[inquisitive]

Dear Mr. Bishop, may I ask you what the circumference of the equator is according to the FES? Thank you.

Unknown. Lack of investigation. There are only a few loose theories for the nature of the earth's layout.

How would you investigate and measure it today? Please describe.

[Curious Squirrel]

And weird that they think that sunset is caused by perspective - so the THREE THOUSAND MILE GAP between the earth and the sun can't be seen, because of perspective...but you can still see the sun which is about 30 miles across.

Hmm.

The sun maintaining its size is explained in Earth Not a Globe. Why not read it?

It's not explained, but hypothesized, and the idea doesn't hold up to real world testing using a glare filter which still shows the sun at the same size throughout the day, and resolves other light sources into points that grow and shrink.

[AATW]

The experiment that was provided was insufficient, and I have explained why it was insufficient.

No, you're just spuriously declaring it insufficient because it shows you to be wrong.
The lengths you go to in order to do anything other than admit you're incorrect about anything really are ridiculous.
All you said was:

The video you provided just has a guy holding up what is essentially a glass of water above the horizon line. He claims that he disproved something.

Is it impossible to hold a glass of water above the line of the horizon?

So you start by pretending you don't understand the experiment at all.
When someone pointed out that it wasn't just a glass of water, it was two connected tubes so you could be sure that water was level in both and could look across the top of the two tubes of water to determine whether the horizon is indeed at eye level you decided you did understand the experiment after all and then claimed:

the camera is down below the water line. The camera needs to be centered with the water line.

So I helpfully went through the video for you and picked out these stills:



Which clearly show the two tubes level, proving the camera is at the water line. You can clearly see the horizon dipping more below that level as altitude increases, exactly as expected.
You never replied. 

Later in the thread someone else posted a video of a similar experiment but with professional equipment which gave exactly the same result, you ignored that too.
It's all here in this thread:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9338.0

It's your usual tactic. Make a ridiculous claim which is demonstrably false.
You post a bit of flim-flam and then when you're clearly shown to be wrong you simply run away from the thread and declare yourself to be right.
It's a very dishonest way of debating.

You have all the information you need to repeat the experiment, it would cost you virtually nothing.
You claim to be an empiricist, if you dispute the empirical measurements you have been shown then do your own experiment, report the findings and we can have a look.

[Morgenstund]

On a flat earth everything is very different. First of all, there is no horizon in the above sense on a flat earth. The surface of the earth and the sky stay parallel until infinity. So you have to come up with a new definition of the horizon, to explain what you actually see that the sky is apparently touching the surface of the earth.

Exactly. There cannot be a horizon on a flat Earth. Only over the edge of a FE would you see the sky and ground 'touch'.

And the solution is indeed perspective. Perspective is a consequence of our eyes optical imaging system. We have constant field of view where everything is projected on the fixed size of our retina. Therefore the further something is away the more it is apparently squeezed together on the retina. Or in other words, the apparent distance between a certain point and the optical axis will shrink with distance to the observer even though the actual distance to the optical axis does not change. Everyone knows this from looking along a street or into a tunnel. Everything is straight and parallel and nevertheless the walls of the tunnel seem to come closer and closer to each other.

Regarding the  flat earth, perspective would therefor lead to the effect that the surface of the earth and the sky would apparently approach each other. But that does not entirely solve the problem of the observed horizon, because earth and sky would only touch each other in infinity, at the so called vanishing point.

And that point would be so far beyond our range of sight, it would turn into a blue-green haze, just like we se in pictures taken from high above the surface, where the horizon is 'out of sight'. Light is diffracted by the atmosphere, and there is no sharp line forming the horizon.

[hexagon]

Indeed, the perception of the horizon on a flat earth would be very different from what we observe on our earth. Maybe not so much regarding the surface, cause we're quite close to the surface and the perspective uplift of the surface approach eye level roughly at the same distance where the optical resolution limits our ability to distinguish anything close the surface. But regarding anything up in the sky it be very different. All this sinking behind the horizon effects of clouds, the sun, the moon or airplanes would not be possible. They would just fade out due to light scattering, limited optical resolution and so on, but still staying high in the sky until they vanish.       

