*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #240 on: May 17, 2018, 04:43:12 PM »
Here are six simple ways for measuring whether the horizon is at eye level or not:
May not be simple, but don't forget Tontogary's measurement from horizon to horizon using a sextant and finding >180° from an elevated position.

And it's gratifying to see the level lines of perspective being used as well. I hadn't seen that before, but it backs up what I was attempting with my caged cube thing.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #241 on: May 17, 2018, 04:49:31 PM »
I feel like, maybe, this is all become accelerated with the Mt. Soledad sighting. I was just practicing, not thinking I was going to have a clear enough horizon, but it worked out better than I anticipated.

I'd still like to collect careful sightings and data from different elevations and without the haze (though the sun at sunset pretty clearly cuts through it to make the horizon undoubtable). And also address Tom's skepticism about the setup by showing the impact of changing certain parameters, like camera height, pitch, yaw, and doing the same for the cube.  All just so that it is clear by demonstrate what can and can't affect the measurement.

But it's becoming clear that the horizon being always at eye level is not likely true.

Max_Almond

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #242 on: May 17, 2018, 04:56:59 PM »
[And] don't forget Tontogary's measurement from horizon to horizon using a sextant and finding >180° from an elevated position.

Thanks for that: I wasn't aware anyone had done it.

Has he posted photos/videos anywhere? I shall add it to my list. :-)
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 05:36:42 PM by Max_Almond »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #243 on: May 17, 2018, 05:24:08 PM »
I'm pretty sure it's back in the early pages of this topic. Anecdotal account, but he provided details on his instrument in response to Tom.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #244 on: May 17, 2018, 05:48:21 PM »
I have to share this.

Stopping by Mt. Soledad on Tuesday was a lark. I work in an area of San Diego called Point Loma, and my commute home takes me to north county inland on I-15. But on driving out from Point Loma, I could tell the horizon was sharp enough and that maybe I'd be able to get some good sighting against it. So, on the spur of the moment, I decided to give Soledad a try. It's been years since I'd been to the overlook that sits atop La Jolla. 800"+ with coastal views from Baja to Orange County.

I got there about an hour and half before sunset and there were very few people there. I found a spot on the lawn, near the edge of a drop, that gave me a clear view to the WNW, because I did hope to capture a sunset with the leveling rig. It was gusty at times, but I set up the cube/water level first. Inevitably, I had people saunter by to ask me what I was doing.

I have to confess, I'm shy about admitting what I'm doing is to check on a flat earth/globe earth debate issue. I'm about as certain we live on a globe earth than just about anything else in life, so it's a valid question why I am even bothering with all this. It's not like I want to rock anyone's beliefs. But I guess not wanting to admit I've dived into this reveals a level of embarrassment that I am. I love the passion that flat earth people have, and I think I'm just fascinated by what drives that passion. Plus, I do enjoy a good debate/discussion, and who knows? Even if I think I know things, I can learn more by challenging what I think I know and examining why I think I know it. I feel like I've learned a lot. Not to persuade me to change my mind, but to affirm what I thought I already knew to greater degree of certainty.

Anyway, I concocted a specious story that I was just an amateur photography and wanted to capture the setting sun through a wired cube to create a demonstration of perspective lines that I would add to the photos in post. Sort of an art project, and maybe a demo for art students. Not sure if it was convincing, but I couldn't admit I was doing a project to prove/disprove a flat earth claim.

The crowd started to grow as sunset approached, and as expected, people asked what I was doing. I actually had very nice conversations with several people, and one woman spent much time talking to me while we waited for sunset.

Afterward, when the sun was gone and it was turning twilight, a young man with a bike idled over and, like others, asked what this was all about. I gave him my story, and added the fact that I wanted to show how the lines of perspective converged on the horizon. Well, he apparently was already familiar with the concept and mentioned the flat earth, saying that he had looked into it (videos, mainly) and felt there was much to make you wonder.

Yikes. I wanted so badly to fess up and admit that this was precisely to investigate a flat earth/globe earth disagreement. Instead, I acted like I was unaware of the controversy and told him that in my line of work, the fact that the earth is a sphere is a given and a flat earth couldn't be hidden. I was dismissive of the flat earth notion, but there I was, secretly doing a flat earth experiment.

I wondered if maybe he might browse by this forum and recognize these photos, maybe from the green water and Soledad location. If you are here, dude; I'm sorry I didn't come out of the closet with you. It would have been great to have a face-to-face conversation with even a flat earth agnostic. I've never met anyone in person who was (or at least would admit it.) I think I came across as being totally dismissive of the flat earth notion, like such a thing wouldn't be worth my time. But that was for my own ego.

