, but in places, it would "reach" up along the edge and ruin the straight edge. Also, trying to sight exactly level along the surface of the tank liquid is quite difficult. You really need to move off axis to line up the liquid level along the back edge with the side, and create a straight line with those two. But then you lose the perspective lines of the tank, which is the whole point of using the tank instead of the hydrostatic water level with the tubing.

I thought of adding two little floats with cross hairs on the level water and then use those like a gun sight. But the simplest way to me seems to not even worry about sighting level with the water and just let the perspective lines tell you where the vanishing point of "eye-level" is. I just don't know if skeptics will buy that, even though perspective and vanishing point is their argument for the apparent horizon.

(Of note, it's almost impossible to do this where I want to do it without drawing attention. When asked, I just explained I was recording observations for an optics/perspective demonstration and didn't mention anything about it being related to the globe/flat earth debate. I may be open minded, but I'm still in the closet about how much attention I've been giving the subject lately.)
« Last Edit: May 02, 2018, 06:48:51 PM by Bobby Shafto »