[Buran]

Thanks for the detailed reply Tom! That definitely cleared some things up for me. I know enough now to conduct an experiment on this.

[inquisitive]

Thanks for the detailed reply Tom! That definitely cleared some things up for me. I know enough now to conduct an experiment on this.

The use of a term like eye level with no definition shows a lack of knowledge.

[xenotolerance]

If I lie flat on my face, 'eye level' doesn't mean very much.

It is entirely dependent on height, altitude, and what direction one happens to be looking. The horizon doesn't interact with 'eye level' even the slightest bit; it does not rise to meet the eye, never has, and never will. If you are looking directly at the horizon, you are looking slightly down.

[AATW]

I think by eye level he means the horizon is...horizontal.
So the height doesn't matter, the horizon is always straight in front of you.

Except it isn't. It's just the dip is quite small and hard to see, certainly at most normal heights.
The horizon dips more as you get higher, you can see further away when you get higher - the horizon is further away.
Which proves we live on a globe.

EDIT: Some measurements of horizon dip are given here, with some details about how to measure it
https://www.metabunk.org/a-diy-theodolite-for-measuring-the-dip-of-the-horizon.t8617/
As can be seen, the dip is very hard to discern at "normal" altitudes, even from a plane.

[AATW]

Please note that the concept of the horizon in perspective isn't the earth. Although the earth might ascend to meet the horizon in the distance, the horizon is not the earth.

I'm interested by this, can you explain this further? Are you saying that the earth extends further than the horizon but you can't see it? I'm not clear how that can be when you get such a sharp horizon line on a clear day.

The horizon can be anywhere around you, and is not defined by the surface of an object.  The horizon is the area where the perspective lines meet. If there were a skyscraper that was infinitely high, looking up from the base of the skyscraper would also create the effect of the perspective lines merging to a point. You would be looking at the skyscraper's horizon. If the skyscraper were not there, that horizon would still exist. It is just the area where the lines meet.

I see. Well, no it isn't. The horizon is simply where the earth meets the sky.
To be honest, I don't know what a horizon would look like on a flat earth.
On a globe it's a sharp line when looking out to sea because the earth curves away from you. Look along the edge of a ball - sharp line where the surface curves away from you.
That's why the horizon is further away when you get higher and the horizon line dips further below eye level with height.
These are observable and measurable and prove we live on a globe.

I guess a good way to prove that the horizon is not just where perspective lines meet would be to sail two ships maybe a mile or two apart away from you. Before they dip over the horizon they should still be a noticeable distance apart. This is an experiment you could probably organise as you live near the ocean.
If perspective points met at the horizon then the horizon would be a dot, not a line. If the horizon is what you say then why do only the horizontal lines meet and not the vertical? Do you actually think that horizontal perspective lines work differently to vertical perspective lines?

To respond to your other points:

All zoom does is make things bigger. So if a ship is truly half sunken then no amount of zoom will restore it. If the ship is not over the horizon but it's simply too far to see distinctly then optical zoom will make it clearer, that's all optical zoom does. It's not about "unmerging" perspective lines. They aren't merged in the first place any more than distant train tracks are merged. It's just that the limitations of your eye makes them harder to distinguish.

Once more: Shadow length and angle are determined by the PHYSICAL relationship between the light source and object. Not your or anyone else's perspective. Otherwise in your "row of lamps" thought experiment I as an observer from the side would see the shadow cast downwards as I can see the light is physically above your hand, you with your raised hand would see it cast upwards because of your perspective. That is not what is observed. The shadow is cast downwards for both people.
Again, do an experiment with a torch in a dark room. The only way you can cast long shadows is if the torch is PHYSICALLY near the ground.
At a distance of 6000 miles you are seriously suggestion that a gap of THREE THOUSAND MILES can't be seen?

For the beach to be obscured by waves then a close wave would simply have to be taller in apparent size than the people on the beach's apparent size. And I think we both agree that things get smaller with distance. As you keep saying, a dime can hide an elephant. But the only way a dime can hide an elephant if you're looking at ground level is the dime to be VERY close and the elephant far away. So actually closer waves are more likely to hide the distant beach than ones on the horizon which will be too small to discern - that's why the horizon at sea looks flat, yes there are waves but they are too small at that distance to notice.

So if you're 20 inches above the water then close waves are pretty likely to block distant beach or building unless you're higher than them - the video posted of the distant building being hidden by the curve of the earth was clearly done from above the waves level.
I've yet to see documentary proof of your experiment. You don't take "this is what I observed" as good enough evidence from anyone else (apart from Rowbotham, strangely, who as I may have mentioned thought the moon was translucent which some would think invalidates his other "proofs".

