Define "eye-level".
And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
Define "eye-level".
And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
Wasn't there an experiment performed a short while ago that soundly disproved this, using a u-tube filled with coloured water?
Yes. Again, the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented. They claimed that the u-tube wasn't at eye level.Define "eye-level".
And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
Wasn't there an experiment performed a short while ago that soundly disproved this, using a u-tube filled with coloured water?
Define "eye-level".
Yowza! That's pretty much what I was thinking about doing.Define "eye-level".
And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
Wasn't there an experiment performed a short while ago that soundly disproved this, using a u-tube filled with coloured water?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI
I confess I don't understand the horizon in a flat model. As I think I understand it, the FE "horizon" is a perceptual one (apparent) that occurs level to height of viewer (0° to the horizontal), but isn't a measurable distance. It depends on acuity (resolution) and obscuring factors in the air.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/zlbw2e.jpg)
The horizon on a convex curved surface is a geometric point, calculated by height of viewer and radius of the curve, but it's always some angle below the horizontal, though appearing to be at horizontal for low values of h relative to r.
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/es9ohy.jpg)
If so, then I think that if you can demonstrate that the horizon drops below horizontal eye level with increasing height, it supports a curved surface. If the horizon appears consistently at the horizontal at all values of h, it would support the flat earth claim.
Does that make sense?
If so, the next step is to find agreement on how best to measure and document the horizon vs. "eye level" at different heights above the surface. I have some ideas, and I have easy access to viewpoints from sea level to 1500' with clear views to an ocean horizon, though catching a non-hazy day for a good horizon contrast is hit and miss this time of year.
I like the idea of a water level that's not cumbersome to tote on a hike, but I'd want it to be set up on a stable platform or tripod rather than handheld as in that video. Plus the camera would have to be stabilized and aligned with the leveling site.
I think about it, but would appreciate input or feedback, particularly from "horizon always at eye level" proponents.
This is something that's really easy to test. I'd like to see an acknowledgement that
- "The horizon is always at eye level" is a testable proposition.
- Agreement on a test that can be readily carried out.
- Acceptance that if the test disproves the proposition, that it should no longer be put forward.
I don't expect people to reject flat Earth altogether when this test is proposed, but I would hope that the "horizon rises to eye level" idea could at least be addressed. If the FE proponents are confident that the horizon does rise to eye level then they should be demanding that such experiments take place.
I'll state my own POV up front. I'm interested in the cognitive dissonance of the FE movement, and I'm reasonably confident that the items on the above list wouldn't be accepted by any FE proponents. If I'm wrong, then a test will be devised, the experiment performed, the results accepted and the FAQ on this site amended accordingly.
It should be something performable with some kind of levelling device, a camera, and a hillside overlooking the sea.
It's quite hard to argue people who literally refuse to concede a point when it is demonstrated so clearly.
For his next trick, to misquote Douglas Adams, he'll claim black is white and get killed on the next zebra crossing.
Define "eye-level".
And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
Wasn't there an experiment performed a short while ago that soundly disproved this, using a u-tube filled with coloured water?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI)
Tell me, why does the distance to a horizon over water increase with altitude then?Define "eye-level".
And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
Wasn't there an experiment performed a short while ago that soundly disproved this, using a u-tube filled with coloured water?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI)
Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?
The hand held camera's slight up down motion, in line with the black line of the water in the foreground affects the scene significantly in the far background, even if it is a pixel.
Everything needs to be perfectly leveled and aligned, and this water device is insufficient.
Furthermore, on a mountain or large hill, how do you know that the true horizon hasn't disappeared into an atmospheric fog that you can't see, thousands of miles away from you, and is squished beyond imperceptibility? This is clearly what happens when you get to high altitudes like from an international flight. The horizon is very foggy. What makes you think that the same is not true at lower altitudes, but the disappearance is more squished into the horizon by perspective?
Define "eye-level".
And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
Wasn't there an experiment performed a short while ago that soundly disproved this, using a u-tube filled with coloured water?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI)
Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?
The hand held camera's slight up down motion, in line with the black line of the water in the foreground affects the scene significantly in the far background, even if it is a pixel.
Everything needs to be perfectly leveled and aligned, and this water device is insufficient.
Furthermore, on a mountain or large hill, how do you know that the true horizon hasn't disappeared into an atmospheric fog that you can't see, thousands of miles away from you, and is squished beyond imperceptibility? This is clearly what happens when you get to high altitudes like from an international flight. The horizon is very foggy. What makes you think that the same is not true at lower altitudes, but the disappearance is more squished into the horizon by perspective?
That's the beauty of the two tubes... yes if you angle them "downhill" there will be a slight delay as liquid from one moves to the other, but given the size of the pipes, that's almost instantaneous. That's like saying the water in a bucket isn't level when you tip it... if you tip it quickly it might 'wobble' but it very quickly finds level.
Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?
The hand held camera's slight up down motion, in line with the black line of the water in the foreground affects the scene significantly in the far background, even if it is a pixel.I agree it's a rough demonstration: but for some frames, he's actually misaligned so that the far tube water line is ABOVE the near level: so if the horizon is appearing below both, then that's even GREATER proof... if they were all level and on a flat earth (horizon and both tubes), then the horizon would've appeared ABOVE the second tube line.
Everything needs to be perfectly leveled and aligned, and this water device is insufficient.
Furthermore, on a mountain or large hill, how do you know that the true horizon hasn't disappeared into an atmospheric fog that you can't see, thousands of miles away from you, and is squished beyond imperceptibility? This is clearly what happens when you get to high altitudes like from an international flight. The horizon is very foggy. What makes you think that the same is not true at lower altitudes, but the disappearance is more squished into the horizon by perspective?That's a fair call. I wish this guy had've run the experiment in a colder/clearer climate. The final distance especially shows huge atmospheric effects. The important thing to remember is that the world IS a globe, it is not flat, and you're looking for ways to justify your confirmation bias ;)
I wish this guy had've run the experiment in a colder/clearer climate. The final distance especially shows huge atmospheric effects. The important thing to remember is that the world IS a globe, it is not flat, and you're looking for ways to justify your confirmation bias ;)
Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?:D
Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?On YouTube, there are examples of flat earth proponents using this technique to demonstrate that the horizon DOES rise to eye-level. And in the comments section, flat earth skeptics harshly discount the demo/test using many of these same critiques.
The hand held camera's slight up down motion, in line with the black line of the water in the foreground affects the scene significantly in the far background, even if it is a pixel.
Everything needs to be perfectly leveled and aligned, and this water device is insufficient.
Furthermore, on a mountain or large hill, how do you know that the true horizon hasn't disappeared into an atmospheric fog that you can't see, thousands of miles away from you, and is squished beyond imperceptibility? This is clearly what happens when you get to high altitudes like from an international flight. The horizon is very foggy. What makes you think that the same is not true at lower altitudes, but the disappearance is more squished into the horizon by perspective?
Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?:D
Wow. So you think that the water in the two connected tubes could be at different heights because "water flows down hill".
I think that's my new favourite Tom Bishop quote.
In have dealt with this question and proved through measurements with a sextant (accurate and calibrated) that the arc of the sky is more than 180 degrees, by pretty much the same amount as is expected for the hieght of the observer.
What dont you understand about that Tom?
If the sky, from clear, sharp horizon, to the south, across the sky to a clear sharp horizon on the north is more than 180 degrees, then the bit below you is less, therefore the horizon is NOT rising to meet you.
I cannot really explain much clearer, and a young teenage child would likely understand that.
As any surveyor should understand, all measurements are in error. We try to minimize error and calculate reasonable tolerances, but error will always be there. Not occasionally; not frequently; always. In the interest of more accurate measurements, we look for better instruments and better procedures.
Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.If it's that hard to verify (or refute), then maybe a claim of "horizon is always at eye-level" isn't one FET should definitively make.
It does take some time for water to flow. It isn't instantaneously.For a liquid that depends on the viscosity and water really isn't that viscous so it more or less is. It's close enough that you don't really have to give it any significant time to "settle".
What is the error quoted for equipment available today?Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?:D
Wow. So you think that the water in the two connected tubes could be at different heights because "water flows down hill".
I think that's my new favourite Tom Bishop quote.
It does take some time for water to flow. It isn't instantaneously.
In the video you have provided, at the top of the mountain, he is just holding the water device in his hand, which appears to be wobbly, and a camera in his other hand.
The flow of the water is one concern. The other concern is that the camera is not perfectly level and that there is some room to where things appear "perfectly level".In have dealt with this question and proved through measurements with a sextant (accurate and calibrated) that the arc of the sky is more than 180 degrees, by pretty much the same amount as is expected for the hieght of the observer.
What dont you understand about that Tom?
If the sky, from clear, sharp horizon, to the south, across the sky to a clear sharp horizon on the north is more than 180 degrees, then the bit below you is less, therefore the horizon is NOT rising to meet you.
I cannot really explain much clearer, and a young teenage child would likely understand that.
Surveying is always in error. Always. Every angle and vertical and position needs to be finely positioned. And even when it is to the best of our ability, it is still in error. There is also lens error, which is always present.
http://whistleralley.com/surveying/theoerror/QuoteAs any surveyor should understand, all measurements are in error. We try to minimize error and calculate reasonable tolerances, but error will always be there. Not occasionally; not frequently; always. In the interest of more accurate measurements, we look for better instruments and better procedures.
Also see Rowbotham's issues with measuring the horizon with devices that have lenses (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm), as an example of device error.
An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.
Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.
Water flows down hill.
So .... how does that effect the two linked columns of water? Are you suggesting the farther away one will settle to be lower than the nearer? You suggest that would lead to the sight line along the two pointing downward?
How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?
You can see stationary water in both.
The hand held camera's slight up down motion, in line with the black line of the water in the foreground affects the scene significantly in the far background, even if it is a pixel.