[Morgenstund]

The experiment that was provided was insufficient, and I have explained why it was insufficient.

No, you're just spuriously declaring it insufficient because it shows you to be wrong.
The lengths you go to in order to do anything other than admit you're incorrect about anything really are ridiculous.
All you said was:

The video you provided just has a guy holding up what is essentially a glass of water above the horizon line. He claims that he disproved something.

Is it impossible to hold a glass of water above the line of the horizon?

So you start by pretending you don't understand the experiment at all.
When someone pointed out that it wasn't just a glass of water, it was two connected tubes so you could be sure that water was level in both and could look across the top of the two tubes of water to determine whether the horizon is indeed at eye level you decided you did understand the experiment after all and then claimed:

the camera is down below the water line. The camera needs to be centered with the water line.

So I helpfully went through the video for you and picked out these stills:



Which clearly show the two tubes level, proving the camera is at the water line. You can clearly see the horizon dipping more below that level as altitude increases, exactly as expected.
You never replied. 

Now, that is how I spell "proof". How can one not be convinced after having seen these images? The only option is to claim that the images are doctored, as part of the great conspiracy, where They (R) are hiding the true nature of the shape of the Earth... for reasons.

Later in the thread someone else posted a video of a similar experiment but with professional equipment which gave exactly the same result, you ignored that too.
It's all here in this thread:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9338.0

It's your usual tactic. Make a ridiculous claim which is demonstrably false.
You post a bit of flim-flam and then when you're clearly shown to be wrong you simply run away from the thread and declare yourself to be right.
It's a very dishonest way of debating.

You have all the information you need to repeat the experiment, it would cost you virtually nothing.
You claim to be an empiricist, if you dispute the empirical measurements you have been shown then do your own experiment, report the findings and we can have a look.

I've often debated young Earth creationists and Flood-believers, and it is the same dead pan denial of blatant, obvious truths followed by 48 hours of radio silence, and then a repeat of the afore mentioned 'demonstrably false flim-flam'.

[Tontogary]

Dear Mr. Bishop, may I ask you what the circumference of the equator is according to the FES? Thank you.

Unknown. Lack of investigation. There are only a few loose theories for the nature of the earth's layout.

Having just read the chapter in EnaG on the circumference, of the earth, which is covered in chapter 4, there are some very obvious errors in his calculations, and his references are not reliable.

His empirical evidence is based on magazine or newspaper articles where a ships captain in such and such a date claimed to have steamed  x many miles in x many days. He then goes on to ASSUME an average speed of the vessel, and also completely misjudge and miscalculate the distances, for example;

“From the preceding facts it is evident that the circumference of the earth, at the distance of the Cape of Good Hope from the polar centre, is not less in round numbers than 23,400 miles. Hence the radius or distance in a direct line from the polar centre to Cape Town, to Sydney, to Auckland in New Zealand, and to all the places on the same arc, is about 3720 statute miles. And as the distance from the polar centre to Valencia in Ireland is shown to be 2556 statute miles, the direct distance from Valencia to Cape Town is 1164 statute miles”

Now from his quote above he was talking Vancia in county Kerry in Ireland. So if it is 2556 miles to the pole, and 3,720 miles to Auckland, that makes a total of 6,276 miles, (statute) from Ireland to Auckland, which is diametrically opposite more or less (in terms of the globe)
Airliners fly around 600 miles per hour, which means the flight time to New Zealand from Ireland is 10 1/2 hours.
In reality it is over 24!

This is important as he uses this figure to base his calculations on the circumference of the world, which is also flawed, and he maintains the following;

“Thus from purely practical data, setting all theories aside, it is ascertained that the diameter of the earth, from the Ross Mountains, or from the volcanic mountains of which Mount Erebus is the chief, to the same radius distance on the opposite side of the northern centre, is more than 10,400 miles; and the circumference, 52,800 statute miles.”