I think from now on, when people ask, I'm just going to be honest and explain the concept and why I'm doing it. I figure eventually I'll put it all together in a Web page, in case anyone wants to reference the results. I don't think I'll make a video, though that seems to be the favorite way to communicate both globe and flat earth arguments.

Not sure if that's interesting or "on topic," but thought I'd mention it. You just can't set something like this up in public and not expect to draw attention.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 05:52:37 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #245 on: May 17, 2018, 05:55:59 PM »
Bobby, you are asking us to place a lot of faith in the properties and surface tension of the fluid you concocted.

Recall that slight positioning places the horizon in line with the string. It appears possible to get the horizon lined up with the string in a range entirely within the surface tension area:


(click to enlarge)

Take a close look at this one. We can see that this is an example that it is clearly possible for the horizon to line up with the string depending on slight positioning.

Here is a researcher who states that the water level cannot be directly measured because of surface tension effects:

From Encyclopedia Britannica:



Look at the illustration in the above image. The surface tension is not always universally uniform, and the level of the surface tension can change within the same immediate container.

We are assuming the material of the tube's effects upon whatever kind of dyed liquid that is. We are assuming uniform shape of the surface tension. We are assuming a lot of things. Other types of liquids even display a more convex, rather than concave, effect.

The researcher above states that there is so much uncertainty that the level cannot be directly measured.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 06:17:09 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #246 on: May 17, 2018, 06:16:22 PM »
You may have missed it, but I raised the issue of the interaction of the fluid with the plastic tubing a few days ago. Learned a new word ("meniscus") and a new term ("wetting angle").

Sighting along the edge of the fluid levels was a concern for me, and I volunteered it. The vinyl tubing is kind of thick. Forget the inner diameter dimension, but there's probably a 1/4" of vinyl to see through. It's not as ideally transparent as I'd like. Plus, I didn't like how the water seems to "creep" up the side of the tube, creating a convexity. I came to learn that that's dependent on the property of the liquid and the material of the container. I'd like to try adding some Rain-X to get the "wetting angle" closer to 90 degrees. In the meantime, I created a mixture of 50% water and 50% alchohol (it's vodka, actually) and I think it improves it a little.

The advice for dealing with a meniscus that's either concave or convex from 90 degs is to measure at the bottom of the thick layer. Importance isn't the actual spot, but being consistent between the two index points.

But though I'd love to have a sharp edge on the level, the uncertainty doesn't create an error large enough to make a pass/fail determination impossible. If I'm trying to measure an actual distance between the levels of the front tube and back tube to calculate an angle, then yeah. It would be a problem. And at elevations close to sea level, pass/fail might be ambiguous. But I'm seeing that once at 100' or above, even if I adjust in favor of trying to keep the horizon at the eyesight level, the meniscus is not "in the way."

It's a good critique. I'm not done trying to minimize it by finding a good combination of fluid+receptacle. Or maybe switching to an "infinity pool" concept and removing the barrier altogether. But I'm leaning toward arguing that it's below the threshold for a margin of error that could create doubt when at elevations greater than what that ambiguity can create. 


*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #247 on: May 17, 2018, 07:20:45 PM »
Maybe we could talk about this in the Q&A section rather than here, but I would like to understand how the horizon is identified and calculated according to Earth Not a Globe principles. You've mentioned previously about need to see a "true horizon" and yesterday said something to the effect that the horizon is the furthest things on earth that can be measured.

But I've read EnaG sections dealing with the horizon several times, and I'm just not picking up on how to a true horizon is distinguished or how to measure its distance. My understanding at the moment, as flawed as it might be, is that Rowbotham figures the horizon is a function of the thing it is being sighted: it's size, it's level on a plane above (or below) the observer. Plus, I assume it's phenomenological, meaning it is an "apparent" horizon and not a physical eclipsing of sight, though air density and obscurants play a part in scattering and diffusing light so that there is an eclipsing of image.

If you respond here, fine. But if you think it better to not weave it into this topic, I'll start a Q&A one, since I'm not seeking to debate. Just apprehend the principle and it's application in an FE model.

*

Offline MCToon

  • *
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #248 on: May 17, 2018, 08:23:20 PM »
Bobby, you have performed a pass/fail experiment as EnaG claims to do:

Pass: Horizon is visibly on the same plane as the water in the tubes
Fail: Horizon is visibly not on the same plane as the water in the tubes

I've read experiment #15.  In this thread you have provided more documentation and rigor than shown in the book.  Tom is simply refusing to accept the results.  He doesn't seem to want to answer my question about vertically centering the image.  I'll ask again:
"Tom, if the camera is vertically centered and you can count the same number of pixels above and below the line would you accept this as a valid experiment and acknowledge the results?"

If your answer is "no", then what are your requirements to perform this experiment?  What equipment did you use when you verified the horizon rises to eye level claims in EnaG?

Tom, if someone were to get a proper Transit Level and perform this experiment would you accept the results?  These are not that difficult to obtain.

For example, in Minneapolis where I live, I found one on Craigslist for $49:
https://minneapolis.craigslist.org/ank/tld/d/vintage-david-white-meridian/6570521087.html
Not too useful so far from the ocean.

Craigslist and ebay have many:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/DAVID-WHITE-Realist-Meridian-L6-20n-Transit-Level-Case/142795135576?epid=1805532287&hash=item213f40da58:g:FKwAAOSwiHZa-iBl

Some appear to have vertical angle measurement, some only can sight level.  Either way, perfect for a pass/fail test.

So, Tom, would this satisfy?


I love this site, it's a fantastic collection of evidence of a spherical earth:
Flight times
Full moon
Horizon eye level drops
Sinking ship effect

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #249 on: May 17, 2018, 10:38:01 PM »
This is an annotated 1920x1080 resolution image taken as sunset
on 5/15/2017 at 19:41 PDT
from La Jolla's Mt Soledad
32.840319
-117.245065
approx. 790' MSL
on an azimuth of ~294° true


That pic is great!

The calculation for the amount of dip predicted with normal refraction is,
Dip = 1.78 multiplied by the square root of the hieght in Metres.

This calculates to be a dip of 27.6 minutes of arc.

You have an object of known measurement of arc, i.e. the sun, at 31.6 minutes, so can compare that with the dip you experience. It looks about right.
Also the distance to Catalina island is pretty far, and would suggest it is over the calculated RE horizon of 33.1 NM,

All of this additional evidence was not known before you took the picture i guess, and the additional information corroborates and backs up already believed science.

This is a great picture, and demo, and i applaud your efforts and the time to do the experiments.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #250 on: May 17, 2018, 10:45:29 PM »
[And] don't forget Tontogary's measurement from horizon to horizon using a sextant and finding >180° from an elevated position.

Thanks for that: I wasn't aware anyone had done it.

Has he posted photos/videos anywhere? I shall add it to my list. :-)

I started a new thread about it a few weeks ago.

“Horizon rising to eye level and a foolproof way to measure it.” I am not sure how to link another thread, so apologise for that.

Unfortunately using a sextant to measure the altitude of a body is rather boring, and rather unphotoigenic.

\looking through the eyepiece, you cannot get a good picture, and although i could take a shot of me taking the altitude, and then showing the reading on the instrument it does not translate to video well. Pictures similarly. I dont know of a sextant that can record video or stills, as they are essentially a measuring device, where you bring the suns image to the horizon, and measure the angle.

I did however provide the calibration certificate of the sextant, along with he model number etc.

A little more scientific than EnaG, but not in the same league as Bobbys experiment here!

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #251 on: May 17, 2018, 11:53:12 PM »
These water columns are only a few inches away from each other. It may as well just be big single glass of water. The closer we get things to our face in the foreground, the more accurate all leveling needs to be. You are assuming that we can just wing it on the imprecise nature water tension and the fact that the water levels are arguably off very slightly in the images.

None can doubt that a slight error in altitude and leveling in the foreground can create a large impact on the background. You are just winging without knowing how precise you need to be.

The horizon is one of the the furthest thing on earth that can be measured. Don't you think that maybe the requirements with such slight leveling and alignment in the foreground are pretty important?
I wonder if we can qualify or quantify how much margin for error there is in each of these setup/measurement parameters just to see if we can calculate whether or not the tolerances are too great to determine, on a pass/fail basis, if horizon is or isn't at eye level.

Some of the variables for which Tom has raised precision challenges:
A) Error in matching camera/eye height to water level
B) Error in gauging water level due to meniscus
C) (more?)

We've resolved your objection about camera orientation, is that correct, Tom?
I'd still like to know how true horizon can be identified or how to calculate how far away the horizon is according to EnaG principles, but I leave that to you.

Here's a closeup of the pic in which I intentionally skewed the sighting. I've obscured the water levels by the width of the meniscus and the horizon by the width of the guideline.
There is no question that the camera height and the two water level indices are not aligned in the vertical, correct? There are clear gaps between the horizontal lines for each index marker, which means this alignment can be assessed without fear of precision error.



The front tube water level is higher than the horizon line, which is higher than the rear tube water level. Why is this out of alignment? If the only adjustment is the camera/eye height, how does it need to be adjusted? Does the camera height need to be increased or decreased? Up? Or down?

 

« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 01:37:35 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #252 on: May 18, 2018, 05:34:58 AM »
Bobby, lets hold on that for a moment. What are these stopper cap looking things at the top of the water device?

« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 05:44:41 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #253 on: May 18, 2018, 05:47:20 AM »
Those are Schedule 40 PVC reducer bushings that fit snugly in the top of the vinyl tubing. They have a threaded 3/4" opening that I screw equivalent PVC plugs into for transport and remove for use. The plugs are removed in all of the test photos and videos. The bushings themselves stay in and do not restrict airflow.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #254 on: May 18, 2018, 06:23:47 AM »
Thank you. I suppose we will have to trust you when you say that you took them out.

Per your above assertion that all of the error is contained within the black area's surface tension, what makes you think that all possible error would just be in that black area? The surface tension could also be risen higher or sunk below the true water level, as it is in this vase:





The surface tension is at different levels different in the tubes of this single device. The whole claim that water is level in such devices is looking shakier and shakier.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 06:36:21 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #255 on: May 18, 2018, 06:30:21 AM »
Thank you. I suppose we will have to trust you when you say that you took them out.

Per your above assertion that all of the error is contained within the black areas surface tension, what makes you think that all possible error would just be in that black area? The surface tension could also be risen higher or sunk below the true water level, as it is in this vase:





THe surface tension is different in the different tubes of this single device. This whole "water is level in this device" claim is looking shakier and shakier.

So you are saying water is not always level??? I thought that was a fundamentals truth??

The line you have drawn is pretty inaccurate. Raise the right hand end up, drop the left hand down a bit, and a straight line will cut across all 4 surfaces. The narrower the cross section of tube, the bigger the meniscus, so more errors are introduced on the smaller tubes.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #256 on: May 18, 2018, 06:51:18 AM »
Surface tension isn't the most predictable thing. The Encyclopedia Britannica researcher said that we shouldn't even bother trying to gauge the level of the water.

Why are we assuming that the water would be level in such an device anyway?

We are also assuming that this is all pure H20, and that there are no other fluids or substances floating on top of it:

« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 06:53:51 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #257 on: May 18, 2018, 06:51:43 AM »
Thank you. I suppose we will have to trust you when you say that you took them out.
Thank you for your trust. I only ask for as much or as little as you grant Samuel Rowbotham.

Here's what the caps look like in and out. And the first photo of the day from Mt. Soledad.


*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #258 on: May 18, 2018, 06:59:03 AM »
The surface tension is at different levels different in the tubes of this single device. The whole claim that water is level in such devices is looking shakier and shakier.
But clearly in that experiment the tubes have different concentrations of...whatever that green stuff is, which affects the result.
In Bobby's experiment the tubes are connected, the concentration will be the same because of natural mixing so that won't be an issue.

I'm interested. Are you people serious about a FE model which matches observations, and taking observations yourself?
Bobby is doing a lot of work here and all you are doing is trying with increasing desperation to find problems with it.
Why don't you just take some observations yourself? You're an empiricist, aren't you?
And if your observations do match the 4 different ways you have been shown that prove that the horizon dips then you have to change your model.
That is how progress is made. You don't make progress by stating something as fact and then dismissing any experiment which shows that "fact" to be wrong.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #259 on: May 18, 2018, 07:01:36 AM »
Surface tension isn't the most predictable thing. The Encyclopedia Britannica researcher said that we shouldn't even bother trying to gauge the level of the water.

Why are we assuming that the water would be level in such an device anyway?

We are also assuming that this is all pure H20, and that there are no other fluids or substances floating on top of it:



Bobby has clearly stated that his fluid is homogeneous, (water and vodka mix) and you can see from the dye that the colour is pretty much uniform.

Your diagram shows different levels of liquid on top of a water manifold, are you suggesting Bobby has manipulated the experiment to show the water levels differently?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

If we apply the same level of nit picking and skepticism to EnaG, not a single one of his observations stand up to any scrutiny at all!

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.