[Buran]

Please note that the concept of the horizon in perspective isn't the earth. Although the earth might ascend to meet the horizon in the distance, the horizon is not the earth.

I'm interested by this, can you explain this further? Are you saying that the earth extends further than the horizon but you can't see it? I'm not clear how that can be when you get such a sharp horizon line on a clear day.

The horizon can be anywhere around you, and is not defined by the surface of an object.  The horizon is the area where the perspective lines meet. If there were a skyscraper that was infinitely high, looking up from the base of the skyscraper would also create the effect of the perspective lines merging to a point. You would be looking at the skyscraper's horizon. If the skyscraper were not there, that horizon would still exist. It is just the area where the lines meet.

I see. Well, no it isn't. The horizon is simply where the earth meets the sky.
To be honest, I don't know what a horizon would look like on a flat earth.
On a globe it's a sharp line when looking out to sea because the earth curves away from you. Look along the edge of a ball - sharp line where the surface curves away from you.
That's why the horizon is further away when you get higher and the horizon line dips further below eye level with height.
These are observable and measurable and prove we live on a globe.

I guess a good way to prove that the horizon is not just where perspective lines meet would be to sail two ships maybe a mile or two apart away from you. Before they dip over the horizon they should still be a noticeable distance apart. This is an experiment you could probably organise as you live near the ocean.
If perspective points met at the horizon then the horizon would be a dot, not a line. If the horizon is what you say then why do only the horizontal lines meet and not the vertical? Do you actually think that horizontal perspective lines work differently to vertical perspective lines?

To respond to your other points:

All zoom does is make things bigger. So if a ship is truly half sunken then no amount of zoom will restore it. If the ship is not over the horizon but it's simply too far to see distinctly then optical zoom will make it clearer, that's all optical zoom does. It's not about "unmerging" perspective lines. They aren't merged in the first place any more than distant train tracks are merged. It's just that the limitations of your eye makes them harder to distinguish.

Once more: Shadow length and angle are determined by the PHYSICAL relationship between the light source and object. Not your or anyone else's perspective. Otherwise in your "row of lamps" thought experiment I as an observer from the side would see the shadow cast downwards as I can see the light is physically above your hand, you with your raised hand would see it cast upwards because of your perspective. That is not what is observed. The shadow is cast downwards for both people.
Again, do an experiment with a torch in a dark room. The only way you can cast long shadows is if the torch is PHYSICALLY near the ground.
At a distance of 6000 miles you are seriously suggestion that a gap of THREE THOUSAND MILES can't be seen?

For the beach to be obscured by waves then a close wave would simply have to be taller in apparent size than the people on the beach's apparent size. And I think we both agree that things get smaller with distance. As you keep saying, a dime can hide an elephant. But the only way a dime can hide an elephant if you're looking at ground level is the dime to be VERY close and the elephant far away. So actually closer waves are more likely to hide the distant beach than ones on the horizon which will be too small to discern - that's why the horizon at sea looks flat, yes there are waves but they are too small at that distance to notice.

So if you're 20 inches above the water then close waves are pretty likely to block distant beach or building unless you're higher than them - the video posted of the distant building being hidden by the curve of the earth was clearly done from above the waves level.
I've yet to see documentary proof of your experiment. You don't take "this is what I observed" as good enough evidence from anyone else (apart from Rowbotham, strangely, who as I may have mentioned thought the moon was translucent which some would think invalidates his other "proofs".

From the experiment I conducted with a scale earth and sun I would conclude you are correct. However, I think what Tom is saying is that distance changes the behavior of perspective, which should be relatively easy to prove or disprove regarding the sun.

[inquisitive]

Please note that the concept of the horizon in perspective isn't the earth. Although the earth might ascend to meet the horizon in the distance, the horizon is not the earth.

I'm interested by this, can you explain this further? Are you saying that the earth extends further than the horizon but you can't see it? I'm not clear how that can be when you get such a sharp horizon line on a clear day.

The horizon can be anywhere around you, and is not defined by the surface of an object.  The horizon is the area where the perspective lines meet. If there were a skyscraper that was infinitely high, looking up from the base of the skyscraper would also create the effect of the perspective lines merging to a point. You would be looking at the skyscraper's horizon. If the skyscraper were not there, that horizon would still exist. It is just the area where the lines meet.

I see. Well, no it isn't. The horizon is simply where the earth meets the sky.
To be honest, I don't know what a horizon would look like on a flat earth.
On a globe it's a sharp line when looking out to sea because the earth curves away from you. Look along the edge of a ball - sharp line where the surface curves away from you.
That's why the horizon is further away when you get higher and the horizon line dips further below eye level with height.
These are observable and measurable and prove we live on a globe.

