[AATW]

There's a scale which shows eye level and marks degrees below it, that's the bit I don't understand. You surely have to have some levelling device to know where eye level is and where 1 degree below that is and so on. But yes, if the person who made that video is available to explain his method then that would be helpful.

[Tom Bishop]

It is possible if you have knowledge of your position and the positions of distant bodies or structures.

If your eye is at an altitude of 5 feet, 6 inches, and there is an object, say a red ball on a post, 500 feet away from you, which is also at altitude of 5 feet, 6 inches, then the  position of that ball to you will be parallel on the horizontal. The path to that object will be at your eye level.

Instead, lets say that the red ball is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude. In order to find its position in degrees below eye level we can use the knowledge that there is a gap of 3 feet, 6 inches; a space which represents where the hypothetical eye level ball would be.

Perform the calculations for angular diameter of that space manually or find an angular diameter calculator. At 500 feet, 3.5 feet (3 feet, 6 inches) makes up 0.401 degrees of space. Therefore a ball that is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude is 0.401 degrees below eye level.

[QED]

The scale is not based on a leveling experiment, and so there is nothing to calibrate. The scales JTolan creates in his videos are based on the knowledge of his position, the distance to bodies in the distance, and the concept of radians and angular sizes.

I'll invite JTolan to come back to the forum and break down his process step-by-step, for our knowledge, and inclusion in the Wiki. If the scale is accurate, it has some important consequences.

Yes, I do understand the concepts of radians and angular sizes

Whenever a positional instrument is operative, then calibration is necessary.

The entire process appears to be in a poorly controlled setting. Hence, i am concerned about your automatic inclination to include the results in the wiki.

It’s your wiki, of course, so do whatever the hell you want.

I simply notice a contrast between the standard and depth of scrutiny you are presenting towards this video (which shows an outcome potentially favourable to your beliefs) compared to the previous media regarding curvature of the horizon.

With the former, you presented a tireless list of complaints and critiques, many of which were questionable in their scientific impact. With the latter, you appear to have absolutely none!

This appears to objective audiences as bias, and degrades the merit and reputation of FE efforts.

I am extending an olive branch here. It is critical that you learn proper scientific inquiry procedures, in order to insulate your conclusions from bias. I can teach you these, but you must be receptive.

[QED]

It is possible if you have knowledge of your position and the positions of distant bodies or structures.

If your eye is at an altitude of 5 feet, 6 inches, and there is an object, say a red ball on a post, 500 feet away from you, which is also at altitude of 5 feet, 6 inches, then the  position of that ball to you will be parallel on the horizontal. The path to that object will be at your eye level.

Instead, lets say that the red ball is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude. In order to find its position in degrees below eye level we can use the knowledge that there is a gap of 3 feet, 6 inches; a space which represents where the hypothetical eye level ball would be.

Perform the calculations for angular diameter of that space manually or find an angular diameter calculator. At 500 feet, 3.5 feet (3 feet, 6 inches) makes up 0.401 degrees of space. Therefore a ball that is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude is 0.401 degrees below eye level.

I am surprised that you do not belief any camera distortion effects are at play. In previous discussions, you held deep concerns about apparently well known distortive effects that when viewing images on th horizon.

[Tom Bishop]

I mainly post things to the Wiki that the entire community has discussed several times. I post the community's consensus position. The method I described above is strong, has been discussed by the community at length, and does not rely on leveling tools that need to be calibrated or carefully aligned. That method for finding eye level should be in the Wiki, with examples.

The angular diameter method is strong, whereby this is not strong:




You yourself gave no disagreement to the method I described. As I said, we will need more details from JTolan on his specific steps and, if we determine it is accurate, as a community, then we can include some of his examples.

If you view some of his videos, JTolan is claiming to see mountains and structures that should be hidden by the curvature of the earth with his IR camera. So far his observations do not appear to be distortion.

See the previous thread we had on the topic: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10629.0

[QED]

I mainly post things to the Wiki that the entire community has discussed several times. I post the community's consensus position. The method I described above is strong, has been discussed by the community at length, and does not rely on leveling tools that need to be calibrated or carefully aligned. That method for finding eye level should be in the Wiki, with examples.

The angular diameter method is strong, whereby this is not:




You yourself gave no disagreement to the method I described. As I said, we will need more details from JTolan on his specific steps and, if we determine it is accurate, as a community, then we can include some of his examples.

If you view some of his videos, JTolan is claiming to see mountains and structures that should be hidden by the curvature of the earth with his IR camera. So far his observations do not appear to be distortion.

See the previous thread we had on the topic: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10629.0

As a published scientist, I find your evaluation of this video clumsy and biased. Each piece of evidence stands and falls on its own merits, not on previous work. The apparent lack of integrity and equity of this address is disappointing.

You should strive to fill your wiki with solid, well-tested evidence, not a plethora of poorly interrogated evidence that spells a narrative.

That is, of course, if the goal of the wiki is to seek the truth.

[Tom Bishop]

The theory of angular diameter is solid and well tested. What evidence is there that the angular diameter theory is false? Why shouldn't that method be described in the wiki? Can you find an error in my example?

If you wish to create a rebuttal, I would encourage you to do more than state that it is an an "uncontrolled setting" and "camera distortion effects" and "Whenever a positional instrument is operative, then calibration is necessary." There really isn't much to do with that, except to point out that this method does not rely on calibration or leveling, and isn't an experiment at all, but an observation to which an equation is applied to bodies in the scene. As I see, the author is using a normal rectilinear lens on a high quality camera, which would not create the distortion necessary to bring the horizon down to where it needs to be.

In my example with the red ball, the observer doesn't need to be in a "controlled setting" to capture a picture of the ball in the distance.

The lack of effort on your part seems unsatisfactory. Screaming "uncontrolled setting!" is insufficient on this matter, as this "experiment" relies on no other variables except a normally taken rectilinear photograph and appropriate mathematical axioms which have been long demonstrated to be true, categorizing the method to be far superior than the uncalibrated surveying experiments which you seem to favor--which actually are experiments that need very careful consideration, as slight errors in alignment in the foreground can create large errors many miles away. 

If there is a flaw, or if it is wrong, then you should show how it is wrong. The matter is really no more than an observation and an interpretation, which puts it into a very different class of integrity. It is not an experiment with many variables. It is mainly the interpretation and underlying axioms which need to be vetted for truth.

[QED]

The theory of angular diameter is solid and well tested. What evidence is there that the angular diameter theory is false? Why shouldn't that method be described in the wiki? Can you find an error in my example?

If you wish to create a rebuttal, I would encourage you to do more than state that it is an an "uncontrolled setting" and "camera distortion effects" and "Whenever a positional instrument is operative, then calibration is necessary." There really isn't much to do with that, except to point out that this method does not rely on calibration or leveling, and isn't an experiment at all, but an observation to which an equation is applied to bodies in the scene. As I see, the author is using a normal rectilinear lens on a high quality camera, which would not create the distortion necessary to bring the horizon down to where it needs to be.

In my example with the red ball, the observer doesn't need to be in a "controlled setting" to capture a picture of the ball in the distance.

The lack of effort on your part seems unsatisfactory. Screaming "uncontrolled setting!" seems insufficient on this matter; as this 'experiment" relies on no other variables except a normally taken rectilinear photograph and appropriate mathematical axioms which have been long demonstrated to be true, categorizing the method to be far superior than the uncalibrated surveying experiments which you seem to favor--which actually are experiments that need very careful consideration. 

If there is a flaw, or if it is wrong, then you should show how it is wrong. The matter is actually an observation and an interpretation, which puts it into a very different class of integrity. There is not an experiment with many variables. It is mainly the interpretation and underlying axioms which need to be vetted for truth.

I take issue with your reply in its entirety. First, you erect a straw-man by implying that I was challenging the mathematics behind angular measures. I was not. Next, you attempt to mischaracterise my statements as wild red herring waving of the conspiracy flag without cause.

I would like to note the irony of that particular approach.

Indeed, my critique never resolved particulars of the video, precisely because no particulars are provided. It is this lack that raises concerns.

Nevertheless, my salient issue is with YOUR unflappable acceptance of this piece, despite it having no more scientific basis than previously pieces against which you rallied endlessly, waving your red herring flag of contempt.

No, sir, you do not distract me. And I am confident that no one reading this thread will fall for the transparent ruse you attempt to manufacture.

You invite this fellow here. I will be in attendance, and will bring to the discussion proper avenues of scientific address.

The FE community, being intelligent, thoughtful, and honest, will recognize the merit of that address. And when juxtaposed to the flaccid lip service of biased praise, they no doubt will be able to distinguish integrity from dogma.

As will I.

And so, I look forward with great anticipation to see which you elect to bring with you.

[AATW]

It is possible if you have knowledge of your position and the positions of distant bodies or structures.

If your eye is at an altitude of 5 feet, 6 inches, and there is an object, say a red ball on a post, 500 feet away from you, which is also at altitude of 5 feet, 6 inches, then the  position of that ball to you will be parallel on the horizontal. The path to that object will be at your eye level.

Instead, lets say that the red ball is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude. In order to find its position in degrees below eye level we can use the knowledge that there is a gap of 3 feet, 6 inches; a space which represents where the hypothetical eye level ball would be.

Perform the calculations for angular diameter of that space manually or find an angular diameter calculator. At 500 feet, 3.5 feet (3 feet, 6 inches) makes up 0.401 degrees of space. Therefore a ball that is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude is 0.401 degrees below eye level.

Interestingly, that actually does make some sense. Although using the same logic and a known viewer height and distance to the horizon surely we could determine horizon dip angle and find it is not 0...

For the scale to be accurate you'd have to know some things very precisely
1) Your altitude
2) The distance from the plane to the object you're viewing and the altitude of it if it's a peak.

Elsewhere you've argued that planes don't know how fast they're going, you seem strangely willing to accept that they know their altitude with accuracy.
Knowing the distance to the object involves knowing exactly where the plane is at the time of the observation - if planes know exactly where they are at any given moment then they surely know their speed - and exactly where the object you're viewing is. In the video you posted it was dots on the horizon, it was far from clear what those dots were. How could an accurate distance be ascertained?
And I'm not clear how any of this may be affected by the claim that the horizon rises to eye level. Surely that would affect angles?

The way of calculating angles you outline WOULD work, but only if you know all the distances precisely which is extremely difficult.

As QED has said and as I have picked you up on before, the issue is your level of critical thinking is wildly different depending on whether the result appears to back up FE or not. You assert in another post in this thread that the water level experiments are not accurate (despite the repeated assertion that the earth can't be a globe because "water finds its level", these tests consistently giving the same result and that result being verified by other methods of testing this) but everyone on here who has seen you post knows that if these experiments showed the horizon at the same level as the water you would be posting those claiming it clearly backed up the assertion about horizon rising to eye level.

[jimster]

At night, I can see stars over the complete dome. Doesn't this mean I can see a relatively dim light over the maximum distance? Why can I see a star at a greater distance from me than the sun, but can't see the sun? How do I see stars on the farthest part of the dome, but not the sun, which is closer?

[Tumeni]

Instead, lets say that the red ball is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude. In order to find its position in degrees below eye level we can use the knowledge that there is a gap of 3 feet, 6 inches; a space which represents where the hypothetical eye level ball would be.

Perform the calculations for angular diameter of that space manually or find an angular diameter calculator. At 500 feet, 3.5 feet (3 feet, 6 inches) makes up 0.401 degrees of space. Therefore a ball that is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude is 0.401 degrees below eye level.

Surely all you need do here is apply right-angle triangle trigonometry?

The horizontal distance to the 5ft6in point above the new position is one side, the 3ft6in another, and you have two sides of a right triangle. Solve for the angle at your location.

[KodyBair]

The sun will come up before the moon goes down. That is why you will at times see the moon out during the day but never see the sun out at night. So, as the earlier diagram showed, the sun can illuminate the moon as they are both up from the horizontal earth. But your eyes cannot see far enough to see the sun and moon clearly especially through clouds. The sun is almost always in sight but since the flat earth is so large from its north point to its south point and from its east point to its west point that you will not see them at the same time. But the rays from the sun are large enough and long enough to illuminate the sun.