#### Max_Almond

##### Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #440 on: November 12, 2018, 07:45:35 AM »
George J -

1. We can calculate horizon dip angles ourselves, or use an online tool, like metabunk.org/curve
2. You seem to be saying that "the distance to the horizon on a flat plane is related to the height of the observer". Can you give predicted horizon distances, then, for an observer at, say, 100 feet, 1000 feet, and 10,000 feet? What is the formula? Can you provide a diagram of how this would work?

Bobby Shafto -

Excellent points, well made. I shall adjust.

Quote from: Max_Almond
Does anyone disagree with any of the following?

1. The angle of dip to the horizon is a distinguishing feature between a concave earth and a flat earth
2. Given suitable conditions and location, we are able to see the horizon
3. The angle of dip to the horizon can be measured using a variety of instruments
4. This angle increases the higher we rise in elevation
5. The value of the angle, and the amount the angle increases, is consistent with an observer on a ball of around 7,900 miles in diameter (allowing for a small margin of deviation caused by atmospheric conditions, refraction, etc)
6. The value of the angle, and the amount the angle increases, is inconsistent with an observer on a flat plane, infinite or otherwise, even taking into account variations caused by atmospheric conditions, refraction, etc
7. In any case, there is no mechanism that would cause a horizon on a flat plane, and no formula that predicts what the angle to the horizon should be
8. The measurable angle of the dip to the horizon is an excellent disproof of the flat earth idea

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
##### Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #441 on: November 13, 2018, 11:48:18 PM »
This was posted on another topic, but I'd like to reply here where I can ask a question related to this topic:

Distance to the sun is about 6,700km.
I'll show you the video later.
Video is comfortable for me because of the language barrier.

On the other flat earth site, I asked you about how you calculate distance to a horizon and how much of an object beyond that horizon is hidden, either by the horizon or by obscuring objects.

You said you would do a video about that, but I haven't seen it yet.

I have found it very difficult to get an answer on how a horizon is defined and how distance to it is calculated on a flat earth. You've offered some numbers and figures in some of your videos but haven't shown how you derived them. I asked and you said it was complicated and takes experience. But you did finally say you would explain it.

This horizon topic is well-suited for discussing this, so I would ask if you're going to do a video, explain how to calculate horizon distance first. I'm much more eager to hear about that than how the sun can be explained as 6700km away. Maybe they're connected. I don't know.

(I don't visit the other site regularly so maybe you posted it and I missed it. If so, I apologize. I'll check later.)

#### Bobby Shafto

• 1390
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
##### Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #442 on: December 30, 2018, 02:04:26 PM »
I did a short summary of what I found during course of this discussion. Very short.

#### iamcpc

• 832
##### Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #443 on: January 04, 2019, 06:08:13 PM »
I did a short summary of what I found during course of this discussion. Very short.

Bobby,

I saw this video which pretty much corroborates your observations. It's pretty clear that the higher the drone gets the lower the horizon gets.

Same day, same time, same temperature, humidity, same optical conditions, same place:

Still it can easily be explained that the perceived drop in horizon is nothing more than an optical illusion.

The light maintians it's curvature when the drone descends, causing the land to appear to sink. It wouldn't change over seconds.

The video of light bending over time in that area pretty much discredits any one observation, if not all of them. Considering that timelapse, it must now be shown whether light is bending or not.

The fact that the earth is pretty much the size of Kerbal in Soundly's images isn't too crediting, either.