The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Stagiri on March 20, 2018, 06:58:32 PM
-
Is there any formula for calculating the radius of a certain circle of latitude?
I've read that each latitude degree is 69.5 miles further from the North Pole. Is it correct?
-
"Each degree of latitude is approximately 69 miles (111 kilometers) apart. The range varies (due to the earth's slightly ellipsoid shape) from 68.703 miles (110.567 km) at the equator to 69.407 (111.699 km) at the poles."
The radius of the Earth is pretty much constant, given the variance (oblateness) described above.
Are you looking to draw a 'horizontal' at each latitude line, and calculate the radius of each, like the base of a spherical cap, where the cap height moves closer and closer to the North Pole?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap
-
I think Stagiri wants the radius of the circle, not the radius of the earth.
In the mono-polar north-centric flat earth model, the radius of the circle is just 60 nautical miles (approximately 69 statute or "normal" miles) times the the difference in degrees between 90 degrees north and the latitude in question. So, here are some approximate radii:
Arctic circle: 1617 miles
tropic of cancer: 4590 miles
equator: 6210 miles
tropic of capricorn: 7830 miles
antarctic circle: 10800 miles.
In the round earth theory, the distance from the north pole as measured along the surface of the earth is the same as the radius from flat earth model. But, because of the curve, the radius of the actual planar circle is smaller.
The radius of the circle (ignoring the oblateness of the earth) is the radius of the earth times the cosine of the latitude. Here are the same latitude circle radii:
Arctic circle: 1578 miles
tropic of cancer: 3630 miles
equator: 3959 miles
tropic of capricorn: 3630 miles
antarctic circle: 1578 miles.
-
I think Stagiri wants the radius of the circle, not the radius of the earth.
In the mono-polar north-centric flat earth model, the radius of the circle is just 60 nautical miles (approximately 69 statute or "normal" miles) times the the difference in degrees between 90 degrees north and the latitude in question. So, here are some approximate radii:
Arctic circle: 1617 miles
tropic of cancer: 4590 miles
equator: 6210 miles
tropic of capricorn: 7830 miles
antarctic circle: 10800 miles.
In the round earth theory, the distance from the north pole as measured along the surface of the earth is the same as the radius from flat earth model. But, because of the curve, the radius of the actual planar circle is smaller.
The radius of the circle (ignoring the oblateness of the earth) is the radius of the earth times the cosine of the latitude. Here are the same latitude circle radii:
Arctic circle: 1578 miles
tropic of cancer: 3630 miles
equator: 3959 miles
tropic of capricorn: 3630 miles
antarctic circle: 1578 miles.
Thank you very much, this is exactly what I was looking for.
By the way, is it FE approved?
-
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.
-
Is there any formula for calculating the radius of a certain circle of latitude?
I've read that each latitude degree is 69.5 miles further from the North Pole. Is it correct?
Yes, it is correct along same longitude.
It is like that in both models, Flat and Globe (see Gleason's map and its legend in the corners).
Along meridians, and along great circles, one degree is 60 nautical miles (69.0468 statute miles, 111.12 kilometers).
Nautical mile was defined as 1852 meters because that is the distance of one arc minute. One degree is 60 arc minutes / 60 nautical miles.
Along parallels it works only on Equator, becuse other latitude lines get smaller and smaller the closer to pole they are.
Another thing that is the same in both models is longitudes of places.
Along the same meridian solar noon comes at the same exact moment, whether it is flat or globe model.
Solar noon comes regardless of the Earth's shape.
Knowing that, we can use the speed of solar noon to measure circumference of any latitude circle we want.
Let's take latitude of 45 degrees north as an example:
First, we find two places at 45 degrees north, some reasonable distance apart.
We find public records of the distance.
Those public records are under public scrutiny.
Public records are used by military, inustry, infrastructure, transportation times and fuel consumption and so on...
Two convenient places will be Ruma and Saint-Flour.
Ruma, Serbia: 45 degrees north, 19.826 degrees east.
