*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #20 on: August 31, 2017, 02:42:38 PM »
Bottom line is that this is not solid evidence EITHER WAY.

Then why do you guys constantly bring it up?

I don't...I NEVER use Rowbotham, Wallace, Oldham, Stratton, Blount or Morrow results as proof or disproof of FET/RET.

You, however, constantly bring it up...so it's necessary to repeatedly point out that (at best) this is bad science and should be ignored.

We know that refraction and the effects of tides and water flow in the canal could each have had an effect on the results.  I actually believe that Stratton was the only experiment that came close to scientific rigor - and he said that the result was in favor of Round Earth...but because this is a seriously screwed up mess - I'm more than happy to say that ALL of the results (Rowbotham's included) cannot be accepted as evidence either way.

On my recent vacation in the UK, we actually drove through Mepal and over a bridge that spans the Old Bedford River (which is where all of these things happened).    We didn't have time to stop - but as we crossed the bridge, I have to say that this is an amazingly long, straight, flat stretch of water - and I could see it curved away from us with the naked eye from the height of the bridge.

But that's not science either.

So when you bring the Rowbotham experiment up AGAIN (as I'm quite sure you will) - you can expect me to AGAIN point out that it's not a scientifically valid experiment - and it was not confirmed through subsequent efforts to duplicate the results.

So far as I can find on the Wiki, it is the only type of experiment that involves any measurement that specifically concludes that the earth is flat.  The Kansas experiment does not conclude that the entire earth is flat, only Kansas.  That one is easy to explain through topography.

By the way.  Tom, in the Bishop experiment, how did you physically measure the distance between your two points?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #21 on: August 31, 2017, 05:46:05 PM »
Bottom line is that this is not solid evidence EITHER WAY.

Then why do you guys constantly bring it up?

I don't...I NEVER use Rowbotham, Wallace, Oldham, Stratton, Blount or Morrow results as proof or disproof of FET/RET.

You, however, constantly bring it up...so it's necessary to repeatedly point out that (at best) this is bad science and should be ignored.

We know that refraction and the effects of tides and water flow in the canal could each have had an effect on the results.  I actually believe that Stratton was the only experiment that came close to scientific rigor - and he said that the result was in favor of Round Earth...but because this is a seriously screwed up mess - I'm more than happy to say that ALL of the results (Rowbotham's included) cannot be accepted as evidence either way.

On my recent vacation in the UK, we actually drove through Mepal and over a bridge that spans the Old Bedford River (which is where all of these things happened).    We didn't have time to stop - but as we crossed the bridge, I have to say that this is an amazingly long, straight, flat stretch of water - and I could see it curved away from us with the naked eye from the height of the bridge.

But that's not science either.

So when you bring the Rowbotham experiment up AGAIN (as I'm quite sure you will) - you can expect me to AGAIN point out that it's not a scientifically valid experiment - and it was not confirmed through subsequent efforts to duplicate the results.

So far as I can find on the Wiki, it is the only type of experiment that involves any measurement that specifically concludes that the earth is flat.  The Kansas experiment does not conclude that the entire earth is flat, only Kansas.  That one is easy to explain through topography.

By the way.  Tom, in the Bishop experiment, how did you physically measure the distance between your two points?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Why is there no photographic evidence of the Bishop Experiment?   Seems sketchy to me or as the kids like to say... "pictures or it didn't happen".

Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #22 on: August 31, 2017, 08:28:40 PM »
Bottom line is that this is not solid evidence EITHER WAY.

Then why do you guys constantly bring it up?

I don't...I NEVER use Rowbotham, Wallace, Oldham, Stratton, Blount or Morrow results as proof or disproof of FET/RET.

You, however, constantly bring it up...so it's necessary to repeatedly point out that (at best) this is bad science and should be ignored.

We know that refraction and the effects of tides and water flow in the canal could each have had an effect on the results.  I actually believe that Stratton was the only experiment that came close to scientific rigor - and he said that the result was in favor of Round Earth...but because this is a seriously screwed up mess - I'm more than happy to say that ALL of the results (Rowbotham's included) cannot be accepted as evidence either way.

On my recent vacation in the UK, we actually drove through Mepal and over a bridge that spans the Old Bedford River (which is where all of these things happened).    We didn't have time to stop - but as we crossed the bridge, I have to say that this is an amazingly long, straight, flat stretch of water - and I could see it curved away from us with the naked eye from the height of the bridge.