I guess a good way to prove that the horizon is not just where perspective lines meet would be to sail two ships maybe a mile or two apart away from you. Before they dip over the horizon they should still be a noticeable distance apart. This is an experiment you could probably organise as you live near the ocean.
If perspective points met at the horizon then the horizon would be a dot, not a line. If the horizon is what you say then why do only the horizontal lines meet and not the vertical? Do you actually think that horizontal perspective lines work differently to vertical perspective lines?

To respond to your other points:

All zoom does is make things bigger. So if a ship is truly half sunken then no amount of zoom will restore it. If the ship is not over the horizon but it's simply too far to see distinctly then optical zoom will make it clearer, that's all optical zoom does. It's not about "unmerging" perspective lines. They aren't merged in the first place any more than distant train tracks are merged. It's just that the limitations of your eye makes them harder to distinguish.

Once more: Shadow length and angle are determined by the PHYSICAL relationship between the light source and object. Not your or anyone else's perspective. Otherwise in your "row of lamps" thought experiment I as an observer from the side would see the shadow cast downwards as I can see the light is physically above your hand, you with your raised hand would see it cast upwards because of your perspective. That is not what is observed. The shadow is cast downwards for both people.
Again, do an experiment with a torch in a dark room. The only way you can cast long shadows is if the torch is PHYSICALLY near the ground.
At a distance of 6000 miles you are seriously suggestion that a gap of THREE THOUSAND MILES can't be seen?

For the beach to be obscured by waves then a close wave would simply have to be taller in apparent size than the people on the beach's apparent size. And I think we both agree that things get smaller with distance. As you keep saying, a dime can hide an elephant. But the only way a dime can hide an elephant if you're looking at ground level is the dime to be VERY close and the elephant far away. So actually closer waves are more likely to hide the distant beach than ones on the horizon which will be too small to discern - that's why the horizon at sea looks flat, yes there are waves but they are too small at that distance to notice.

So if you're 20 inches above the water then close waves are pretty likely to block distant beach or building unless you're higher than them - the video posted of the distant building being hidden by the curve of the earth was clearly done from above the waves level.
I've yet to see documentary proof of your experiment. You don't take "this is what I observed" as good enough evidence from anyone else (apart from Rowbotham, strangely, who as I may have mentioned thought the moon was translucent which some would think invalidates his other "proofs".

From the experiment I conducted with a scale earth and sun I would conclude you are correct. However, I think what Tom is saying is that distance changes the behavior of perspective, which should be relatively easy to prove or disprove regarding the sun.

Perspective does not 'behave'.  Tom has his very own use of the word.

[Tom Bishop]

From the experiment I conducted with a scale earth and sun I would conclude you are correct. However, I think what Tom is saying is that distance changes the behavior of perspective, which should be relatively easy to prove or disprove regarding the sun.

The perspective lines aren't aren't going to ascend or descend to the eye level horizon at a distance of a few feet.

[AATW]

From the experiment I conducted with a scale earth and sun I would conclude you are correct. However, I think what Tom is saying is that distance changes the behavior of perspective, which should be relatively easy to prove or disprove regarding the sun.

The perspective lines aren't aren't going to ascend or descend to the eye level horizon at a distance of a few feet.

Or at any other distance. That isn't how perspective works and it isn't what the horizon is.
I have suggested an experiment you can do to prove that. Get a couple of friends with boats, get them sail away from the shore.
You will notice that they are a discernible distance apart when they disappear over the horizon.
I've also suggested an experiment to help you understand how long shadows can be cast only by a light source PHYSICALLY low  to the ground.
And I've suggested a few times doing some observations of the sun or moon and triangulating to prove they are as close as you suppose.

I look forward to your results.

[Buran]

From the experiment I conducted with a scale earth and sun I would conclude you are correct. However, I think what Tom is saying is that distance changes the behavior of perspective, which should be relatively easy to prove or disprove regarding the sun.

The perspective lines aren't aren't going to ascend or descend to the eye level horizon at a distance of a few feet.

Or at any other distance. That isn't how perspective works and it isn't what the horizon is.
I have suggested an experiment you can do to prove that. Get a couple of friends with boats, get them sail away from the shore.
You will notice that they are a discernible distance apart when they disappear over the horizon.
I've also suggested an experiment to help you understand how long shadows can be cast only by a light source PHYSICALLY low  to the ground.
And I've suggested a few times doing some observations of the sun or moon and triangulating to prove they are as close as you suppose.

I look forward to your results.