Saint-Flour, France: 45 degrees north, 3.087 degrees east.
Distance: 1312.02 km.
Longitude difference: 19.826 - 3.087 = 16.739 degrees.
Sun (and solar noon) always travel 15 degrees per hour.
It doesn't change with the change of model.
It is seen when you go outside and measure for yourself, any time of day, any time of year.
Between these two places will have ground speed of (1312.02 / 16.739) * 15 = 1175.72 km/h.
The full circle will take 24 hours, and it is 1175.72 * 24 = 28 217.28 km.
So, circumference of the latitude 45 degrees north is 28 217 kilometers.
Radius of that latitude is 28 217 / 2Pi = 4491 km.
But it is not measured from Earth's center.
It was measured from the Earth's axis.
From the Earth's center radius will be ab / SQRT(a2sin2(45) + b2cos2(45) ) where a = 6378 km (equatorial radius) and b = 6357 km (polar radius).
So, radius from Earth's center at 45 degrees north will be 6367.5 km.
Now, let's check it out.
At 45 degrees of latitude radius from Earth's axis will now be 6367.5 km * cos(45) = 4502 km.
Our calculated radius is 4491 km.
Error is (Valmeasured - Valcorrect) / Valcorrect = (4491 - 4502) / 4502 = -0.0024 = -0.24%.
Pretty low error, don't you think?
-
The 'formula', surely, is simply pythagoras for right-angled triangles?
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm
The axis of the Earth is a vertical from point A. The radius at any point of latitude will equal side b, as it will be a line parallel to side b, connecting C with a point on the vertical above A.
For 10 degrees N or S, imagine the Earth viewed from the side. Hypotenuse is Earth radius of 6,371km (side c), angle A = 10 degrees, put these into the calculator, and side b results at 6,270km
For 20 degrees, b = 5,990 km
Repeat, repeat for 30 to 80 degrees
-
The 'formula', surely, is simply pythagoras for right-angled triangles?
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm
The axis of the Earth is a vertical from point A. The radius at any point of latitude will equal side b, as it will be a line parallel to side b, connecting C with a point on the vertical above A.
For 10 degrees N or S, imagine the Earth viewed from the side. Hypotenuse is Earth radius of 6,371km (side c), angle A = 10 degrees, put these into the calculator, and side b results at 6,270km
For 20 degrees, b = 5,990 km
Repeat, repeat for 30 to 80 degrees
This will work for ideal sphere, where vertical intersection is circle.
Hypotenuse will always be 6371 km.
Local radius from axis would be 6371 * cos(latitude).
At 45 degrees north (or south) it is 6371 * cos(45) = 4505 km
Circumference at 45 degrees latitude will be 2 * Pi * 4505 = 28 306 km
We will have pretty accurate result.
-------------------------------------------------------------
If we want more accuracy, we do more work, like this:
Polar radius of Earth is smaller, so vertical intersection is ellipse with semi-major axis a = 6378 km and semi-minor axis b = 6357 km.
In that case we don't have 6371 km at all angles.
As latitude grows hypotenuse will decrease from 6378 km to 6357 km.
At 45 degrees we will have hypotenuse to be 6378 * 6357 / SQRT(63782sin2(45) + 63572cos2(45) ) = 6367.5 km
(That is not 6371.)
From there we can use 6367.5 km as hypotenuse of the triangle to get local radius as 6367.5 * cos(45) = 4502.5 km
Circumference at 45 degrees latitude will be 2 * Pi * 4502.5 = 28 290 km
We are now more accurate by 16 km which is 0.000565 (or 0.0565% , or 565 ppm - parts per million).
(http://i68.tinypic.com/tajxv9.png)
-
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.
-
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.
Buddy you've got to stop bringing this funding excuse up.
-
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.
Why would your contributions be held to have any value, then, when you devote so little time and effort to them?
-
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.
Is something as simple as measuring the angle of the sun from different locations at different times to start producing a model of the shape of the earth beyond your ability?
-
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.