But that's not science either.

So when you bring the Rowbotham experiment up AGAIN (as I'm quite sure you will) - you can expect me to AGAIN point out that it's not a scientifically valid experiment - and it was not confirmed through subsequent efforts to duplicate the results.

We are talking about the Wallace experiment, not Rowbotham's. If you agreed that it should not be brought up up then you should have just agreed that it should not be brought up and refrained from wasting our time with your rants about other experiments.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #23 on: August 31, 2017, 08:53:14 PM »
Why is there no photographic evidence of the Bishop Experiment?   Seems sketchy to me or as the kids like to say... "pictures or it didn't happen".

There is photographic evidence. You can see the Santa Cruz beach from Monterey with the naked eye. Someone posted naked eye pictures from a previous thread on the matter:

The point behind the picture I linked is that the beaches are easily seen on the opposite coast. It is a lighter colored line against the dark blue ocean. I never said that it was a picture of Santa Cruz. It is not carelessness or any mistake on my part. The sentence I wrote clearly says that it's an example of easily seen beaches on the opposite coast.

Here is my picture again:



Here is the picture of Santa Cruz posted earlier in this thread:



It might not pop out at you right away, but the pixels just above the water's surface in the Santa Cruz picture are lighter than the dark hills above it. If you look closely there is a light tan line in there, it is not dark on dark.

If you were looking at the whole scene in person starting from the closer coastline (the first image) and followed it into the distance to Santa Cruz (the second image), it would be easier to follow the light line of the beach.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2017, 08:57:15 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #24 on: August 31, 2017, 09:29:09 PM »
Tom,

How was distance measured for the Bishop experiment?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1367
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #25 on: September 01, 2017, 02:15:13 AM »
Why is there no photographic evidence of the Bishop Experiment?   Seems sketchy to me or as the kids like to say... "pictures or it didn't happen".

There is photographic evidence. You can see the Santa Cruz beach from Monterey with the naked eye. Someone posted naked eye pictures from a previous thread on the matter:

The point behind the picture I linked is that the beaches are easily seen on the opposite coast. It is a lighter colored line against the dark blue ocean. I never said that it was a picture of Santa Cruz. It is not carelessness or any mistake on my part. The sentence I wrote clearly says that it's an example of easily seen beaches on the opposite coast.

Here is my picture again:



Here is the picture of Santa Cruz posted earlier in this thread:



It might not pop out at you right away, but the pixels just above the water's surface in the Santa Cruz picture are lighter than the dark hills above it. If you look closely there is a light tan line in there, it is not dark on dark.

If you were looking at the whole scene in person starting from the closer coastline (the first image) and followed it into the distance to Santa Cruz (the second image), it would be easier to follow the light line of the beach.

Please provide evidence that the pictures are what you claim.

Do you have a citation for this sweeping generalisation?

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #26 on: September 01, 2017, 02:54:33 AM »
Why is there no photographic evidence of the Bishop Experiment?   Seems sketchy to me or as the kids like to say... "pictures or it didn't happen".

There is photographic evidence. You can see the Santa Cruz beach from Monterey with the naked eye. Someone posted naked eye pictures from a previous thread on the matter:

The point behind the picture I linked is that the beaches are easily seen on the opposite coast. It is a lighter colored line against the dark blue ocean. I never said that it was a picture of Santa Cruz. It is not carelessness or any mistake on my part. The sentence I wrote clearly says that it's an example of easily seen beaches on the opposite coast.

Here is my picture again:



Here is the picture of Santa Cruz posted earlier in this thread:



It might not pop out at you right away, but the pixels just above the water's surface in the Santa Cruz picture are lighter than the dark hills above it. If you look closely there is a light tan line in there, it is not dark on dark.

If you were looking at the whole scene in person starting from the closer coastline (the first image) and followed it into the distance to Santa Cruz (the second image), it would be easier to follow the light line of the beach.

Please provide evidence that the pictures are what you claim.

They look photoshopped to me. I've never seen the horizon break at such a sharp angle before. Please provide details of the camera used, the date and time of the photo, the elevation of the camera, the distance to the horizon measured with a mechanical measurement device and the ambient air temperature along the entire line of sight.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #27 on: September 01, 2017, 12:51:04 PM »
Tom,

How was distance measured for the Bishop experiment?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

It was measured with Google Earth. Is there something wrong with using your Round Earth distances to show that the predicted Round Earth curvature is incorrect?