Unfortunately it's been nothing but cloudy days so I haven't been able to watch the sunset. And I hear you on the shadows, but one thing at a time.

I do have another question for Tom regarding the shape the sun takes as it moves across the sky. The sun has the appearance of a big ball or cirole facing the earth. If it is a ball, then orientation won't change how it to appears. If its a spotlight, it looks as if it must be facing not just at the earth, but at me at all times. Using a flashlight in the experiment I conducted the light began to take an eliptical shape as it moved away, gradually looking like someone shutting their eye. The sun does no such thing until right before it disappears. It seems to me that somehow this should be able to be recreated at shorter distances than thousands of miles. The wiki talks about how th atmosphere can magnify objects, but how does this affect it's shape?

[inquisitive]

From the experiment I conducted with a scale earth and sun I would conclude you are correct. However, I think what Tom is saying is that distance changes the behavior of perspective, which should be relatively easy to prove or disprove regarding the sun.

The perspective lines aren't aren't going to ascend or descend to the eye level horizon at a distance of a few feet.

That makes no sense at all. Please describe without the incorrect use of the word perspective.

[Tom Bishop]

From the experiment I conducted with a scale earth and sun I would conclude you are correct. However, I think what Tom is saying is that distance changes the behavior of perspective, which should be relatively easy to prove or disprove regarding the sun.

The perspective lines aren't aren't going to ascend or descend to the eye level horizon at a distance of a few feet.

Or at any other distance. That isn't how perspective works and it isn't what the horizon is.
I have suggested an experiment you can do to prove that. Get a couple of friends with boats, get them sail away from the shore.
You will notice that they are a discernible distance apart when they disappear over the horizon.
I've also suggested an experiment to help you understand how long shadows can be cast only by a light source PHYSICALLY low  to the ground.
And I've suggested a few times doing some observations of the sun or moon and triangulating to prove they are as close as you suppose.

I look forward to your results.

Unfortunately it's been nothing but cloudy days so I haven't been able to watch the sunset. And I hear you on the shadows, but one thing at a time.

I do have another question for Tom regarding the shape the sun takes as it moves across the sky. The sun has the appearance of a big ball or cirole facing the earth. If it is a ball, then orientation won't change how it to appears. If its a spotlight, it looks as if it must be facing not just at the earth, but at me at all times. Using a flashlight in the experiment I conducted the light began to take an eliptical shape as it moved away, gradually looking like someone shutting their eye. The sun does no such thing until right before it disappears. It seems to me that somehow this should be able to be recreated at shorter distances than thousands of miles. The wiki talks about how th atmosphere can magnify objects, but how does this affect it's shape?

The sun is a sphere. "Spotlight" refers to the spot-of-light the sun's light casts upon the earth, and is often misinterpreted to mean that the sun is non-spherical or only shines light in one direction.

[model 29]

I do have another question for Tom regarding the shape the sun takes as it moves across the sky. The sun has the appearance of a big ball or cirole facing the earth. If it is a ball, then orientation won't change how it to appears. If its a spotlight, it looks as if it must be facing not just at the earth, but at me at all times. Using a flashlight in the experiment I conducted the light began to take an eliptical shape as it moved away, gradually looking like someone shutting their eye. The sun does no such thing until right before it disappears. It seems to me that somehow this should be able to be recreated at shorter distances than thousands of miles. The wiki talks about how th atmosphere can magnify objects, but how does this affect it's shape?

Also one can observe sunspots with a simple and cheap #14 welding lens (or other sun filter) and some compact binoculars, and notice that those too will also remain oriented on your position throughout the day.  How does the same face of a sphere remain facing you all day?  (Or just observe the moon and see the same thing)

That is correct. If you use a telescope you can see more of the railroad tracks. The same is true with the sinking ship effect on a calm surface. Rowbotham and several other authors cite instances of half-sunken ships being restored when viewed with telescope, showing that the ships are not really going behind a "hill" of water.

How is it that there are no video examples available showing this occurring?  Do you have a link to one?  A ship, mountain, or structure that is visibly obscured from the bottom up at low magnification, and rising up to reveal the obscured portions as magnification is increased.

[Tom Bishop]

That is correct. If you use a telescope you can see more of the railroad tracks. The same is true with the sinking ship effect on a calm surface. Rowbotham and several other authors cite instances of half-sunken ships being restored when viewed with telescope, showing that the ships are not really going behind a "hill" of water.

How is it that there are no video examples available showing this occurring?

 

I did cite that there were video examples. Why did you cut it out of my quote?

[model 29]

That is correct. If you use a telescope you can see more of the railroad tracks. The same is true with the sinking ship effect on a calm surface. Rowbotham and several other authors cite instances of half-sunken ships being restored when viewed with telescope, showing that the ships are not really going behind a "hill" of water.