But even when you're shown simple experiments which would cost you do virtually nothing to do you refuse to do them.
Stop making excuses. There's plenty you could be doing. What ARE you doing to test your models and theories?
-
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.
Whilst thousands of professional scientists from a wide range if disciplines dedicate their full attention to their area of expertise and all refer to earth as a globe. But yeah, the world should listen to Tom Bishop and his one experiment...... :o
-
Is something as simple as measuring the angle of the sun from different locations at different times to start producing a model of the shape of the earth beyond your ability?
We dispute your ideas about how perspective works.
But even when you're shown simple experiments which would cost you do virtually nothing to do you refuse to do them.
Stop making excuses. There's plenty you could be doing. What ARE you doing to test your models and theories?
I'm talking about it. I'm bringing you up to speed by talking about the Earth Not a Globe conclusions about perspective under the Flat Earth model. Once we have a full understanding, a test may be derived.
The problem I am finding is that you guys are not listening. The conclusions on how perspective works in FET is quite different than the continuous version of perspective under the theories of the Ancient Greeks.
You are not helping when you keep coming up with tests that depend on those Ancient Greek assumptions. You are not working with me, you are working against me. That's where the problem is.
-
Is something as simple as measuring the angle of the sun from different locations at different times to start producing a model of the shape of the earth beyond your ability?
We dispute your ideas about how perspective works.
Really? But in this diagram from your Wiki you take no account of perspective.
Correctly, as it happens, so when it suits your argument you do understand how perspective works in the real world:
(https://image.ibb.co/kKCVFc/FEWiki.jpg)
If you're going to use that argument and that diagram explaining that argument then you can do the experiment which has been suggested to you.
You are not helping when you keep coming up with tests that depend on those Ancient Greek assumptions. You are not working with me, you are working against me. That's where the problem is.
You made a claim the other day about the horizon always being at eye level. A claim which is not true.
The best you could come up with as evidence was a video from a drone which you admitted was not stabilised and thus useless to testing that claim.
You were shown a video of an experiment which clearly showed your claim to be incorrect, an experiment you could repeat at minimal cost.
That test is nothing to do with perspective. It's a simple thing you could do to test part of your theory.
You are making all kinds of assertions based on Rowbotham's writings.
You claim to be an empiricist but you have taken no empirical measurements on anything.
-
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. That is evidence that your prediction that the horizon would drop is false.
Rather than addressing this, you guys posted an entirely different experiment involving a device filled with water and eyeballing its comparison to the horizon. A total distraction, and basically an admission that you don't want to talk about rising horizons anymore because the video clearly shows that you are wrong and the traditional theory of perspective is false.
-
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?
-
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.
-
What I saw in the video provided by Tom:
The only reference line I see, is the line from the drone to the roof of the building.
At the beginning this line is pointing towards the sky. Then, as the drone goes higher, this line is tilted/dipped downwards.
It's no surprise, that anything that's farther away than the building, now appears to be rising relative to the building's roof.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(https://image.ibb.co/cuLRVx/Horizon.jpg)
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.
(https://image.ibb.co/gGLyHH/Horizon_Drop.jpg)
That empirical enough for you?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Dear Mr. Bishop, may I ask you what the circumference of the equator is according to the FES? Thank you.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:D 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Dear Mr. Bishop, may I ask you what the circumference of the equator is according to the FES? Thank you.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(https://image.ibb.co/i9H7Kn/horizondip.jpg)
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. :D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(https://image.ibb.co/i9H7Kn/horizondip.jpg)
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. :D
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'.
-
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
-
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.
-
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:
(https://image.ibb.co/i9H7Kn/horizondip.jpg)
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. :D
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(https://image.ibb.co/i9H7Kn/horizondip.jpg)
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. :D
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.
-
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.
-
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.
:D 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...
-
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.
-
Dear Mr. Bishop, what method would you choose if you wanted to measure the circumference of the equator?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. :D
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
https://youtu.be/6viR_GJ8998
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. :)
-
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.
-
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?
-
If you want to talk about theodolites you have to read the work we have done on it and start your arguments from there. You are just showing us the results we have already written about. You are wasting my time.
-
If you want to talk about theodolites you have to read the work we have done on it and start your arguments from there. You are just showing us the results we have already written about. You are wasting my time.
Please describe recent work. Please provide names rather than just 'we'.
-
If you want to talk about theodolites you have to read the work we have done on it and start your arguments from there. You are just showing us the results we have already written about. You are wasting my time.
So basically it seems that your objection to the first experiment is that it is not well calibrated - some vague truth in then but I have shown the relevant stills which show the result very clearly.
But then...honestly Rowbotham's stuff is so hard to read, it's very wordy but I think the headline is theodolites aren't accurate either? Or is it something to do with some effect over water?
I'm interested to know what experiment you would think would be a good test of horizon angle. You've been two experiments, one with amateur equipment, one with professional, both give the same result and show that horizon dips more with altitude. How would you test this?
-
If you want to talk about theodolites you have to read the work we have done on it and start your arguments from there. You are just showing us the results we have already written about. You are wasting my time.
So basically it seems that your objection to the first experiment is that it is not well calibrated - some vague truth in then but I have shown the relevant stills which show the result very clearly.
But then...honestly Rowbotham's stuff is so hard to read, it's very wordy but I think the headline is theodolites aren't accurate either? Or is it something to do with some effect over water?
I've discussed this before, and explicitly shown why Rowbotham's objections are not only unfounded, but just wrong and inconsistent. But it doesn't matter, because their bible says it. Essentially Rowbotham took two theodolites, saw that they didn't match exactly (we have no idea how different they were) and decreed that clearly the lenses in them were bending the light so that the horizon didn't appear to rise to eye level as it should (thus meaning they are forever inaccurate in the eyes of a flerfer). Because when he sighted down a similar tool using only his eye, the horizon still looked to be at eye level. It's a groundless assertion (eyes are lenses too), but if we can only trust the center of the lens (as explicitly stated by Rowbotham) then if the horizon isn't in the center, it's clearly not there. If it was, it would show up in the undistorted center and prove him correct. So he has to make up some hogswash about how the tool developed to accurately measure angles at long distances, isn't accurate at all in the job it was made to do.
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.
The experiment isn't bad. Do you see how the only two people claiming it's bad are the two who disagree with it's results? Doesn't that tell you something? The control is the water itself. Put the tube together if you don't understand/believe. The two sides will always remain locally level across them. 'No peer review' hah! Guess we can chuck out all of Rowbotham's stuff then too, as I've not once seen peer review on any of it, other than the Bedford Level, which achieved no less than 3 different results. This goes for the Bishop Experiment too. No possibility of peer review when there's not enough detail provided.
We're not attempting to measure the angle, just show that the horizon drops further from eye level as you go higher. Which the experiment demonstrates quite well. Also, you don't believe surveyors anyway, so who cares what they do?
-
If you want to talk about theodolites
No, I don't.
(At least not yet.)
We don't need it to see "if at all".
Theodolite is (maybe) needed later, for the "for how much" part, if we continue investigating deeper.
you have to read the work we have done on it and start your arguments from there. You are just showing us the results we have already written about. You are wasting my time.
Ok, go do that other thing you reserved your time for.
-
The 'formula', surely, is simply pythagoras for right-angled triangles?
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm
The axis of the Earth is a vertical from point A. The radius at any point of latitude will equal side b, as it will be a line parallel to side b, connecting C with a point on the vertical above A.
For 10 degrees N or S, imagine the Earth viewed from the side. Hypotenuse is Earth radius of 6,371km (side c), angle A = 10 degrees, put these into the calculator, and side b results at 6,270km
For 20 degrees, b = 5,990 km
Repeat, repeat for 30 to 80 degrees
Also check this site https://www.easyunitconverter.com/right-triangle-calculator (https://www.easyunitconverter.com/right-triangle-calculator)