Both figures are ludicrous, and do not stand up to observations, and empirical evidence of sailors and pilots of today. Which is why i am amazed that Tom amongst others refuse to believe the accounts of modern navigators considering the whole of Chapter 4 of EnaG is based upon sketchy reports of distances of sailors from 1840s and 1850s, and some so called evidence from other ships captains who didnt want to be attributed to the data!

Really Charlatan Rowbotham, you could do better. I think in todays jargon it is called BUSTED

[HorstFue]

Having just read the chapter in EnaG on the circumference, of the earth, which is covered in chapter 4, there are some very obvious errors in his calculations, and his references are not reliable.

Found more errors:
Ocean liners will not sail over land, nor will a ship going from Ireland to Cap Town cross the Sahara, nor will a ship be able to go from Auckland to Sydney in one straight line. Auckland is on the east coast of New Zealand, so a ship first has to go east and north, around northern part of New Zealand before it can head West to Sydney. I estimate the direct distance is 20% less than that given in the nautical almanac.

I see only two circumferences measured and calculated by Rowbotham: One at the latitude of Ireland (53°N) and one at the latitude of Sydney (about 35°S).
But: Only two? I think there should have been available more itineraries.
E.g. from Gibraltar to Jacksonville (Florida) or some other at a similar latitude.
E.g. from the Canaries to the Caribbean, which is a frequently used route
Or Rowbotham deliberately discarded them, as he would be confronted with the result, that  Gibraltar according his model and calculation would be found on the same latitude as Sidney, or even better the Canaries south of Sidney.
 

[Tom Bishop]

The experiment that was provided was insufficient, and I have explained why it was insufficient.

No, you're just spuriously declaring it insufficient because it shows you to be wrong.
The lengths you go to in order to do anything other than admit you're incorrect about anything really are ridiculous.
All you said was:

The video you provided just has a guy holding up what is essentially a glass of water above the horizon line. He claims that he disproved something.

Is it impossible to hold a glass of water above the line of the horizon?

So you start by pretending you don't understand the experiment at all.
When someone pointed out that it wasn't just a glass of water, it was two connected tubes so you could be sure that water was level in both and could look across the top of the two tubes of water to determine whether the horizon is indeed at eye level you decided you did understand the experiment after all and then claimed:

the camera is down below the water line. The camera needs to be centered with the water line.

So I helpfully went through the video for you and picked out these stills:



Which clearly show the two tubes level, proving the camera is at the water line. You can clearly see the horizon dipping more below that level as altitude increases, exactly as expected.
You never replied. 

Later in the thread someone else posted a video of a similar experiment but with professional equipment which gave exactly the same result, you ignored that too.
It's all here in this thread:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9338.0

It's your usual tactic. Make a ridiculous claim which is demonstrably false.
You post a bit of flim-flam and then when you're clearly shown to be wrong you simply run away from the thread and declare yourself to be right.
It's a very dishonest way of debating.

You have all the information you need to repeat the experiment, it would cost you virtually nothing.
You claim to be an empiricist, if you dispute the empirical measurements you have been shown then do your own experiment, report the findings and we can have a look.

Parallax responded to you:

Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants. Take a step back, be too close or take a photo from a slight angle, and it can be manipulated. The horizon always meets the eye level, it was proved in the 1800s. Honestly, its embarrassing how your blind Faith in 'science' will not let you see the forest for the trees.

He's right. This experiment is not carefully calibrated or controlled. A slight angle with that experiment can cause issues. It is just one guy holding a camera in one hand and his water device in the other. It's a bad experiment.

[AATW]

He's right. This experiment is not carefully calibrated or controlled. A slight angle with that experiment can cause issues. It is just one guy holding a camera in one hand and his water device in the other. It's a bad experiment.

The experiment itself is fine. The only issue with the video of the experiment is the camera is not on a tripod. The result is still pretty clear but to show that even more clearly I posted stills from parts of the video where the level in the two tubes is clearly the same and thus you can easily determine whether the horizon is at or above or below that level. The result is clear, it's at eye level at sea level, below eye level at altitude and the higher the altitude the more below eye level it is, exactly as expected.
Those photos are not manipulated, they are simply stills from the video.

I see you have once again ignored the other experiment which was posted in that thread which used professional equipment and gave the exact same result.

Rather than just shouting "AM NOT!" every time you're shown to be wrong why not do your own experiment? The one shown would cost you virtually nothing and your issue with it seems to be mostly the camera angle. I've responded to that but fine, do your own experiment then.
If you dispute the findings of those experiments then repeat them yourself, or devise your own experiment to measure the dip of the horizon below eye level (or lack thereof) at different altitudes and post your findings so we can review them.
You have been shown empirical results which show you to be wrong. You claim to be an empiricist, take some empirical measurements.

[inquisitive]

The experiment that was provided was insufficient, and I have explained why it was insufficient.

No, you're just spuriously declaring it insufficient because it shows you to be wrong.
The lengths you go to in order to do anything other than admit you're incorrect about anything really are ridiculous.
All you said was:

The video you provided just has a guy holding up what is essentially a glass of water above the horizon line. He claims that he disproved something.

Is it impossible to hold a glass of water above the line of the horizon?

So you start by pretending you don't understand the experiment at all.
When someone pointed out that it wasn't just a glass of water, it was two connected tubes so you could be sure that water was level in both and could look across the top of the two tubes of water to determine whether the horizon is indeed at eye level you decided you did understand the experiment after all and then claimed:

the camera is down below the water line. The camera needs to be centered with the water line.

So I helpfully went through the video for you and picked out these stills:



Which clearly show the two tubes level, proving the camera is at the water line. You can clearly see the horizon dipping more below that level as altitude increases, exactly as expected.
You never replied. 

Later in the thread someone else posted a video of a similar experiment but with professional equipment which gave exactly the same result, you ignored that too.
It's all here in this thread:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9338.0

It's your usual tactic. Make a ridiculous claim which is demonstrably false.
You post a bit of flim-flam and then when you're clearly shown to be wrong you simply run away from the thread and declare yourself to be right.
It's a very dishonest way of debating.

You have all the information you need to repeat the experiment, it would cost you virtually nothing.
You claim to be an empiricist, if you dispute the empirical measurements you have been shown then do your own experiment, report the findings and we can have a look.

Parallax responded to you:

Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants. Take a step back, be too close or take a photo from a slight angle, and it can be manipulated. The horizon always meets the eye level, it was proved in the 1800s. Honestly, its embarrassing how your blind Faith in 'science' will not let you see the forest for the trees.

He's right. This experiment is not carefully calibrated or controlled. A slight angle with that experiment can cause issues. It is just one guy holding a camera in one hand and his water device in the other. It's a bad experiment.

How would you improve the accuracy?  Water is level, camera is level.

[Macarios]

Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants. Take a step back, be too close or take a photo from a slight angle, and it can be manipulated. The horizon always meets the eye level, it was proved in the 1800s. Honestly, its embarrassing how your blind Faith in 'science' will not let you see the forest for the trees.

He's right. This experiment is not carefully calibrated or controlled. A slight angle with that experiment can cause issues. It is just one guy holding a camera in one hand and his water device in the other. It's a bad experiment.

The whole point was to do it yourself.
Can anyone manipulate your own expetriment but you?
Bear in mind that others can do the same and see if you are telling the truth.
Author of the video also knew it.

Get transparent hula-hoop (or hose), fill it with painted liquid and go hiking.
It will be good for your health.

[AATW]

Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants. Take a step back, be too close or take a photo from a slight angle, and it can be manipulated. The horizon always meets the eye level, it was proved in the 1800s. Honestly, its embarrassing how your blind Faith in 'science' will not let you see the forest for the trees.

He's right. This experiment is not carefully calibrated or controlled. A slight angle with that experiment can cause issues. It is just one guy holding a camera in one hand and his water device in the other. It's a bad experiment.

The whole point was to do it yourself.
Can anyone manipulate your own expetriment but you?
Bear in mind that others can do the same and see if you are telling the truth.
Author of the video also knew it.

Get transparent hula-hoop (or hose), fill it with painted liquid and go hiking.
It will be good for your health.

  Exactly!

Tom has been shown 2 experiments which prove conclusively that the assertion that "the horizon always rises to eye level" is incorrect.
The first is a cheap experiment anyone can do at almost no cost, the second uses professional equipment - they both give the same result which gives confidence in the first experiment and both match the theory of what you'd expect to observe on a globe.

Tom is writing a chapter on "The Importance of Empiricism ( https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8288.0 ) yet his response to being proven wrong by empirical experiments is
"AM NOT!"
A more rational response from a so called empiricist would be to go out and repeat the experiment or if he disputes the validity of the experiments he could devise his own and publish the results for review. The fact he repeatedly refuses to do so is telling...

[Tom Bishop]

I'm not going to perform every crappy experiment on demand. Did Francis Bacon say that empiricism was performing every crappy experiment on demand? You have no idea what empiricism even is. Empericism is a method of coming to a conclusion. It is not "you have to do it yourself to believe it." It is not a method of performing an experiment. It is confined to how to make a conclusion.

The experiment is bad. I see it is bad and Parallax can see that it is bad. There are no controls. There is no peer review. It hardly counts as an experiment.

Every surveyor knows that carefully laid positions and angles are required to line up to distant reference points. This experiment clearly fails. Surveyors don't just hold their spotting devices with their hands and guess their angles. Calibrated equipment is used carefully on tripods.

[Stagiri]

Dear Mr. Bishop, what method would you choose if you wanted to measure the circumference of the equator?

[Tom Bishop]

Dear Mr. Bishop, what method would you choose if you wanted to measure the circumference of the equator?

A method that uses radar to map the surface from high altitude.

[Stagiri]

Dear Mr. Bishop, what method would you choose if you wanted to measure the circumference of the equator?

A method that uses radar to map the surface from high altitude.

How high altitude approximately?

[AATW]

I'm not going to perform every crappy experiment on demand. Did Francis Bacon say that empiricism was performing every crappy experiment on demand? You have no idea what empiricism even is. Empericism is a method of coming to a conclusion. It is not "you have to do it yourself to believe it." It is not a method of performing an experiment. It is confined to how to make a conclusion.

The experiment is bad. I see it is bad and Parallax can see that it is bad. There are no controls. There is no peer review. It hardly counts as an experiment.

Every surveyor knows that carefully laid positions and angles are required to line up to distant reference points. This experiment clearly fails.

Basically I think what I'm hearing is the experiment shows you wrong so it must be a bad experiment. 

Surveyors don't just hold their spotting devices with their hands and guess their angles. Calibrated equipment is used carefully on tripods.

Yeah, if only someone had done a more controlled experiment and got the exact same result...oh wait, they did! It was posted in the other thread about this on this page:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9338.60

here you go



But as others have said, you're free to devise your own experiment if you dispute the results.
I know you're a busy man but I'm sure you agree this is important so worthy of some investigation.
I look forward to you publishing the results. 

[Tom Bishop]

You are showing us the expected result from this theodolite experiment. This was experiment was studied by Rowbotham here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

Do your research about what we have already studied and have published instead of posting random links. Your flailing about is embarrassing.

[Macarios]

I'm not going to perform every crappy experiment on demand. Did Francis Bacon say that empiricism was performing every crappy experiment on demand? You have no idea what empiricism even is. Empericism is a method of coming to a conclusion. It is not "you have to do it yourself to believe it." It is not a method of performing an experiment. It is confined to how to make a conclusion.

The experiment is bad. I see it is bad and Parallax can see that it is bad. There are no controls. There is no peer review. It hardly counts as an experiment.

Every surveyor knows that carefully laid positions and angles are required to line up to distant reference points. This experiment clearly fails. Surveyors don't just hold their spotting devices with their hands and guess their angles. Calibrated equipment is used carefully on tripods.

It was not about "for how much" horizon drops, it was about "does it at all".

And you DO know it very well.

EDIT: Where is now your zeteticism?
Have you decided to blindly trust Rowbotham, instead of inquiry?