They look photoshopped to me. I've never seen the horizon break at such a sharp angle before. Please provide details of the camera used, the date and time of the photo, the elevation of the camera, the distance to the horizon measured with a mechanical measurement device and the ambient air temperature along the entire line of sight.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

The sources of the picture are provided in that thread. The panorama shows that the photograph was taken from a rock near sea level at the water's edge.

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #28 on: September 01, 2017, 01:47:19 PM »
Tom,

How was distance measured for the Bishop experiment?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

It was measured with Google Earth. Is there something wrong with using your Round Earth distances to show that the predicted Round Earth curvature is incorrect?

They look photoshopped to me. I've never seen the horizon break at such a sharp angle before. Please provide details of the camera used, the date and time of the photo, the elevation of the camera, the distance to the horizon measured with a mechanical measurement device and the ambient air temperature along the entire line of sight.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

The sources of the picture are provided in that thread. The panorama shows that the photograph was taken from a rock near sea level at the water's edge.

Did they account for refraction because that is what is happening in this pic.

Take a close look at the photo with the Gull and the kayaker. If you look at image, you'll notice there appears to be gaps near the water line. Now look at the image below for a more stark example. What they are seeing is a mirage. When you put a spoon in a glass of water do you think the spoon suddenly changes shape or do you understand that light passing through different densities bends?

I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #29 on: September 01, 2017, 02:11:36 PM »
Tom,

How was distance measured for the Bishop experiment?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

It was measured with Google Earth. Is there something wrong with using your Round Earth distances to show that the predicted Round Earth curvature is incorrect?

They look photoshopped to me. I've never seen the horizon break at such a sharp angle before. Please provide details of the camera used, the date and time of the photo, the elevation of the camera, the distance to the horizon measured with a mechanical measurement device and the ambient air temperature along the entire line of sight.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

The sources of the picture are provided in that thread. The panorama shows that the photograph was taken from a rock near sea level at the water's edge.

I am so glad to hear you say that you used google earth to measure distance for your experiment as google earth uses Lat/long to calculate distance.

Please provide proof that your distance measurements are consistent on both a flat earth and round earth.  You either invalidate distance for your own experiment or validate it for the geology proof in the Airline data thread.  I'm ok with either.

Honestly, I thought you would have seen this coming.  You're usually more careful than this.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #30 on: September 01, 2017, 05:03:38 PM »
Please provide proof that your distance measurements are consistent on both a flat earth and round earth.  You either invalidate distance for your own experiment or validate it for the geology proof in the Airline data thread.  I'm ok with either.
Neither of these needs to happen. The Bishop Experiment is a sound disproof of the Round Earth Theory (which can, but doesn't have to, serve as evidence of the Flat Earth Theory). Effectively, it's a reductio ad absurdum - you take Round Earth assumptions (distances, extent of curvature) for granted, combine it with observational evidence (you can clearly see something that should be obscured by the curvature, if the assumptions were true), and you arrive at an absurd conclusion. Therefore, either the assumptions or the observation was incorrect. Since Google Earth's images support the observation, we know it was the assumptions that failed.

So no, assuming RE distances for this experiment has no weigh on your qualms with how distances work on FE. That is completely off-topic for this subject.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2017, 05:13:24 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #31 on: September 01, 2017, 05:33:37 PM »
Please provide proof that your distance measurements are consistent on both a flat earth and round earth.  You either invalidate distance for your own experiment or validate it for the geology proof in the Airline data thread.  I'm ok with either.
Neither of these needs to happen. The Bishop Experiment is a sound disproof of the Round Earth Theory (which can, but doesn't have to, serve as evidence of the Flat Earth Theory). Effectively, it's a reductio ad absurdum - you take Round Earth assumptions (distances, extent of curvature) for granted, combine it with observational evidence (you can clearly see something that should be obscured by the curvature, if the assumptions were true), and you arrive at an absurd conclusion. Therefore, either the assumptions or the observation was incorrect. Since Google Earth's images support the observation, we know it was the assumptions that failed.

So no, assuming RE distances for this experiment has no weigh on your qualms with how distances work on FE. That is completely off-topic for this subject.
The problem with the Bishop Experiment (and other like it) is the assumption is wrong, and they aren't taking proper variables into account. His writings on the matter also leave questions that his pictures don't answer, not to mention the issue of his pictures not being conclusive evidence anyway. The claim is there is a thin white line that is the beach in his photos. But he claims to have been able to see people upon the beach, which the picture provides no evidence for. In fact, the claim is there's no possible way that he should be able to see what's seen in the photo on a RE. But without knowing numbers that are not provided, it's impossible to verify or disprove that claim, and the photographic evidence isn't particularly clear on exactly what's seen to boot. Not to mention a single experiment isn't enough anyway.

I do agree that the distances he uses have no bearing on any other discussion though. FE or RE distances, the idea being tested against uses RE, so that's what should be used.

*

Offline CriticalThinker

  • *
  • Posts: 159
  • Polite and Pragmatic
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #32 on: September 01, 2017, 05:58:08 PM »
Please provide proof that your distance measurements are consistent on both a flat earth and round earth.  You either invalidate distance for your own experiment or validate it for the geology proof in the Airline data thread.  I'm ok with either.
Neither of these needs to happen. The Bishop Experiment is a sound disproof of the Round Earth Theory (which can, but doesn't have to, serve as evidence of the Flat Earth Theory). Effectively, it's a reductio ad absurdum - you take Round Earth assumptions (distances, extent of curvature) for granted, combine it with observational evidence (you can clearly see something that should be obscured by the curvature, if the assumptions were true), and you arrive at an absurd conclusion. Therefore, either the assumptions or the observation was incorrect. Since Google Earth's images support the observation, we know it was the assumptions that failed.

So no, assuming RE distances for this experiment has no weigh on your qualms with how distances work on FE. That is completely off-topic for this subject.

The data points, calculations and conclusions only work in the Bishop experiment in the event that the earth is flat and Tom has repeatedly insisted that Lat/Long can't be accepted as accurate on a flat earth. This negates the accuracy of one of the only measurements taken during his experiment.

On a round earth, atmospheric refraction can very easily explain one of the methodological issues in the Bishop experiment yet they were not measured in any way. Secondly, the Bishop experiment confuses drop off with central bulge height and in the event that the earth really is round, fails to use a centrally located vertical to measure against two known height uprights at both terminal locations to check for a convexity. He then further confounds his empirical evidence by failing to make the same observation in both directions. On a round earth, the experiment is incapable of accurately detecting a convexity over distance under the conditions described and as such doesn't work in a reductio ad absurdum proof either.  It fails to reduce out multiple variables that would still be present under a round earth assumption.

I do believe that this falls under the initial point of my discussion as I requested empirical evidence to support FE theory. Calling the validity of one of the proofs into question should still be on topic. However, I did have to reference other assertions made by the author of the proof in other works to provide proper frame of reference. How can I trust measurements taken by an observer that doesn't actually think the tool used is accurate?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 1024
  • Path of photon from sun location to eye at sunset?
    • View Profile
    • What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #33 on: September 01, 2017, 07:26:33 PM »

There is photographic evidence. You can see the Santa Cruz beach from Monterey with the naked eye. Someone posted naked eye pictures from a previous thread on the matter:

The point behind the picture I linked is that the beaches are easily seen on the opposite coast. It is a lighter colored line against the dark blue ocean. I never said that it was a picture of Santa Cruz. It is not carelessness or any mistake on my part. The sentence I wrote clearly says that it's an example of easily seen beaches on the opposite coast.

Here is my picture again:




The trouble with this photo is that we don't know how high the eyepoint is above sea level.

I see evidence of a wall in front of the camera there - and it looks like the photographer was standing up at some number of feet above normal eye height.

The distance you can see in RET is *CRITICALLY* dependent on eye height - even a small variation in height makes an enormous difference in the horizon distance.

Check out:  http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

At a "normal" eye height of 5 feet - the horizon is 2.7 miles away.  But at just 10 feet, it's 3.9 miles away.  At 20 feet, it's 5.5 miles away.

Worse than that...seeing objects beyond the horizon depends not just on eye height - but also on the height of the object you're looking at.  I see no evidence in the photo above that we're seeing the base of the hills (or whatever they are) out there...and that effect is similar to the observer height.

When you have both an observer who is higher than expected above the ocean AND a target that's way above sea level - you can see for MUCH larger distances than you'd otherwise expect.

Then you also have to allow for wave height since anything other than calm water has complicated geometry that's hard to allow for...and again, these view distances are incredibly sensitive to small errors in that assumption.

So without good, verifiable, data on these those three measurements - any kind of photograph (or eyewitness testimony) like this is useless.

But even with good data - there is this same thorny problem of grazing-angle refraction over the water - which is notoriously hard to allow for - and very likely the cause of the issues with the various Bedford Levels experiments.

So again - this is neither proof nor disproof...it's simply useless.

To avoid these annoying and confounding issues - we need to look at the skies and other similar observations where the vast distances (even in FE terms) are sufficient to make these small errors unimportant.   The sun set's pretty much the same whether you're on the ground or standing on a step ladder.
Hey Tom:  What path do the photons take from the physical location of the sun to my eye at sunset?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #34 on: September 04, 2017, 11:32:00 PM »
The point behind the picture I linked is that the beaches are easily seen on the opposite coast. It is a lighter colored line against the dark blue ocean. I never said that it was a picture of Santa Cruz. It is not carelessness or any mistake on my part. The sentence I wrote clearly says that it's an example of easily seen beaches on the opposite coast.

Here is my picture again:




The trouble with this photo is that we don't know how high the eyepoint is above sea level.

I see evidence of a wall in front of the camera there - and it looks like the photographer was standing up at some number of feet above normal eye height.

The distance you can see in RET is *CRITICALLY* dependent on eye height - even a small variation in height makes an enormous difference in the horizon distance.

Check out:  http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

At a "normal" eye height of 5 feet - the horizon is 2.7 miles away.  But at just 10 feet, it's 3.9 miles away.  At 20 feet, it's 5.5 miles away.

Worse than that...seeing objects beyond the horizon depends not just on eye height - but also on the height of the object you're looking at.  I see no evidence in the photo above that we're seeing the base of the hills (or whatever they are) out there...and that effect is similar to the observer height.

When you have both an observer who is higher than expected above the ocean AND a target that's way above sea level - you can see for MUCH larger distances than you'd otherwise expect.

Then you also have to allow for wave height since anything other than calm water has complicated geometry that's hard to allow for...and again, these view distances are incredibly sensitive to small errors in that assumption.

So without good, verifiable, data on these those three measurements - any kind of photograph (or eyewitness testimony) like this is useless.

But even with good data - there is this same thorny problem of grazing-angle refraction over the water - which is notoriously hard to allow for - and very likely the cause of the issues with the various Bedford Levels experiments.

So again - this is neither proof nor disproof...it's simply useless.

To avoid these annoying and confounding issues - we need to look at the skies and other similar observations where the vast distances (even in FE terms) are sufficient to make these small errors unimportant.   The sun set's pretty much the same whether you're on the ground or standing on a step ladder.

The trouble with your interpretation is that the first picture is not a picture of Santa Cruz. You obviously didn't even read about what you were posting. It does not matter what the height it is in that picture. The second panorama shot you clipped out is of Santa Cruz, and we know from the panorama source that is taken from atop a rock near the ocean's surface.

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2017, 12:20:31 AM »
we know from the panorama source that is taken from atop a rock near the ocean's surface.
20-25 feet above the ocean's surface.  That puts the horizon 5.5-6 miles away.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2017, 12:28:17 AM »
we know from the panorama source that is taken from atop a rock near the ocean's surface.
20-25 feet above the ocean's surface.  That puts the horizon 5.5-6 miles away.

How did you estimate that this panorama is taken 20-25 feet above the ocean surface?

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2017, 03:17:24 AM »
By clicking on the very conveniently placed link you provided to the source image, panning the 360 degree panoramic image around, noting the size of the kayaker, the woman walking in the direction of the photographer and the drop to the water, and then looking at the same spot on google earth and noting the elevation of the pathway and rock outcrop.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2017, 07:31:37 AM »
20-25 feet above the ocean's surface.  That puts the horizon 5.5-6 miles away.
And, just to confirm Round Earthers didn't re-invent mathematics yet: 6 is considerably less than 30, yes?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: FE model evidence
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2017, 12:20:02 PM »
I disagree with the height estimate. But more importantly, how was the distance to the horizon computed?