How is it that there are no video examples available showing this occurring?

 

I did cite that there were video examples. Why did you cut it out of my quote?

I didn't feel like quoting the entire post.  Here you go then.

Youtube Flat Earthers have also shown that the effect can be restored with a telescope.

I don't believe there are any youtube videos of a ship, mountain, structure, etc, shown at low magnification to be partially obscured from the bottom up, and rising up to full unobstructed height (defined dimensions of the object changing as seen between the low vs high zoom) as magnification is increased.

I've never seen one.  Do you have a link?

[Tom Bishop]

That is correct. If you use a telescope you can see more of the railroad tracks. The same is true with the sinking ship effect on a calm surface. Rowbotham and several other authors cite instances of half-sunken ships being restored when viewed with telescope, showing that the ships are not really going behind a "hill" of water.

How is it that there are no video examples available showing this occurring?

 

I did cite that there were video examples. Why did you cut it out of my quote?

I didn't feel like quoting the entire post.  Here you go then.

Youtube Flat Earthers have also shown that the effect can be restored with a telescope.

I don't believe there are any youtube videos of a ship, mountain, structure, etc, shown at low magnification to be partially obscured from the bottom up, and rising up to full unobstructed height (defined dimensions of the object changing as seen between the low vs high zoom) as magnification is increased.

I've never seen one.  Do you have a link?

We are rebuilding our library and are considering the inclusion of such video examples. Until then you can search for one of the many ship restoration videos on Youtube in your research.

[Curious Squirrel]

That is correct. If you use a telescope you can see more of the railroad tracks. The same is true with the sinking ship effect on a calm surface. Rowbotham and several other authors cite instances of half-sunken ships being restored when viewed with telescope, showing that the ships are not really going behind a "hill" of water.

How is it that there are no video examples available showing this occurring?

 

I did cite that there were video examples. Why did you cut it out of my quote?

I didn't feel like quoting the entire post.  Here you go then.

Youtube Flat Earthers have also shown that the effect can be restored with a telescope.

I don't believe there are any youtube videos of a ship, mountain, structure, etc, shown at low magnification to be partially obscured from the bottom up, and rising up to full unobstructed height (defined dimensions of the object changing as seen between the low vs high zoom) as magnification is increased.

I've never seen one.  Do you have a link?

We are rebuilding our library and are considering the inclusion of such video examples. Until then you can search for one of the many ship restoration videos on Youtube in your research.

On that note, if you find a good one, I at least would like to see it. There's been a few posted before, but none particular compelling for the FE idea. They appeared to be most easily explained simply by smaller details being harder to make out at lower zoom, than any 'restoration' effect occurring.

[douglips]

Sadly, all I can find are bad ones like this. The boat is clearly in front of the horizon:



The thumbnail image clearly shows the horizon beyond the boat.

I am literally unable to find any videos that you claim are widely available - they all suffer from some serious shortcoming like this.

Here's another great one - this clearly shows a ship going beyond the round earth horizon, no zoom restoration.

[AATW]

The sun is a sphere. "Spotlight" refers to the spot-of-light the sun's light casts upon the earth, and is often misinterpreted to mean that the sun is non-spherical or only shines light in one direction.

I'll be honest, that's what I thought your theory was.
But the problem with that is if the sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions (which I agree it must be, otherwise how can we see the moon?) then we would be able to see it all the time. Your own Wiki page illustrates the problem:



What is limiting the light from shining across the whole plane? You're going to say perspective, aren't you?
Perspective doesn't work like you think it does, and long shadows at sunset show the sun is PHYSICALLY low in the sky, not just appearing to be because of perspective.

[Tom Bishop]

The sun is a sphere. "Spotlight" refers to the spot-of-light the sun's light casts upon the earth, and is often misinterpreted to mean that the sun is non-spherical or only shines light in one direction.

I'll be honest, that's what I thought your theory was.
But the problem with that is if the sun is a sphere which shines light in all directions (which I agree it must be, otherwise how can we see the moon?) then we would be able to see it all the time. Your own Wiki page illustrates the problem:



What is limiting the light from shining across the whole plane? You're going to say perspective, aren't you?
Perspective doesn't work like you think it does, and long shadows at sunset show the sun is PHYSICALLY low in the sky, not just appearing to be because of perspective.

In Earth Not a Globe the perspective lines do not meet at infinity. The perspective lines meet at merge at a finite distance. The waves and swells and such then block out bodies beyond the horizon. A small mass area above the eye level horizon can block a larger mass further behind it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant.

See this illustration: