[Curious Squirrel]

No. What happened is that I provided evidence that the horizon rose upwards when the altitude increased. When the drone increased its altitude, the horizon rose upwards in reference to the buildings.

... but didn't someone point out to you that the horizon stayed pretty much in place in the frame, and the building merely moved in the foreground as the drone rose?

Yes, the horizon pretty much stayed in the same place while the buildings fell beneath it. The horizon line was keeping level with the rising observer. It rose with the observer.

Under the Ancient Greek continuous perspective model the horizon should have dropped along with everything else.

AllAroundTheWorld predicted that it would fall rather than rise, and he was wrong. The entire premise of his thread was shown to be fallacious. Rather than addressing this failing he and others started harping on some other Youtube video about a water device and eyeballing its position with the horizon. The premise in the OP was busted. The traditional theory of perspective shown to be untrue, and all he can do is distract.

This right here, in my eyes, disqualifies you from discussing anything to do with the standard/accepted model of perspective. You clearly have no idea how it actually works. As you rise, the line of the horizon with slowly slide away from 'true level' regardless of the shape of the Earth. But it will also grow to be further away from you (this is technically unique to a globe, but passing over that for now). This results in an apparent drop much slower than objects that are closer to you. Hence the suggestion for using something to allow you to see where your 'eye level' actually is so you can see the horizon drop. When using such a device, it was clearly shown that the horizon drops away from true level as you rise higher. Thus debunking your claim that the horizon always rises to eye level.

[Tom Bishop]

No. What happened is that I provided evidence that the horizon rose upwards when the altitude increased. When the drone increased its altitude, the horizon rose upwards in reference to the buildings.

... but didn't someone point out to you that the horizon stayed pretty much in place in the frame, and the building merely moved in the foreground as the drone rose?

Yes, the horizon pretty much stayed in the same place while the buildings fell beneath it. The horizon line was keeping level with the rising observer. It rose with the observer.

Under the Ancient Greek continuous perspective model the horizon should have dropped along with everything else.

AllAroundTheWorld predicted that it would fall rather than rise, and he was wrong. The entire premise of his thread was shown to be fallacious. Rather than addressing this failing he and others started harping on some other Youtube video about a water device and eyeballing its position with the horizon. The premise in the OP was busted. The traditional theory of perspective shown to be untrue, and all he can do is distract.

This right here, in my eyes, disqualifies you from discussing anything to do with the standard/accepted model of perspective. You clearly have no idea how it actually works. As you rise, the line of the horizon with slowly slide away from 'true level' regardless of the shape of the Earth. But it will also grow to be further away from you (this is technically unique to a globe, but passing over that for now). This results in an apparent drop much slower than objects that are closer to you. Hence the suggestion for using something to allow you to see where your 'eye level' actually is so you can see the horizon drop. When using such a device, it was clearly shown that the horizon drops away from true level as you rise higher. Thus debunking your claim that the horizon always rises to eye level.

It appears that you agree with us that the horizon rises and attempts to stay level with the eye, but also say that it does drop, but that the drop is imperceptible. You are agreeing that there is a horizon-eye connection, which was the point behind this rising horizon discussion. Any illustration of perspective must show this connection.

AllAroundTheWorld had made an illustration with a stick figure standing on a ball, looking down at it. That is not a realistic portrayal of perspective. The fact that the horizon rises in relation to the buildings in the distance (even if you say that it slightly drops from true level) when one increases in height, shows that the horizon is attempting to rise with you, revealing new lands in attempt to stay with your eye level.

As per if it drops, or why it may drop; that can be discussed. But the rise in relation to the objects around it is well established, and shows that there is an connection to the observer's eye. A stick figure looking down at a ball he is standing on doesn't cut it.

[AATW]

The horizon "attempts" to stay with eye level.
Lamps on the horizon are "looking up" at your hand.
Do you actually think the horizon and lamps are sentient? The way you use language is very strange.

It's almost impressive how you manage to claim victory in debates where you have clearly shown to be wrong.
Rowbothamesque. I guess if he was living today he'd be an Internet Troll too.

I've been up tall buildings. I've been on planes. I know that you are not looking down at a significant angle to see the horizon when you're up high. The reason for that is the earth is really big. In my diagrams obviously I significantly exaggerated the curve of the earth to demonstrate the effect but I showed that whether you're on a flat earth or globe the horizon level is BELOW eye level.



Even on a flat earth the horizon would be below eye level as you can see in the diagram.
It's a triangle.
The vertical side is from the ground to your eye.
The base is from you to as far as you can see - which we agree is a finite distance.
The hypotenuse is from your eye to that point as far as you can see.
So there HAS to be an angle downwards and that angle gets bigger with altitude.
And no, I haven't "accounted for perspective". I don't need to. That is not how perspective works, you've repeatedly shown you don't understand perspective.

The angle the horizon is below eye level increases with altitude. I showed you a graph which plots horizon angle dip against altitude:

https://www.metabunk.org/a-diy-theodolite-for-measuring-the-dip-of-the-horizon.t8617/

Even at the height of a commercial airline the dip angle is only about 3.5 degrees. So it is hard to discern, but it can be measured and you were shown a video of an experiment you could do to check this. It is telling that you have so far refused to even though it would cost you virtually nothing.

Your claim was that the horizon is AT eye level. Your evidence for this was a quote from someone which said it remained "practically" at eye level - which is true it does, but practically at and exactly at are not the same thing. Your other evidence was some drone footage. Even in that footage you CAN see some horizon drop.
Here are two stills from the video, one when it's low, the other when it's high. I've drawn a line across the two frames and you can clearly see that there HAS been some drop in the horizon height.
 


That empirical enough for you?

[Tumeni]

The fact that the horizon rises in relation to the buildings in the distance (even if you say that it slightly drops from true level) when one increases in height, shows that the horizon is attempting to rise with you, revealing new lands in attempt to stay with your eye level.

No, it doesn't. It just shows that your observation position has increased in height, and that a reference point on the building which is far closer to you than the horizon moves downward in your field of view far faster than the reference point of the horizon.

This should be apparent by comparison with observation of moving objects close to you and far away. A car going past at a few feet from you at 70mph will zip by, one observed a few miles away at the same speed will cross your field of view far slower.

The building, being closer, moves downward in the field of view faster than the horizon, therefore the horizon appears to rise with reference to the building, but all it's doing is moving down in the field of view far slower than the building.

The closer you get to the building, the faster it will move down in the field of view for a given change in your height 

As per if it drops, or why it may drop; that can be discussed. But the rise in relation to the objects around it is well established, and shows that there is an connection to the observer's eye.

Yes, that relation is simple geometry and speed of movement, which also covers the relation between the observer's eye and the closer objects.

[inquisitive]

No. What happened is that I provided evidence that the horizon rose upwards when the altitude increased. When the drone increased its altitude, the horizon rose upwards in reference to the buildings.

... but didn't someone point out to you that the horizon stayed pretty much in place in the frame, and the building merely moved in the foreground as the drone rose?

Yes, the horizon pretty much stayed in the same place while the buildings fell beneath it. The horizon line was keeping level with the rising observer. It rose with the observer.

Under the Ancient Greek continuous perspective model the horizon should have dropped along with everything else.

AllAroundTheWorld predicted that it would fall rather than rise, and he was wrong. The entire premise of his thread was shown to be fallacious. Rather than addressing this failing he and others started harping on some other Youtube video about a water device and eyeballing its position with the horizon. The premise in the OP was busted. The traditional theory of perspective shown to be untrue, and all he can do is distract.

This right here, in my eyes, disqualifies you from discussing anything to do with the standard/accepted model of perspective. You clearly have no idea how it actually works. As you rise, the line of the horizon with slowly slide away from 'true level' regardless of the shape of the Earth. But it will also grow to be further away from you (this is technically unique to a globe, but passing over that for now). This results in an apparent drop much slower than objects that are closer to you. Hence the suggestion for using something to allow you to see where your 'eye level' actually is so you can see the horizon drop. When using such a device, it was clearly shown that the horizon drops away from true level as you rise higher. Thus debunking your claim that the horizon always rises to eye level.

It appears that you agree with us that the horizon rises and attempts to stay level with the eye, but also say that it does drop, but that the drop is imperceptible. You are agreeing that there is a horizon-eye connection, which was the point behind this rising horizon discussion. Any illustration of perspective must show this connection.

AllAroundTheWorld had made an illustration with a stick figure standing on a ball, looking down at it. That is not a realistic portrayal of perspective. The fact that the horizon rises in relation to the buildings in the distance (even if you say that it slightly drops from true level) when one increases in height, shows that the horizon is attempting to rise with you, revealing new lands in attempt to stay with your eye level.

As per if it drops, or why it may drop; that can be discussed. But the rise in relation to the objects around it is well established, and shows that there is an connection to the observer's eye. A stick figure looking down at a ball he is standing on doesn't cut it.

All this is totally unrelated to actual measurements, something you seem reluctant to do for some unknown reason.

[StinkyOne]

No. What happened is that I provided evidence that the horizon rose upwards when the altitude increased. When the drone increased its altitude, the horizon rose upwards in reference to the buildings.

... but didn't someone point out to you that the horizon stayed pretty much in place in the frame, and the building merely moved in the foreground as the drone rose?

Yes, the horizon pretty much stayed in the same place while the buildings fell beneath it. The horizon line was keeping level with the rising observer. It rose with the observer.

Under the Ancient Greek continuous perspective model the horizon should have dropped along with everything else.

AllAroundTheWorld predicted that it would fall rather than rise, and he was wrong. The entire premise of his thread was shown to be fallacious. Rather than addressing this failing he and others started harping on some other Youtube video about a water device and eyeballing its position with the horizon. The premise in the OP was busted. The traditional theory of perspective shown to be untrue, and all he can do is distract.

The horizon doesn't rise like you say. This was proven with the water tube level. The drop is very slight due to the scale of the Earth and the very minor altitude differences, but it is there and has been empirically proven.

[Rama Set]

Any measurement done with a modern theodolite will show you that the horizon is only at eye level when you are at the ground. After that there is always a dip down to the horizon. This is one of Tom’s canards and should be properly ignored.

[Stagiri]

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

[Morgenstund]

I don't know what that means.

I'm not an FE believer, and the FE case I described is one model. People like Tom Bishop say that that model is not official.

If you are looking for an official flat Earth model I think you'll be disappointed.

If you are looking for a well funded and organized organization that studies the shape of the earth you will be disapointed. I think you do not realize that this entire thing is based on a few people who individually contribute their time to think about it on what little free time they have away from their work.

Have you asked yourself why nobody is interested in funding that type of research?

[Morgenstund]

You made a claim the other day about the horizon always being at eye level. A claim which is not true.

Even if taking off from a flat Earth the horizon (that would be the edge of the flat Earth) would not remain at eye level. It is geometry 1.01 and such a simple thing to envision I'm baffled that is is even debated. And the absurd part is that the fact that the horizion does not remain at eye level neither proves nor disproves either of the two models.

[Edgar Alan Hoe]

No. What happened is that I provided evidence that the horizon rose upwards when the altitude increased. When the drone increased its altitude, the horizon rose upwards in reference to the buildings.

... but didn't someone point out to you that the horizon stayed pretty much in place in the frame, and the building merely moved in the foreground as the drone rose?

Yes, the horizon pretty much stayed in the same place while the buildings fell beneath it. The horizon line was keeping level with the rising observer. It rose with the observer.

Under the Ancient Greek continuous perspective model the horizon should have dropped along with everything else.

AllAroundTheWorld predicted that it would fall rather than rise, and he was wrong. The entire premise of his thread was shown to be fallacious. Rather than addressing this failing he and others started harping on some other Youtube video about a water device and eyeballing its position with the horizon. The premise in the OP was busted. The traditional theory of perspective shown to be untrue, and all he can do is distract.

Utter BS. The horizon drops at a slower rate than the closer buildings. Exactly as standard ideas of perspective combined with a round earth would predict.

It is not shown to stay 'constant'. You are just choosing those words to describe it.

Tom Bishop if FE is true then why do you need to lie and bend the facts so much in practically every one of your posts?

It really is frustrating and mean spirited.

[AATW]

You made a claim the other day about the horizon always being at eye level. A claim which is not true.

Even if taking off from a flat Earth the horizon (that would be the edge of the flat Earth) would not remain at eye level. It is geometry 1.01 and such a simple thing to envision I'm baffled that is is even debated. And the absurd part is that the fact that the horizion does not remain at eye level neither proves nor disproves either of the two models.

Yes. This IS the silly thing.
I have shown quite clearly with a diagram that the horizon would dip on a flat earth and a globe. Horizon dip is not proof of a globe.
Tom has been shown an experiment which clearly shows the horizon dip at different altitudes, an experiment he can reproduce at little or no cost.
He claims to be an empiricist but he refuses to do so.
He posted a quote which said that the horizon stays "practically" at eye level - which is true, it does stay close to eye level at normal altitudes, but not exactly and the dip IS measurable.
He also posted a video which does actually show the horizon changing height as the drone is at different altitudes - I posted two stills above which show that.

Tom's assertion that the horizon remains at eye level is wrong.
You can show it's wrong with a diagram, which I have.
You can prove it wrong with an experiment, which has been shown.
A good empiricist would want to test this but he doesn't, I guess because he knows he is wrong.

Rowbotham had a habit (according to the Wiki page about him) of running away from debates when he couldn't answer questions, and swearing black is white that he was right when he was shown to be wrong. You can see that Tom models himself on Rowbowtham. I have never seen Tom budge an inch on any debate no matter how conclusively he is shown to be wrong. It is not an honest way to debate.

[hexagon]

All the confusion in discussions about the horizon is the result of different definitions of what the horizon actually is.

On a globe, the horizon is the result of the limited sight due to the spherical shape of the globe. It's defined by that tangent to the sphere that goes to the observers eyes. At the same time this is the optical axis of the imaging system of your eyes if we are looking down to the horizon. And of course everything below this optical axis belongs to the globe and everything above belongs to the sky. This is independent of the elevation of the observer, the only thing that changes is the distance between the observer and the horizon. The horizon is further away if the observer goes up.

On the other hand, if we align the optical axis horizontally (now it's a tangent to the sphere at the position of the observer), the horizon is slightly below the optical axis and therefor also a tiny bit of the sky. And if the observer is going up, the horizon will drop more and more.

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.

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.

Therefor you need some trick to bring the vanishing point closer to the observer. And if you read EnaG, then the solution is the effect of optical resolution. Of course, beyond a certain distance two points are apparently merging with each other. This limits how far you can see. And you move the vanishing point from infinity to this point and you get your horizon.

And this horizon is indeed moving up if the observer is moving up and looking horizontally. Just because the optical axis is moving up together with the observer.

This can be easily seen if you are look along a tunnel while going down on your knees or standing up. The vanishing point will always follow you. The same if you move left and right, it always follows.     

That is the reason why the question of the 'eye-level horizon' is so important for the flat-earth believers. The rising horizon only works on a flat earth, while the dropping horizon only works on a globe.

Unfortunately, the two are almost not distinguishable with your bare eyes again cause of the effect of perspective... It's a nice topic therefor to generate confusion if you are not fully aware of the mechanisms behind it.           

[AATW]

Interesting. They do indeed see the horizon as the merging of perspective lines.
Although why that would only vertically and not horizontally remains to be explained - if the horizon was what they think then it would be a dot, not a line.

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 weirdest thing is, the horizon DOES dip below eye level and that dip DOES increase with altitude.
It is observable.
It is measurable.
It is demonstrable with a simple, cheap experiment.

And yet these so-called empiricists, instead of engaging with this, just shout DOESN'T, DOESN'T, DOESN'T and run away.
Weird.

[hexagon]

The problem is the selective perception of reality. Of course, if you look along a straight line of railway tracks they seem to merge in a single point at the horizon. For lots off people that would be an sufficient proof that perspective lines meet in a vanishing point at the horizon. And then they start sharing pictures of this as proof.

If they would look at reference lines further apart from each other, the perception would be very different, they just would not merge. But such examples are not so easy to find. A picture of merging railway tracks almost everyone has seen in his live. It's quite convincing on the first glance... 

And regarding the drop of the horizon below eye level. It's almost impossible to observe with bare eyes due to effect of perspective. Again, what you observe with out any tools, just with your bare eyes, is that the horizon is elevating if you go up. If you take pictures of the horizon and show them around almost everyone will say the horizon is at the center of the picture independent of the height it was taken from. It's not easy to convince someone, that the horizon is really not rising. The drop of the horizon is nothing you experience every day, the common experience is more that it stays fixed.

[AATW]

Another interesting thing is they use perspective to try and explain this sort of thing and then conveniently forget about it when claiming that crepuscular rays show the sun is closer than supposed by science. I've found a lot of "heads I win, tails you lose" logic where the argument completely flips depending on the circumstance.

[Tom Bishop]

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?

The weirdest thing is, the horizon DOES dip below eye level and that dip DOES increase with altitude.
It is observable.
It is measurable.
It is demonstrable with a simple, cheap experiment.

And yet these so-called empiricists, instead of engaging with this, just shout DOESN'T, DOESN'T, DOESN'T and run away.
Weird.

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

[Stagiri]

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

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Macarios]

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.

Why don't you read "Earth Not a Globe"?
Rowbotham gave some "distances" there... LOL