Everything needs to be perfectly leveled and aligned, and this water device is insufficient.
Name a 'sufficient' device, then
Furthermore, on a mountain or large hill, how do you know that the true horizon hasn't disappeared into an atmospheric fog that you can't see, thousands of miles away from you, and is squished beyond imperceptibility? This is clearly what happens when you get to high altitudes like from an international flight. The horizon is very foggy. What makes you think that the same is not true at lower altitudes, but the disappearance is more squished into the horizon by perspective?
An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.
Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.
An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.
Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.
So does that shed doubt on the flat-earthers' claim that the horizon always rises to eye-level, then, since all examples of illustrating this seem to also rely on hand-held cameras and off-the-cuff measures?
Or do you have access to better equipment than the globe-earthers? If so, what is it?
And you have repeated this? How would you know the height of the ground? How far apart?An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.
Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.
So does that shed doubt on the flat-earthers' claim that the horizon always rises to eye-level, then, since all examples of illustrating this seem to also rely on hand-held cameras and off-the-cuff measures?
Or do you have access to better equipment than the globe-earthers? If so, what is it?
Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.
An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
... involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.
Do you assert that this method is ... better? more accurate? something else? ... than the U-shaped pipes with coloured water?
An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.
Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.
So does that shed doubt on the flat-earthers' claim that the horizon always rises to eye-level, then, since all examples of illustrating this seem to also rely on hand-held cameras and off-the-cuff measures?
Or do you have access to better equipment than the globe-earthers? If so, what is it?
Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.
An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
... involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.
Do you assert that this method is ... better? more accurate? something else? ... than the U-shaped pipes with coloured water?
An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
How did R determine his markers were at the known height and distances without "calibration"
An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.
Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.
So does that shed doubt on the flat-earthers' claim that the horizon always rises to eye-level, then, since all examples of illustrating this seem to also rely on hand-held cameras and off-the-cuff measures?
Or do you have access to better equipment than the globe-earthers? If so, what is it?
Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.
An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
How on Earth do you verify that two markers are at exactly the same height? The only way to verify that two markers are at the same height is by calibrating devices and careful levelling.
I suspect that Rowbotham levelled his two markers by lining them up with the horizon, and then used them to verify that they were in line with the horizon.
This is another one of these situations where one starts to think that one is being made a fool of, and that this "Flat Earth" joke is just being pushed as far as it can go.
See my guess - he lined them up with the horizon. Or he found a patch of ground that looked sort of level and stuck 'em in.
Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.I thought he used a clinometer and recorded observations from different floors of a seaside building.
An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
Experiment 15Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.I thought he used a clinometer and recorded observations from different floors of a seaside building.
An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
There are numerous such horizon experiments in the book.Several experiments, but this was the only one I remember (and currently skimming through is the only one I'm finding) dealing with horizon rising to eye-level.
Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.I thought he used a clinometer and recorded observations from different floors of a seaside building.
An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
Incorrect. The markers are often natural in nature, that are a known altitude.And how do you think that we determine those altitudes? You can either (a) accept that the altitude measurements are accurate, and therefore that Tontogary's experiment is accurate, or (b) concede that Rowbotham's experiments had some inaccuracies and lose one of your biggest "proofs" that the Earth is flat. Oh yeah, there's a (c) for explaining why Rowbotham's experiments are accurate but not Tontogary's, but I have no faith that you will actually do that in any sane way.
An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.
Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.
So does that shed doubt on the flat-earthers' claim that the horizon always rises to eye-level, then, since all examples of illustrating this seem to also rely on hand-held cameras and off-the-cuff measures?
Or do you have access to better equipment than the globe-earthers? If so, what is it?
Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.
An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?:D
Wow. So you think that the water in the two connected tubes could be at different heights because "water flows down hill".
I think that's my new favourite Tom Bishop quote.
It does take some time for water to flow. It isn't instantaneously.
In the video you have provided, at the top of the mountain, he is just holding the water device in his hand, which appears to be wobbly, and a camera in his other hand.
The flow of the water is one concern. The other concern is that the camera is not perfectly level and that there is some room to where things appear "perfectly level".In have dealt with this question and proved through measurements with a sextant (accurate and calibrated) that the arc of the sky is more than 180 degrees, by pretty much the same amount as is expected for the hieght of the observer.
What dont you understand about that Tom?
If the sky, from clear, sharp horizon, to the south, across the sky to a clear sharp horizon on the north is more than 180 degrees, then the bit below you is less, therefore the horizon is NOT rising to meet you.
I cannot really explain much clearer, and a young teenage child would likely understand that.
Surveying is always in error. Always. Every angle and vertical and position needs to be finely positioned. And even when it is to the best of our ability, it is still in error. There is also lens error, which is always present.
Also see Rowbotham's issues with measuring the horizon with devices that have lenses (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm), as an example of device error.
An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.
Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.
Ok then lets deal with your above assumptions.
Let’s have a look at EnaG shall we?
If he asserts that all instruments with a lens are in error, then we can discount the experiments in chapter 2 almost in their entirety, he uses a telescope in experiments 1,2,5,and 12, and a theodolite in experiments 3,4,8,11, and 14. Therefore hits chapter where he says he PROVES the earth is flat, can be pretty much discounted.
As for my sextant observations, We use a modern instrument, which has been refined over hundreds of years (the optics etc are far superior to anything available in Victorian times) and i have shown how we calibrate for instrument error, using known objects and we can cross check and verify our instrument error, and apply it to our readings.
EnaG does not show any of that.
I am able to show that my readings are to within an accuracy of 0.1 minute of arc, i have a manufacturerers certificate to show that it can measure to that accuracy, and I can show my method, and i can verify my results to be within an acceptable margin of error.
The thing here is that Tom just says “all surveying is in error” but he wont tell you what the acceptable margin of error is!
Even if i could only measure to 1 minute of arc, then my previous experiment/observation to measure the arc of the sky from horizon to horizon gave an arc of 180 degrees and 32 minutes rounded up to the nearest minute, it still means that the arc below my feet measured 179 degrees and 28 minutes, (unless Tom can prove there are more than 360 degrees in a circle?)
Therefore the difference is more than a whole degree. If i couldn’t measure that accurately, there is no way i could fix a ships position, and i have done that thousands of times. My record of still being alive, and never having been on a ship when it went aground will testify to that.
So Tom what are you still doing trying to deny a measurement that proves the horizon does not rise to eye level by making general sweeping (misleading) statements to try to prop up your argument.
I guess if you did accept my Zetetic experiment, and observations, you would as you say, have to close down this site as it is clearly busted.
Ok then lets deal with your above assumptions.
Let’s have a look at EnaG shall we?
If he asserts that all instruments with a lens are in error, then we can discount the experiments in chapter 2 almost in their entirety, he uses a telescope in experiments 1,2,5,and 12, and a theodolite in experiments 3,4,8,11, and 14. Therefore hits chapter where he says he PROVES the earth is flat, can be pretty much discounted.
The experiments are specifically designed so that the lens error that was described wouldn't matter.
What a load of rubbish.
Your claim please show where in his methodology he shows that lens error is excluded by the design of the experiments? You cant cos he didnt.
I on the other hand have the manufacturers certificate of the instrument to show there is no “lens” error as you call it, (which is not what its called, but then if you actually knew anything about the subject you would know that!)
I described my measurements in another thread, started by myself, and your only contribution was to say that surveying is in error!
Search “horizon rising to eye level and a foolproof way to measure it”
I clearly describe my method, and accuracy of the instrument, and the way the result is cross checked.
The horizon was clear, and certainly not in error by a suns diameter!
A slightly hazy horizon would make a potential .2 or .3 minute of arc error, not by half a degree or more.
Your rather amateurish comments shows your ignorance of the use of a sextant, or any other accurate measuring device.
The measurements were taken off shore in N.W australia, which if anyone who has been there will confirm is a very dry place, so humidity and other sources of haze were not a factor. As it was at mer pass, the horizon was well lit and sharp.
I have provided you with much more proof than EnaG ever did, where he just relies upon dodgy third hand reports, bits of string with a set square attached, and a “telescope” or “theodolite” with no manufacturer or accuracy or way of verifying his (even if they were his own and most likely someone else’s) observations.
You are rapil]day running out of viable excuses Tom.
Come up with something that is truly irrefutable.But that's a silly challenge.
We have no idea about all of the details of your experiment. What brand of tools and what methods were done to ensure accuracy?
An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
We have no idea about all of the details of your experiment. What brand of tools and what methods were done to ensure accuracy?
We have no idea about details of experiments, info on brand of tools and methods in ENaG, beyond the word 'clinometer'.
Ok then lets deal with your above assumptions.
Let’s have a look at EnaG shall we?
If he asserts that all instruments with a lens are in error, then we can discount the experiments in chapter 2 almost in their entirety, he uses a telescope in experiments 1,2,5,and 12, and a theodolite in experiments 3,4,8,11, and 14. Therefore hits chapter where he says he PROVES the earth is flat, can be pretty much discounted.
The experiments are specifically designed so that the lens error that was described wouldn't matter.
What a load of rubbish.
Your claim please show where in his methodology he shows that lens error is excluded by the design of the experiments? You cant cos he didnt.
In the Theodolite chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm) Rowotham speaks about the Wallace-Hampden Wager experiment and points out the flaw, and further asserts that his experiments were designed so that the flaw did not matter.
Ok then lets deal with your above assumptions.
Let’s have a look at EnaG shall we?
If he asserts that all instruments with a lens are in error, then we can discount the experiments in chapter 2 almost in their entirety, he uses a telescope in experiments 1,2,5,and 12, and a theodolite in experiments 3,4,8,11, and 14. Therefore hits chapter where he says he PROVES the earth is flat, can be pretty much discounted.
The experiments are specifically designed so that the lens error that was described wouldn't matter.
What a load of rubbish.
Your claim please show where in his methodology he shows that lens error is excluded by the design of the experiments? You cant cos he didnt.
In the Theodolite chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm) Rowotham speaks about the Wallace-Hampden Wager experiment and points out the flaw, and further asserts that his experiments were designed so that the flaw did not matter.
Ok then lets deal with your above assumptions.
Let’s have a look at EnaG shall we?
If he asserts that all instruments with a lens are in error, then we can discount the experiments in chapter 2 almost in their entirety, he uses a telescope in experiments 1,2,5,and 12, and a theodolite in experiments 3,4,8,11, and 14. Therefore hits chapter where he says he PROVES the earth is flat, can be pretty much discounted.
The experiments are specifically designed so that the lens error that was described wouldn't matter.
What a load of rubbish.
Your claim please show where in his methodology he shows that lens error is excluded by the design of the experiments? You cant cos he didnt.
In the Theodolite chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm) Rowotham speaks about the Wallace-Hampden Wager experiment and points out the flaw, and further asserts that his experiments were designed so that the flaw did not matter.
No he does not show how his experiments using theodolites, telescopes, and clinometers were designed so that refraction, or “lens error” did not occur.
Sorry, your claim is still not proved.
YOUR claim, You prove it.
Just look at his experiments.
If you are claiming something about lasers bounced off of satellites, you need to demonstrate that such a thing was done, and show the data showing that it lines up with what you believe a satellite to be. You need to show your work. A lot of it.
Show. Not tell. Not assume.
Your claim. Your burden.
Just look at his experiments. He's not trying to carefully level the theodolite or telescope with the center of a crosshair. He is merely using it as a magnification tool to see bodies that should be lined up when viewed, or is otherwise is just looking for the appearance or disappearance of boats and lighthouses into the horizon.Then there should be no objection to this set up for determining if the horizon always rises to the horizontal level of the eye:
Ok then lets deal with your above assumptions.
Let’s have a look at EnaG shall we?
If he asserts that all instruments with a lens are in error, then we can discount the experiments in chapter 2 almost in their entirety, he uses a telescope in experiments 1,2,5,and 12, and a theodolite in experiments 3,4,8,11, and 14. Therefore hits chapter where he says he PROVES the earth is flat, can be pretty much discounted.
The experiments are specifically designed so that the lens error that was described wouldn't matter.
What a load of rubbish.
Your claim please show where in his methodology he shows that lens error is excluded by the design of the experiments? You cant cos he didnt.
In the Theodolite chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm) Rowotham speaks about the Wallace-Hampden Wager experiment and points out the flaw, and further asserts that his experiments were designed so that the flaw did not matter.
No he does not show how his experiments using theodolites, telescopes, and clinometers were designed so that refraction, or “lens error” did not occur.
Sorry, your claim is still not proved.
YOUR claim, You prove it.
Just look at his experiments. He's not trying to carefully level the theodolite or telescope with the center of a crosshair. He is merely using it as a magnification tool to see bodies that should be lined up when viewed, or is otherwise is just looking for the appearance or disappearance of boats and lighthouses into the horizon.
Nice.
I'm going low tech.
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/sgpo4j.jpg)
1. 3 rebar staked in-line at some distance x apart (x yet to be determined)
2. Leveling rig of clamped to rebar, one reservoir on each stake (two for sighting and 1 additional for leveling camera)
3. Fill with dyed water with some dish soap added.
4. Run twin from each rebar at level line; (double check with hanging line level)
5. Set camera on tripod and align with level line and sight line.
Sharp contrast of the horizon is a prerequisite.
Recommendations? Critiques?
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth
The fundamental problem here is the FE belief is not based on evidence, it is despite the evidence.
They say they rely on empirical measurements but they don't, or rather they dismiss any empirical evidence which doesn't fit with their world view.
Witness how Tom tried all kinds of things to discredit the laser and boat experiment before finally understanding it...and declaring it fraudulent anyway despite none of the objections standing up to scrutiny.
And now he's been shown 3 different ways of showing horizon dip which all give the same result - but it's a result he doesn't want so he dismisses all of them on spurious grounds.
The only solution is for him to do some experiments himself to demonstrate his claims. We can do them all day - and people have - and he will dismiss all of them if they don't show what he wants. He claims to be an empiricist but he refuses to do any empirical measurements. Funny that. The only hint of him doing anything along these lines is the "Bishop Experiment" which he has no documentation of and he's pretty clearly lying about.
The mindset is based on this Wiki page which has been deleted, I don't know why as it perfectly describes the prevailing FE mindset on here:QuoteP1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth
(My emphasis). So we are wasting our time. Tom can't personally verify the results of our experiments and he refuses to do so himself.
Checkmate.
He demands "irrefutable evidence" but that doesn't exist. You can refute any evidence if you're bloody minded enough.
As I said some time ago, you can do this about anything:
"I don't believe kangaroos exist".
"What?! Here's a Wiki page about them."
"Cool. Here's a Wiki page about dragons, do they exist too?"
"Here's a video of a kangaroo!"
"That's fake. Have you heard of CGI?"
"Right. We're at a zoo. Look. There's a kangaroo!"
"Looks like animatronic to me..."
And so on. It's ridiculous, of course, but if you're only interested in sticking to your guns come what may then you can dismiss anything, even if the dismissals become increasingly stupid.
Which leaves me with the thought that he's just here for fun, enjoys trying to debate from indefensible positions and doesn't believe any of this.
There's an estate on a 2000' peak just 7 miles from the ocean that sold at auction not too long ago, giving the public some video and photo of the mansion and grounds. It has a long infinity pool pointed directly toward the western horizon. What a great setting that would be for a "horizon rises to eye level" proof demonstration:Same pool, but with better images, and from a great vantage point.
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/vgrija.jpg)
There's an estate on a 2000' peak just 7 miles from the ocean that sold at auction not too long ago, giving the public some video and photo of the mansion and grounds. It has a long infinity pool pointed directly toward the western horizon. What a great setting that would be for a "horizon rises to eye level" proof demonstration:Same pool, but with better images, and from a great vantage point.
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/vgrija.jpg)
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/21kxv9u.jpg)
Now with 1px perspective lines (black) and horizon (white)
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/156r9xx.jpg)
Camera leveling won't change the perspective lines. If the architecture isn't square and/or the pool is actually titled up (so that water flows away from the infinity edge), then they shouldn't converge to a perspective vanishing point above the horizon, IF it's true that the horizon rises to eye-level.
Unless I'm interpreting this incorrectly.
I'm not using it as proof of anything. Just a hint of what we might expect the results to be of a controlled observation.
That's pretty conclusive, but it would be nice if you could get a sunset in the same picture. A fake sunset, of course!Not a fan of the design of that mansion, but I would love have access to that infinity pool sight line on a clear evening at sunset with a sharp horizon.
Checking out the direction of that pool, it looks like the sun would set right down the centerline in late February or March. Not sure of the exact azimuth that pool is aimed at, but makes me wonder if it lines up with the equinox sunset.Nope. It's about a month off. Sun sets right down the chute on February 20th and October 20th; not the equinoxes. Oh well.
Checking out the direction of that pool, it looks like the sun would set right down the centerline in late February or March. Not sure of the exact azimuth that pool is aimed at, but makes me wonder if it lines up with the equinox sunset.Nope. It's about a month off. Sun sets right down the chute on February 20th and October 20th; not the equinoxes. Oh well.
place on a reasonably flat surface, and fill with coloured water. The water will find its own level, and give a long edge to sight along. No issues/concerns over water flow.
Alternatively, take a clear plastic bag, part-fill with coloured water, and place on absolutely anything. The water, again, will find its own level, and a sighting can be taken along the top of the water's surface.
Don't take this as proof of anything other than concept. It's a valid critique to say the weather at the surface has provided a false horizon.But the water container idea, along with the square lines of perspective above, has given me the idea to combine the two, using a square glass water container, like a cheap aquarium, and "shooting" the horizon through that, using the flat plane of the water as a reference to level. The additional corner edges of a rectangular tank would reinforce the level line of the water, creating means to not just compare against a vertical line, but a vanishing point.
... the water container idea, along with the square lines of perspective above, has given me the idea to combine the two, using a square glass water container, like a cheap aquarium, and "shooting" the horizon through that, using the flat plane of the water as a reference to level. The additional corner edges of a rectangular tank would reinforce the level line of the water, creating means to not just compare against a vertical line, but a vanishing point.Like this:
According to FE prediction, the vanishing point should be on the horizon regardless of elevation. According to GE prediction, the vanishing point should be above the horizon, except when viewed on the surface.
This would take hardly any setup and all. I'm probably not going to haul a fish tank up a mountain, but at viewing locations near a parking area, it'd be easy.
Like this:
Like this:
I'm impressed by the effort going into this. Of course, it won't convert one person - but it will be revealing. Note that no flat Earthers are confidently proclaiming that this will confirm their assertions because they know in their heart of hearts that it won't.
Like this:
I'm impressed by the effort going into this. Of course, it won't convert one person - but it will be revealing. Note that no flat Earthers are confidently proclaiming that this will confirm their assertions because they know in their heart of hearts that it won't.
Like this:
I'm impressed by the effort going into this. Of course, it won't convert one person - but it will be revealing. Note that no flat Earthers are confidently proclaiming that this will confirm their assertions because they know in their heart of hearts that it won't.
It is telling that it's RE people who are making effort, doing empirical experiments and it's FE people who, instead of devising their own experiments and publishing the results, are just doing everything they can to deny the results of these experiments even when they are right there in front of their eyes.
It shows that you don't need "organisation" or "funding" to do experiments, you can do some yourself at little or no cost. So why don't they? (Rhetorical question)
Like this:
I'm impressed by the effort going into this. Of course, it won't convert one person - but it will be revealing. Note that no flat Earthers are confidently proclaiming that this will confirm their assertions because they know in their heart of hearts that it won't.
It is telling that it's RE people who are making effort, doing empirical experiments and it's FE people who, instead of devising their own experiments and publishing the results, are just doing everything they can to deny the results of these experiments even when they are right there in front of their eyes.
It shows that you don't need "organisation" or "funding" to do experiments, you can do some yourself at little or no cost. So why don't they? (Rhetorical question)
We see regular demands that we do research. "Think for yourself!" Here's someone actually devising an experiment that can verify a key element of flat Earth theory. Since this is something that the propagandists for a globe Earth deny is real, it means that a genuine crack exists in the whole conspiracy. Ordinary people can start checking for themselves. "Wow! The horizon really does rise to eye level! Everything I know is a lie!" The Illuminati will be overthrown. The world will enter a new era of truth.
Obviously every experiment can be critiqued. What if the levelling device is sloshing around and the photo is taken when it happens to be on a slant? I would welcome every helpful suggestion to make sure that these experiments work perfectly.
Given that we are on the verge of a real breakthrough in flat Earth theory, I can't help but notice - it's a bit quiet. There's not a lot of response from the flat Earth community here. It's almost as if... kind of... they don't think that these experiments will actually support their theory. I know that can't be true, so there must be some other explanation.
If Sam Rowbotham's method was acceptable, we should be able to replicate it, and for elevations quite higher than the top floor of the Grand Brighton.
If Sam Rowbotham's method was acceptable, we should be able to replicate it, and for elevations quite higher than the top floor of the Grand Brighton.
I think it would strike me and perhaps most people that the diagram he used to show the Grand Hotel towering over the globe like a nail driven into an orange was not quite to scale, and the difference between inclination to the horizon at sea level and on the second floor of the hotel was unlikely to be significant.
If Sam Rowbotham's method was acceptable, we should be able to replicate it, and for elevations quite higher than the top floor of the Grand Brighton.
I think it would strike me and perhaps most people that the diagram he used to show the Grand Hotel towering over the globe like a nail driven into an orange was not quite to scale, and the difference between inclination to the horizon at sea level and on the second floor of the hotel was unlikely to be significant.
Like many of his diagrams to try and prove his point.
The diagrams 15 show the piers inclined approx 20 degrees to the horizontal, just as other diagrams showing the earth, such as 20 and 24 are exaggerated to try to prove his point, and attempt make it look ridiculous for the earth to be round.
Almost all of his diagrams have errors in principle or exaggeration in them, so cannot be used as indications of much at all.
If Sam Rowbotham's method was acceptable, we should be able to replicate it, and for elevations quite higher than the top floor of the Grand Brighton.
I think it would strike me and perhaps most people that the diagram he used to show the Grand Hotel towering over the globe like a nail driven into an orange was not quite to scale, and the difference between inclination to the horizon at sea level and on the second floor of the hotel was unlikely to be significant.
Like many of his diagrams to try and prove his point.
The diagrams 15 show the piers inclined approx 20 degrees to the horizontal, just as other diagrams showing the earth, such as 20 and 24 are exaggerated to try to prove his point, and attempt make it look ridiculous for the earth to be round.
Almost all of his diagrams have errors in principle or exaggeration in them, so cannot be used as indications of much at all.
Problems with that measurement -
- He doesn't give the height of the hotel
- He doesn't describe his equipment in detail
- He doesn't calculate the expected angle to a horizon on the globe
- He doesn't express the degree of accuracy of his equipment
The chief merit of his experiment is to show his capacities and a thinker and a scientist.
Eagerly awaiting the results, even though i know what they are likely to be.Even though it's been overcast, it's a ceiling and I had a sharp contrast horizon today, so I took a cheap plastic aquarium to just try out proof of concept.
I thought of adding two little floats with cross hairs on the level water and then use those like a gun sight. But the simplest way to me seems to not even worry about sighting level with the water and just let the perspective lines tell you where the vanishing point of "eye-level" is. I just don't know if skeptics will buy that, even though perspective and vanishing point is their argument for the apparent horizon.
Define "eye-level".Dude I feel so honored being your favorite person on the site. *Sarcasm* But fr though eye level would mean stand up straight and look straight out. Horizon will be at your eyes. Basically that's what eye level means.
And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
...eye level would mean stand up straight and look straight out. Horizon will be at your eyes. Basically that's what eye level means.I think we agreed that "eye-level" means straight out. We don't agree that that's where the horizon appears. That's what this discussion topic is addressing.
Not exactly a precise definition. Looking straight out could well be Polaris for all you've defined it. I know you'd reject that as definitely eye level, but my point is, you need to define "straight out" better.Define "eye-level".Dude I feel so honored being your favorite person on the site. *Sarcasm* But fr though eye level would mean stand up straight and look straight out. Horizon will be at your eyes. Basically that's what eye level means.
And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
Is it really that hard to understand what we mean? I'm done with this thread, and not because I'm losing, I'm not, you round heads have to make everything we say so complicated. The simplicity of the things we say. My brain cells are dying because of you round heads. I'm done.Not exactly a precise definition. Looking straight out could well be Polaris for all you've defined it. I know you'd reject that as definitely eye level, but my point is, you need to define "straight out" better.Define "eye-level".Dude I feel so honored being your favorite person on the site. *Sarcasm* But fr though eye level would mean stand up straight and look straight out. Horizon will be at your eyes. Basically that's what eye level means.
And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
...eye level would mean stand up straight and look straight out. Horizon will be at your eyes. Basically that's what eye level means.I think we agreed that "eye-level" means straight out. We don't agree that that's where the horizon appears. That's what this discussion topic is addressing.
Horizon will be at straight out (no angle downward) according to flat surface earth explanation.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/zlbw2e.jpg)
Horizon will be at an angle below straight out according to spherical surface explanation.
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/es9ohy.jpg)
Determining if the horizon is always at eye level is the objective.
The stupid thing about all this is the reality if we did live on a flat earth is the horizon would still not be at eye level.Except the flat earth contention is that the ground plane appears to rise to eye level. So even looking straight ahead (no angle downward), the horizon is at eye level.
If I amend your diagram to show a flat plane instead of a curve and we agree that you can only see a finite distance then you'd still be looking down to as far as you can see:
(https://image.ibb.co/fxUSB7/horizon.jpg)
Is it really that hard to understand what we mean?
I understand the assertion that the horizon rises to eye level but if you think about it theoretically if you're looking at the ground 1 foot in front of you then you're looking down at an angle. If you're looking at the ground one mile in front of you then you are also looking down at an angle, just a shallower one.
The further you look the shallower that angle becomes. At what point does that angle become 0? At infinity.
And given we can only see a finite distance, the horizon cannot be exactly at eye level because if the earth is flat you will always be looking down at a slight angle.
It's a triangle. H is one side, the ground is the other side and the hypotenuse is the line from your eye to the ground. So there has to be an angle, even if it's a shallow one.
So that is the theory, but that also matches the empirical observations. Why are FE, who claim to be empiricists, denying empirical observations which show that horizon isn't at eye level?
Or rather, where is their empirical evidence showing that it does?
This is part of the original confused thinking going back to Rowbotham. Clinging to this confused thinking is central to the project. Thinking clearly would derail the whole thing.Thing is, if they are going to claim to be empiricists and state how important empirical evidence is then...you know, they could try and make some empirical measurements.
This is part of the original confused thinking going back to Rowbotham. Clinging to this confused thinking is central to the project. Thinking clearly would derail the whole thing.Thing is, if they are going to claim to be empiricists and state how important empirical evidence is then...you know, they could try and make some empirical measurements.
Crazy idea, I know, but it might just work.
It's bizarre that they cite ridiculous write ups from Rowbotham of experiments in a hotel which isn't tall enough to easily measure any difference in horizon tip and then deny the evidence of their own eyes when they're shown photos and video of multiple ways to show horizon dip. Here is another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5wvLeRVKpo
"The chief peculiarity of a view from a balloon at a consider-able elevation, was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye, at an elevation of two miles
I think you should make the leveling water easier to see.On it.
This is all very nice and demonstrates very well how perspective works in the real world, but I guess that will not impress any EnaG believer. If you look it up, they construct "perspective lines" in a very different way. First they place the vanishing point, which is given by a right-angled triangle, where the hypotenuse is the direct line between your eyes and the vanishing point. One cathetus is down from your eyes to sea level, the other one going from there to the vanishing point. The angle at the vanishing point is fixed, therefore the vanishing point is moving away if you go higher.
Everything behind this vanishing point you can't see, everything in front adopts in size so that it fits into the triangle. The angle is defined by the optical resolution of your eyes. Therefore, if you take a telescope, the angle changes and the vanishing point is moving further away, which leads to the recovery effect.
That's a kind of far-field perspective, where the Euclidean geometry is no longer valid. You demonstrate near-field perspective, which goes along with Euclidean geometry. To disprove this concept, you would need a device that goes from you to the horizon. But that's not possible. And something like railway tracks does not help, because that's give you no conclusive result. Because they are to narrow and apparently melt into a single point at the horizon and if you climb up, the horizon will indeed move away while the tracks apparently still melt into one point at the horizon.
It's a debate you can not win, because for every proof you show, they will demand another one that will set the level for you even higher...
Very cool! I would draw a straight black vertical line on both "leveling tubes" and use the point that crosses the liquid as the guide (looks like you've just drawn two lines, one based on the middle of the liquid, one on the edge yeah? But the angle of the camera will affect both of those points). If you draw a line in exactly the same spot on both tubes it should fix that. That level line is crucial so prove you're not pointing "upwards" away from the horizon.Good idea.
I would suggest ditching the flexi plastic tube, repeat the U-shaped assembly on the RHS, and link the horizontal members of each U across the cage. Then there will be just one body of water finding its level across the four corners, with each corner linkedI wasn't even going to put in that extra tubing. It's only there to add leveling confidence in the roll axis. But in light of the post I just made about the challenge of making a sight along the level lines, maybe that's a good idea. Without an actual horizon to shoot due to meteorological conditions, I find myself tinkering and tweaking this apparatus, so I could do that too.
Well, I have too -- both editions. Can't say I understand the flat earth explanation for horizon, but for this effort, all that matters is whether or not the horizon is level with the eye, regardless of why or why not.This is all very nice and demonstrates very well how perspective works in the real world, but I guess that will not impress any EnaG believer. If you look it up, they construct "perspective lines" in a very different way. First they place the vanishing point, which is given by a right-angled triangle, where the hypotenuse is the direct line between your eyes and the vanishing point. One cathetus is down from your eyes to sea level, the other one going from there to the vanishing point. The angle at the vanishing point is fixed, therefore the vanishing point is moving away if you go higher.
Everything behind this vanishing point you can't see, everything in front adopts in size so that it fits into the triangle. The angle is defined by the optical resolution of your eyes. Therefore, if you take a telescope, the angle changes and the vanishing point is moving further away, which leads to the recovery effect.
That's a kind of far-field perspective, where the Euclidean geometry is no longer valid. You demonstrate near-field perspective, which goes along with Euclidean geometry. To disprove this concept, you would need a device that goes from you to the horizon. But that's not possible. And something like railway tracks does not help, because that's give you no conclusive result. Because they are to narrow and apparently melt into a single point at the horizon and if you climb up, the horizon will indeed move away while the tracks apparently still melt into one point at the horizon.
It's a debate you can not win, because for every proof you show, they will demand another one that will set the level for you even higher...
I see that someone here has actually read Earth Not a Globe.
Denying this proof?!?!? You're showing us a diagram, how can anyone just believe in this diagram. How would I know this is what happens. Get off this site....eye level would mean stand up straight and look straight out. Horizon will be at your eyes. Basically that's what eye level means.I think we agreed that "eye-level" means straight out. We don't agree that that's where the horizon appears. That's what this discussion topic is addressing.
Horizon will be at straight out (no angle downward) according to flat surface earth explanation.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/zlbw2e.jpg)
Horizon will be at an angle below straight out according to spherical surface explanation.
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/es9ohy.jpg)
Determining if the horizon is always at eye level is the objective.
The stupid thing about all this is the reality if we did live on a flat earth is the horizon would still not be at eye level.
If I amend your diagram to show a flat plane instead of a curve and we agree that you can only see a finite distance then you'd still be looking down to as far as you can see:
(https://image.ibb.co/fxUSB7/horizon.jpg)
The other stupid thing is that horizon dip can be measured. It is observable and the perspective lines idea makes it 4 different ways that has been shown on here recently which prove that. Why are FE people denying all this proof and if they dispute the findings they can devise their own experiments, but they don't.
Get off this site.
Without an actual horizon to shoot due to meteorological conditions, I find myself tinkering and tweaking this apparatus...May be awhile before I can get a clear shot at a true horizon.
I've also added some t-square stiffeners to limit any tendencies of the square to squash to a trapezoidal shape.After over-engineering this thing, it was getting to unwieldy. I'm on v1.3.
Added a torpedo level and a plumb bob.
Added caps to the tubes so that I didn't have to keep emptying to move and refilling to use. (Caps removed during leveling and sighting of course.)
The transverse sighting line actually tends to be more of a hindrance than an aid. Good for lining up and extending the sightline left-to-right from the two water level tubes, but then it obscures the horizon. So, I've made it so that I can adjust it a little. Use it to level, but then slide it up or down until flush with a cage othogonal wire. It'll still cross the field of view, but well above or below any possible horizon line I may observe at elevations I've chosen.
Or, I might get rid of it altogether. It's just that the best way to line up water levels is to move off center and line up the tubes. But I want shoot from the centroid, which is probably just an aesthetic choice. I want those perspective lines to be centered, if only to confirm that the whole rig is truly square and has been set up horizontally, with no introduced pitch or roll.
I've also added some t-square stiffeners to limit any tendencies of the square to squash to a trapezoidal shape.After over-engineering this thing, it was getting to unwieldy. I'm on v1.3.
Added a torpedo level and a plumb bob.
Added caps to the tubes so that I didn't have to keep emptying to move and refilling to use. (Caps removed during leveling and sighting of course.)
The transverse sighting line actually tends to be more of a hindrance than an aid. Good for lining up and extending the sightline left-to-right from the two water level tubes, but then it obscures the horizon. So, I've made it so that I can adjust it a little. Use it to level, but then slide it up or down until flush with a cage othogonal wire. It'll still cross the field of view, but well above or below any possible horizon line I may observe at elevations I've chosen.
Or, I might get rid of it altogether. It's just that the best way to line up water levels is to move off center and line up the tubes. But I want shoot from the centroid, which is probably just an aesthetic choice. I want those perspective lines to be centered, if only to confirm that the whole rig is truly square and has been set up horizontally, with no introduced pitch or roll.
1. I'm down to just the two large sighting tubes, connected by a single tube. I've ditched the cross-connecting tubing in favor a torpedo level and plumb bob to ensure the rig is square and level.
2. I can now break it down and build it up on site so it's more portable when hiking up to the highest planned survey point.
3. I am mounting it on angle irons, set on a cross plank that will balance nicely on a good, tripod (which also has leveling bubbles).
4. I moved the sighting tubes to the outside of the cube so that they don't obstruct the perspective lines of the cube.
5. I've got a sight line strung across the midpoint transverse that, along with the plumb bob line gives me an excellent centroid index.
I've tested it and I can consistently get correlation between the converging perspective lines and the horizontal sight line of the water level tubes. Now, all I need is a horizon to "shoot." Waiting on the weather.
in the meantime, I did some calculating. If we are on a flat surface, I should find the horizon at level no matter what my elevation. But if we are on a convex surface of the size ascribed by globe advocates, then the following should be observed:
At 100' elevation, the visual horizon calculates to around 64,684' without refraction. (69,696' with standard atmospheric refraction; 74,691' on days with exceptional refraction index.)
With a camera set level, 30 inches back from my sighting guides, I should get a 0.089° drop of the horizon below level. Not much. My guide lines are 1/25th of an inch wide (0.039" = 1mm).
From 30" away, that 0.089° drop would measure 0.043-0.047", or just about 1 width of my guideline.
Doing the same thing for other elevations:
At 400', the measured drop would be 0.086-0.93" or ~2x the width of my sighting line.
At 700', the measured drop would be 0.114-0.123" or ~3x the width of my sighting line.
At 1160', the measured drop would be 0.147-0.158" or ~4x the width of my sighting line.
At 1380', the measured drop would be 0.16-0.172" or <4x the width of my sighting line.
I know all I'm doing really is detecting whether or not any drop below my sighting line occurs, but I wanted to see what to expect.
Though the main leveling tool is the water level, the added cube framework should provide lines of perspective that converge on the sight line rather than the horizon, as long as there is no pitch to the apparatus. The water levels, the torpedo level, the plumb bob and the tripod's level itself should all agree and confirm that there is no pitch tilt.
I feel this is much more precise (and duplicate-able) than the vague description given by Rowbotham in Experiment 15, that has supported the "horizon is always at eye-level" claim for years. Plus, I intend to attain elevations much higher than the top floor of the Grand Brighton.
If not--if there's something I'm missing or that's inherently flawed in this approach that Rowbotham avoided--speak up so I can address them before gathering measurements.
You're showing us a diagram, how can anyone just believe in this diagram. How would I know this is what happens.
Define "eye-level".
And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
It strikes me that the more interconnected tubes there are, the more chances that an unfriendly Team Hoaxer will assert;
"The water's flowing too slowly"
"The tubes are restricting the water flow"
and such ... so;
Take a clear plastic lid or tray...place on a reasonably flat surface, and fill with coloured water. The water will find its own level, and give a long edge to sight along. No issues/concerns over water flow.
Well, I have too -- both editions. Can't say I understand the flat earth explanation for horizon, but for this effort, all that matters is whether or not the horizon is level with the eye, regardless of why or why not.This is all very nice and demonstrates very well how perspective works in the real world, but I guess that will not impress any EnaG believer. If you look it up, they construct "perspective lines" in a very different way. First they place the vanishing point, which is given by a right-angled triangle, where the hypotenuse is the direct line between your eyes and the vanishing point. One cathetus is down from your eyes to sea level, the other one going from there to the vanishing point. The angle at the vanishing point is fixed, therefore the vanishing point is moving away if you go higher.
Everything behind this vanishing point you can't see, everything in front adopts in size so that it fits into the triangle. The angle is defined by the optical resolution of your eyes. Therefore, if you take a telescope, the angle changes and the vanishing point is moving further away, which leads to the recovery effect.
That's a kind of far-field perspective, where the Euclidean geometry is no longer valid. You demonstrate near-field perspective, which goes along with Euclidean geometry. To disprove this concept, you would need a device that goes from you to the horizon. But that's not possible. And something like railway tracks does not help, because that's give you no conclusive result. Because they are to narrow and apparently melt into a single point at the horizon and if you climb up, the horizon will indeed move away while the tracks apparently still melt into one point at the horizon.
It's a debate you can not win, because for every proof you show, they will demand another one that will set the level for you even higher...
I see that someone here has actually read Earth Not a Globe.
But you have to understand it, if you want to understand why they don't believe in your argumentation or your experiments…I don't think I do. The objective is to simply verify or refute the claim that "the horizon is always at eye-level."
Preliminary look: today, from 100' bluff. Marine layer ceiling but clear horizon.
Photos are 1600x900 resolution, so don't want to inline them. Should open as links a new tab:
1. Original photo (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-l1R50zBdpSo/WvnqIby8VaI/AAAAAAAAJj8/AJIv4M89IMsNH8bnC0lQ5MCm3y5JVJvjgCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_9888.JPG)
2. With lines of perspective (https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jf6F777nz3Q/WvnrlhSQT9I/AAAAAAAAJkY/BraDiQzP-1ovyKEtBjzPpGNSwYQcDP5tACLcBGAs/s1600/Perspective.jpg)
Comments? Critiques?
(Did not use plumb bob due to wind)
Comments:Per #1, please define 'real horizon' in this circumstance. I see nothing else in the image one could define as a horizion in my mind.
1. In Arctic conditions people have reported seeing objects hundreds of miles away. What makes you think that you are actually looking at the real horizon?
2. The camera does not appear to be perfectly center level alignment with the center string and the water line. The distance from the top of the picture to the string is 419 pixels and the distance from the bottom of the picture to the string is 485 pixels. This means the center of camera lens is below at the level of the water, looking up at it.
If you wanted to make sure three points in space are in perfect alignment with each other would you look at those points from below the points, above those points, or anywhere other than in the same line of those three points?
3. The water itself does not appear to be perfectly level: https://i.imgur.com/FlPL33D.png
Comments:Per #1, please define 'real horizon' in this circumstance. I see nothing else in the image one could define as a horizion in my mind.
1. In Arctic conditions people have reported seeing objects hundreds of miles away. What makes you think that you are actually looking at the real horizon?
2. The camera does not appear to be perfectly center level alignment with the center string and the water line. The distance from the top of the picture to the string is 419 pixels and the distance from the bottom of the picture to the string is 485 pixels. This means the center of camera lens is below at the level of the water device, looking up at it.
If you wanted to make sure three points in space are in perfect alignment with each other would you look at those points from below the points, above those points, or anywhere other than in the same line of those three points?
3. The water itself does not appear to be perfectly level: https://i.imgur.com/FlPL33D.png
Per #2, did you note the crate itself is not even on both sides of the string? This will change the center of the image in relation to the crate.
Comments:Thanks. Allow me to address each point separately.
1. In Arctic conditions people have reported seeing objects hundreds of miles away. What makes you think that you are actually looking at the real horizon?
2. The camera does not appear to be perfectly center level alignment with the center string and the water line. The distance from the top of the picture to the string is 419 pixels and the distance from the bottom of the picture to the string is 485 pixels. This means the center of camera lens is below at the level of the water, looking up at it.
If you wanted to make sure that three points in space are in perfect alignment with each other would you look at those points from below the points, above those points, or anywhere other than in the same line of those three points?
3. The water itself does not appear to be perfectly level: https://i.imgur.com/FlPL33D.png
Comments:
2. The camera does not appear to be perfectly center level alignment with the center string and the water line. The distance from the top of the picture to the string is 419 pixels and the distance from the bottom of the picture to the string is 485 pixels. This means the center of camera lens is below at the level of the water, looking up at it.
So center-ness shouldn't be an issue. The issue is making sure the sighting guideline is parallel to the water levels. I could set them at the extreme top or extreme bottom. It wouldn't matter, as long as the whole cage is square.
But, a good critique is to look at how closely I do get the water level with the sight line, whether they are on the apparatus.
I'm sure what you mean is that the camera is not level with the water, because we must assume the water is level no matter what. Unless I've got a blockage or vacuum that is restricting flow, the water will be level. That's the premise for using a water level. I can't make the water not level unless I plug the top of the tubes or trap some air into the tubing. The water will be level.
3. The water itself does not appear to be perfectly level: https://i.imgur.com/FlPL33D.png
Of course the center of the viewing apparatus being centered with the string and the water level of the device is an issue. Move the center of the viewing apparatus to 1 foot above or below the string and water level of the water device. Consider what would happen. Is centering an issue now?
Of course the center of the viewing apparatus being centered with the string and the water level of the device is an issue. Move the center of the viewing apparatus to 1 foot above or below the string and water level of the water device. Consider what would happen. Is centering an issue now?
If I do that an leave the camera where it is? Sure. Then I'm relying solely on the lines of perspective to give me my horizon vanishing point.
But if I move the camera down to level with the water, both are "off center" relative to the cube, but the lines of perspective should still converge on that line. That's how perspective works.
Or, I could leave the camera where it is and instead of trying to sight parallel along the water levels, I use equivalent points on the tubing to draw a perspective line and see if it converges with the rest of the cage. That's harder though, and more prone to error since I'd be having to make a judgment call where those points on the tubes are.
What I'll do is provide a demonstration, showing how different water levels, camera levels and sight lines affect the results. It would be ultra ideal if I could get everything perfectly centered because it makes it easier to evaluate. But the point of combining water leveling with perspective lines of a squared cage is to reduce potential for single point error.
Comments:
1. In Arctic conditions conditions people have reported seeing objects hundreds of miles away. What makes you think that you are actually looking at the real horizon at this particular time?
What is your answer?Same as yours, given that scenario.
Per #2, did you note the crate itself is not even on both sides of the string? This will change the center of the image in relation to the crate.I want to be sure I understand this comment.
Maybe a picture taken with the horizon lined up with one of the water surfaces in the tubes might help coinvince some of the effect of moving the camera up or drown, as there might be some questions of whether the camera is lined up with the water levels. I know it wont make a difference, but will likely head off some comments about it.Maybe. Anytime I have to move the camera tripod, it takes time to realign, refocus, find the best exposure settings, look at all my index points to make sure I'm capturing what needs to be captured/documented.
But if FE has a different method for determining if what one is seeing is the horizon, I don't know what that is.This is the sunset last night (I didn't take the photo) looking from Ocean Beach (San Diego) under the pier. Sunset was on the 293° azimuth, which means San Clemente Island is somewhere slightly left of this sunset line. But it's too hazy to see it. Nevertheless, the setting sun is bright enough to penetrate the haze (and offer an interesting color glow), making the horizon line is very clear.
I think you will run into a road block on what is a true horizon.There's got to be some way to tell, otherwise how can you ever claim that it always rises to eye-level? It would be a tautology to claim it always rises to eye-level, and if it doesn't, you're not seeing the horizon.
In GE we can know that there is a horizon, and calculate its distance, but on a FE it is completely subjective, as the ground, sea whatever rises up until it gets fuzzy, and disappears into .......... well something!
I think you will run into a road block on what is a true horizon.There's got to be some way to tell, otherwise how can you ever claim that it always rises to eye-level? It would be a tautology to claim it always rises to eye-level, and if it doesn't, you're not seeing the horizon.
In GE we can know that there is a horizon, and calculate its distance, but on a FE it is completely subjective, as the ground, sea whatever rises up until it gets fuzzy, and disappears into .......... well something!
I think once we get through the annual "May Gray" and "June Gloom" that is common this time of year, I'll have opportunities where there's no doubt the sky at the horizon "convergence" is true and the horizon is as high as it's going to get for any given elevation. But if there's some criterion for assessing when what we're seeing is a "true horizon" per FE, I need to consider that. I just need it explained to me.
It's not a matter of picking the right fluid, it's a matter of picking the right fluid/solid system. The surface of the cylinder has a say as well into what the contact angle is.I crossed that out above, thinking that by "hydrophobic" the opposite might happen and I'd get a convex surface level. Rain-X makes the water bead on the glass windshield. Not sure what it would to with plastic/vinyl.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_angle
What about having small objects that can float on the surface and using them to disambiguate?
What about using Rain-X or something to make the surface of the cylinders hydrophobic?
But you have to understand it, if you want to understand why they don't believe in your argumentation or your experiments…I don't think I do. The objective is to simply verify or refute the claim that "the horizon is always at eye-level."
I would love to understand the explanation for why that would be so on a flat surface earth, but it's not necessary that I do in order to test the claim.
Now, if I demonstrate that the horizon is NOT always at eye-level, any dispute will have to come from test set up or the method with which I attempt to observe it. But such issues have nothing to do with understanding why the horizon is always at eye-level.
If it can be shown that the horizon drops below level as elevation increases, then that doesn't mean it'll refute a flat earth. It will just refute the horizon claim. Flat earth proponents will have to theorize another explanation for why the horizon appears as it does.
On a convex curved surface, the horizon will drop from level.
How it appears on a flat surface? I'm interested, but that's not my concern in this effort. I just want to see if it drops or not.
If there are problems with setup or method, I've invited feedback numerous times. I feel confident I'm being more careful, meticulous and guarded against obtaining a preferred outcome than was Samuel Rowbotham, but if there's a technique or method he used to verify the horizon was always at eye-level that I am missing, I encourage anyone to speak up and allow me the opportunity to include it.
If you refuse to understand their claims...I'm not refusing. I don't understand the basis for the claim.
^ Skim-reading a bit more, the meniscus exists whether it's concave, convex or flat. What I want is flat, or a 'wetting angle" of 90° so that the fluid isn't convex or concave where it meets the vinyl tubing.
Lots of great descriptions but no simple lists or tables of what to use instead of water or in addition to water to get that wetting angle closer to 90° and get a sharper demarcation of the water level.
Unless anyone here knows a thing or two about this, I'll experiment. Maybe transmission or brake fluid. Maybe baking soda dissolved into the water. Or Windex?Rain-X?(Might be the opposite of what I want)
If you refuse to understand their claims, you cannot disprove them. What you are doing is to show that the extrapolation of the parallel lines in your pictures are meeting at one point above the apparent horizon due to perspective. But that is nothing any flat earth believer is denying.
What are the flat-earth believers denying, then?
But no flat earth believer claimed that, they simply don't know.
They 'don't know'? But what claim are they making, if they don't know?
So, you can make your fancy device as sophisticated as you like, it will not be accepted as disprove, because it does not target the fundamental question.
If you refuse to understand their claims, you cannot disprove them. What you are doing is to show that the extrapolation of the parallel lines in your pictures are meeting at one point above the apparent horizon due to perspective. But that is nothing any flat earth believer is denying.
What are the flat-earth believers denying, then?
But no flat earth believer claimed that, they simply don't know.
They 'don't know'? But what claim are they making, if they don't know?
So, you can make your fancy device as sophisticated as you like, it will not be accepted as disprove, because it does not target the fundamental question.
What IS the 'fundamental question', then?
The fundamental question is, if you could linearly extrapolate from your position to infinity.The fundamental question is, "is the horizon always at eye level?"
Well, until a flat earth proponent steps forward and objects to this method on the grounds you say he or she could, I'm proceeding as if it's acceptable; because I can't play devil's advocate for them for an explanation that makes no sense to me.
I've repeatedly put the invitation out to critique this method, and the best (only one, really) offered so far is Tom Bishop's question about how I know I'm sighting the "true" horizon, to which I respond, how does a flat earther know (such as Samuel Rowbotham)? And instead of critiquing the method, he's critiqued its execution.
So, if there's a fundamental disparity between my understanding of how perspective lines should positively complement a level sighting survey and what the flat earth explanation for why the horizon must always be at eye-level that renders this wire cube apparatus pointless, I wish someone would tell me, and try to help me understand why.
If you don't understand their view on perspective and how they construct perspective lines read Chapter XIV of EnaG. As you will see (and it's even written there) that doesn't goes along with the usual way perspective works. If you want to understand why a flat-earth believer doesn't care about this contradiction, search the forum for "Euclidean geometry".Well, I’m in wait line hell at the DMV, so I’ve got the time. I will.
Yes, your experiment is very nice, but it only demonstrates what is obvious anyway and known to anyone who deals with perspective, but still will not convince any flat-earth believer, because they take EnaG for granted and solve any contradiction by questioning the universal validity of Euclidean geometry, which means continuous linearity. Prove that, and they will have some trouble to maintain their opinion on perspective. Everything else is a waste of time and effort.What’s not obvious is ‘level’. Getting confidence as to what the level ocular horizontal benchmark plane is is what the setup is supposed to accomplish. The intersection of a level sight line from the water leveler with perspective lines from a horizontal ocular view plane gives us the “eye level” against which “horizon” can be compared to determine if they are, in fact, equivalent for all elevations.
Consider this:Interestingly, I think you may just have proven horizon dip, inadvertently
We have four jelly beans. One is on the floor at your feet, the other is on the floor 20 feet ahead of you, one is on the floor 100 feet ahead from you, and the other is on the floor ahead of you on the distant horizon (assuming that we can see it). Where would we need to place our eyeball to see whether all three jellybeans line up?
My answer:
Clearly, our eye would need to be exactly center with the line of jelly beans. If we look at the scene from any other angle or position we cannot say whether they all line up or not. At any other position they would appear in different positions relative to each other.
Consider this:Interestingly, I think you may just have proven horizon dip, inadvertently
We have four jelly beans. One is on the floor at your feet, the other is on the floor 20 feet ahead of you, one is on the floor 100 feet ahead from you, and the other is on the floor ahead of you on the distant horizon (assuming that we can see it). Where would we need to place our eyeball to see whether all three jellybeans line up?
My answer:
Clearly, our eye would need to be exactly center with the line of jelly beans. If we look at the scene from any other angle or position we cannot say whether they all line up or not. At any other position they would appear in different positions relative to each other.
This is a diagram showing your scenario at the top. As you say, if you look at ground level the four jelly beans should line up perfectly.
(https://image.ibb.co/npmLkd/jelly.jpg)
But what happens if you take the first 3 jelly beans and raise them to an altitude as shown at the bottom of my diagram? For those 3 to line up you have to be looking at the same height as the jelly beans, but then how can the 4th jelly bean still line up? They are no longer in a straight line, so it will appear to be below that level - by your own definition, that's the horizon. There's your horizon dip. Clearly here I've greatly exaggerated the angle.
Great. I see from your diagram that you agree that the viewer's eye needs to be in a straight line path with the jelly bean points. Bobby therefore needs to put his camera in exact center line with the string and water level of the water device.I do agree. I guess in Bobby's apparatus the first two jelly beans are the two columns of water, they will naturally be level with one another so if they line up then you can be sure that is eye level and therefore compare the horizon to that.
The camera can't be looking down at the points, or up at the points, to see if the points line up; just as you can't have your eyes higher than the jellybeans to see whether they line up.
The distance from the top of the picture to the string is 419 pixels and the distance from the bottom of the picture to the string is 485 pixels. This means the center of camera lens is below at the level of the water, looking up at it.
I keep rereading the sections “why the ship’s hull disappears before the masthead” and “perspectives at sea” and though it sounds like he’s describing perspective as I understand it, he’s applying it in a way that is nonsensical to me. I get his argument about equidistant lines, but I can’t for the life of me deduce how he’s demarcing the horizon.
Each example, the surface appears to slope up to eye level, but then run parallel to (or coincident upon)the eyeline.
But how is that point figured? What’s happening here?
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2vm7mt3.jpg)
What determines the point at which the ground stops its apparent upward slope? Where does that H point that marks the horizon occur? Is dependent and how far above you the object lost to the horizon is? In other words, there is no horizon point. It’s a variable. The tops of tree are lost to the “horizon” further away than the trunks are?
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/mb3lv8.jpg)
What is determining where the red line appears to stop sloping upward and the blue line is level?
Is H variable, even if I’m not changing my height over the ground?
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/2ngc64i.jpg)
See my post on page 7:Quote from: Tom BishopThe distance from the top of the picture to the string is 419 pixels and the distance from the bottom of the picture to the string is 485 pixels. This means the center of camera lens is below at the level of the water, looking up at it.
This suggested that the camera was looking up at the device and everything was not perfectly leveled.
There is nothing wrong with your conclusion. They should all line up on a flat surface.Right. So...you raise the first 3 up so they are at altitude - all 3 at the same altitude as each other. If your eye is at that altitude and you look across the 3 of them so they all line up then the 4th, at the horizon, will now appear below that level. Right? It can't possibly line up because it is not physically aligned. There's your horizon dip. And that would occur on a flat earth or a globe for slightly different reasons. The horizon is physically a point on the ground. The two jelly beans or water tubes or whatever are at an altitude. There is no way the two points at the same altitude and the one on the ground can form a straight line.
....so 904 pixels in total, and the centre should be 452?
So the error is 33/904 in both directions, or 4%.
Do you consider that a significant error, in the context of the experiment?
There is nothing wrong with your conclusion. They should all line up on a flat surface.Right. So...you raise the first 3 up so they are at altitude - all 3 at the same altitude as each other. If your eye is at that altitude and you look across the 3 of them so they all line up then the 4th, at the horizon, will now appear below that level. Right? It can't possibly line up because it is not physically aligned. There's your horizon dip. And that would occur on a flat earth or a globe for slightly different reasons. The horizon is physically a point on the ground. The two jelly beans or water tubes or whatever are at an altitude. There is no way the two points at the same altitude and the one on the ground can form a straight line.
I agree that in Bobby's experiment the result is not clear but I think with the equipment he has made and on a clear enough day at a high enough altitude he would show a clear result.
We know that the horizon will dip or be in surplus if all three jelly beans are not lined up.Right. And the horizon is a point on the ground.
How can you possibly think that three jelly beans where two are at altitude and the other is on the ground can form a straight line? ???
This is testing the Flat Earth Theory of whether the horizon is at eye level.I understand that. And so far 4 different experiments have shown that it isn't at eye level.
The distance from the top of the picture to the string is 419 pixels and the distance from the bottom of the picture to the string is 485 pixels. This means the center of camera lens is below at the level of the water, looking up at it.
If the center of the picture, which should be identical to the center of the optical system of the camera is really already below the horizon in the picture, the whole thing is useless. Don't make it so easy form them, you can do better...
If the center of the picture, which should be identical to the center of the optical system of the camera is really already below the horizon in the picture, the whole thing is useless. Don't make it so easy form them, you can do better...
So you would be happy if the experimenter mounted the camera on a frame attached to the cage, with an adjustment bracket, and took setup shots, counting the pixels every time, until a perfect centre was achieved?
See my post on page 7:Quote from: Tom BishopThe distance from the top of the picture to the string is 419 pixels and the distance from the bottom of the picture to the string is 485 pixels. This means the center of camera lens is below at the level of the water, looking up at it.
This suggested that the camera was looking up at the device and everything was not perfectly leveled.
....so 904 pixels in total, and the centre should be 452?
So the error is 33/904 in both directions, or 4%.
Do you consider that a significant error, in the context of the experiment?
The jellybeans in Bobby's experiment are the two water surfaces in the water device and the horizon. The camera needs to line up with the two water surfaces to see if the horizon lines up with it. The pictures Bobby has shown shows that the number of pixels between the top of the picture and the water device surfaces/white string were less than the number of pixels between the bottom of the picture and the water surfaces/white string.Maybe you should think of my sight indices as lengths of licorice sticks instead of jellybeans. The horizon is a long one laying on it's side. And the water levels are two short ones, also laying on their sides. My camera or eye can be along another length of line anywhere behind the water level licorice sticks. I'm trying to get them to line up vertically. (And I'm not trying to line up the horizon. I'm trying to see where the horizon ends up when I get the water levels lined up in the vertical.)
The distance from the top of the picture to the string is 419 pixels and the distance from the bottom of the picture to the string is 485 pixels. This means the center of camera lens is below at the level of the water, looking up at it.
Please don't argue with him about whether or not the error is significant.The distance from the top of the picture to the string is 419 pixels and the distance from the bottom of the picture to the string is 485 pixels. This means the center of camera lens is below at the level of the water, looking up at it.
Are you just arguing to argue?
Again, do you consider this a significant error in the experiment? It's perfectly possible for it to be within the bounds of experimental error, and still be valid.
It's a useless discussion. Go and read EnaG and try to understand it. Then you will find so many obvious loopholes in the whole description that are really hard to explain.
Can i ask what height you were at? And i can also make out an island to the right of the picture, what is the island, and how far away is it?View from Mt. Soledad in La Jolla. My vantage spot was around 790' elevation, based on topo map.
It suggests the camera had a forward pitch.QuoteThe distance from the top of the picture to the string is 419 pixels and the distance from the bottom of the picture to the string is 485 pixels. This means the center of camera lens is below at the level of the water, looking up at it.
This suggested that the camera was looking up at the device and everything was not perfectly leveled.
From yesterday evening.That is great work. Well done.
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/34t6g54.jpg)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QVktHC8Jbms/Wvx9J1e3LvI/AAAAAAAAJkw/H7xB8SWYjcM_G0foiTRZ8xSZt9JxV2B9ACLcBGAs/s1600/Soledad%2BSunset%2B2.jpg)
(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.
The water levels in the water device are not lined up, it is alleged; but again, the camera is not aligned with the "jellybean points" in the scene. The top half is 434 pixels and the bottom half is 571 pixels. The camera is not exactly centered.
In most of these pictures the camera is always from below. What happens when the camera is from below and you are looking at an points above you in the foregound, even slightly? Your straight line of sight with the foreground points that recedes into the distance beyond is pointing upwards into the air! It is not pointing level.
Recall the jellybean analogy. You need to be looking at the jellybeans in the same center line of the jellybeans. You can't be slightly above or below the line of jellybeans which stretch into the horizon.
-snip-The camera was not leveled; it could have had a slight angle of attack.
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.
The water levels in the water device are not lined up, it is alleged; but again, the camera is not aligned with the "jellybean points" in the scene. The top half is 434 pixels and the bottom half is 571 pixels. The camera is not exactly centered.
In most of these pictures the camera is always from below. What happens when the camera is from below and you are looking at an points above you in the foregound? Your line of sight with the foreground points and into the distance beyond is pointing upwards into the air! It is not pointing level.
Recall the jellybean analogy. You need to be looking at the jellybeans in the same center line of the jellybeans. You can't be slightly above or below the line of jellybeans which stretch into the horizon.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Pd9IOsP0imY/Wvx9LzcZVqI/AAAAAAAAJk8/fCPm9JhUFvo70oNrc1LtTa2x7dPKVdFxQCLcBGAs/s1600/Soledad%2BSunset%2B6.jpg)
(click to enlarge)
Again, the camera is not centered. The top half of the image to the string is 524 pixels. The bottom half of the image to the string is 536 pixels.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QVktHC8Jbms/Wvx9J1e3LvI/AAAAAAAAJkw/H7xB8SWYjcM_G0foiTRZ8xSZt9JxV2B9ACLcBGAs/s1600/Soledad%2BSunset%2B2.jpg)
(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.
The water levels in the water device are not lined up, it is alleged; but again, the camera is not aligned with the "jellybean points" in the scene. The top half is 434 pixels and the bottom half is 571 pixels. The camera is not exactly centered.
In most of these pictures the camera is always from below. What happens when the camera is from below and you are looking at an points above you in the foregound, even slightly? Your straight line of sight with the foreground points that recedes into the distance beyond is pointing upwards into the air! It is not pointing level.
Recall the jellybean analogy. You need to be looking at the jellybeans in the same center line of the jellybeans. You can't be slightly above or below the line of jellybeans which stretch into the horizon.
So the one picure you take issue with is the one where the operator deliberately moved the camera away from being level with the water? Did you miss this, above the picture?
"When I raised the camera level to get the level line to rest on the apparent horizon, the water levels in the tubes no longer align:"
"Centering" as you seem to want to have it would mean making sure the camera is not only level in height with the water level but also set with focal point perpendicular to plumb. That way, a photo taken with resolution of 900px in the vertical will be perfectly split by the level line.
That's nice and all, but it's not necessary. I can point the angle downward to get more sea and less sky. Or point it up to get more sky and less sea. But that won't change the height of the camera relative to the water level, and the level line won't move up or down. The level line will move if I raise or lower the height of the camera or raise or lower the water level, or raise or lower the cube holding the water tubes.
I think I could even pitch the cube forward and backward without changing the water level line height, as long as it is pivoting on a centered axis (which it probably won't).
But this insistence that the photo show a vertically centered water line is mistaken.
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.Of course it is. The horizon is a line, the string is a line. Of course you can place the camera so those two things line up.
The water levels in the water device are not lined up, it is allegedIt's not really an allegation, you can clearly see from the image that they aren't. And that is the point. The only way to line up the string with the horizon, because the horizon is below eye level, is for the camera to be angles slightly downward. And that is why the two water levels are now different.
So the one picure you take issue with is the one where the operator deliberately moved the camera away from being level with the water? Did you miss this, above the picture?I didn't notice he'd done this, but you are exactly right.
"When I raised the camera level to get the level line to rest on the apparent horizon, the water levels in the tubes no longer align:"
BRB taking pics to prove my pointAlright Tom, let's put this jelly bean thing to rest once and for all.
The center of the lens needs to be at the same altitude of the water levels in the water device. Otherwise you are looking slightly upwards or downwards at it.
Of course it needs to be vertically centered. The center of the lens needs to be at the same altitude of the water levels in the water device. Otherwise you are looking slightly upwards or downwards at it. A very small angle misalignment with the line of sight of bodies in the foreground creates a very large angle numerous miles away.No.
It seems that Tom Bishop has just one remaining exception with this experiment: the camera is not vertically centered.If he says yes, then I'll just crop the photos so that the view line is always in the exact center.
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?
It seems that Tom Bishop has just one remaining exception with this experiment: the camera is not vertically centered.If he says yes, then I'll just crop the photos so that the view line is always in the exact center.
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?
I'd rather he understand why the camera pitch doesn't change the level alignment. I think, maybe, he's thinking in terms of points along a line, whereas this is a planar problem. I don't know.
An illustration:That's not the correct conclusion to draw from your method of photo analysis. Counting pixels from the top and bottom of the photos to find a centerline does not tell you whether or not the camera was level with another object. It only tells you how the object was framed.
(https://i.imgur.com/Hd6TTuk.png)
Most of the pictures are taken from very slightly below. No wonder the straight line path is empty space.
What is so difficult to see about this?
Here are two pics from the other day. Both are 1600x900.
This one (http://oi63.tinypic.com/34p05s0.jpg) does not have the water level line centered vertically within the frame.
This one (http://oi67.tinypic.com/2f03qbs.jpg) is "centered" with the water level line splitting the frame.
They were taken sequentially. The only difference was zoom. I didn't even change the camera pitch.
That's not the correct conclusion to draw from your method of photo analysis. Counting pixels from the top and bottom of the photos to find a centerline does not tell you whether or not the camera was level with another object. It only tells you how the object was framed.
First your argument is that "no altitude leveling is required! Why should I need to do that?" …You've attributed something to me in quotes. Where did I say this?
…and also expressed arguments of the difficulty in doing that.Tom. You crisscross things I say all the time.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/16k9s21.jpg)
You also then threaten to crop some photos.A. I didn't crop the photo
Then your next post is of a picture you took in the past where it is centered exactly.
I have been assuming that your camera is leveled exactly horizontally here. If the camera were fixed in a horizontal position the pixels need to match up in frame to ensure that the center of the lens was in line with the objects. You are right. I have been assuming that the camera was exactly horizontal. I was wrong to assume too much. If you are just tilting the camera willy nilly, there could be several issues with the leveling, enough that a pixel count is insufficient.No, you haven't.
How am I supposed to know how much you are tilting your camera at and the altitude of the center of the lens?
Regardless, the illustration I have provided shows that this is a very sensitive experiment.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/16k9s21.jpg)
Sure. I can agree with that. I have been assuming that your camera was horizontal. In that case, if you are just tilting it at your pleasure, then the number of pixels doesn't really mean much.
Bobby: Precisely.
Clearly, this is a very sensitive experiment. Clearly, there is some question on whether the camera is exactly leveled. I moved the camera down by one pixel in my last illustration and it created a huge gap in the background.
Bobby: Wait! What?
If not pixels, since you are tilting the camera willy nilly, how can we know where things are positioned?
Look at the water level. That's what it's there for.
I moved the camera down by one pixel in my last illustration and it created a huge gap in the background.Strictly speaking, pixels only measure angles. And tilting the camera down wouldn't affect the alignment of the water columns in the image.
I moved the camera down by one pixel in my last illustration and it created a huge gap in the background.Strictly speaking, pixels only measure angles. And tilting the camera down wouldn't affect the alignment of the water columns in the image.
You're gonna run out of excuses eventually. This activity by Bobby has conclusively proved that the world is round.
If the water levels in the tubes line up, the camera can't be anywhere else.Look at the water level. That's what it's there for.
And how do we know whether the camera is not very slightly above or below the water level?
This activity by Bobby has conclusively proved that the world is round.Appreciate this, but if it's proved anything yet (which I think we're still in the preliminary stage, working out kinks and challenges), it's that the horizon is not always at eye level. Whether or not that kills flat earth, I don't know.
I moved the camera down by one pixel in my last illustration and it created a huge gap in the background.Strictly speaking, pixels only measure angles. And tilting the camera down wouldn't affect the alignment of the water columns in the image.
You're gonna run out of excuses eventually. This activity by Bobby has conclusively proved that the world is round.
Bobby has already posted a picture showing that slight modifications to the altitudes makes the horizon appear in line with the string that goes through the middle. This is a sensitive experiment. The slight altitudes and alignment in the foreground all matter very much. We need to see something that shows we can trust those altitudes and the alignment.
If we can't trust a pixel method, because bobby is tilting the camera willy nilly, how do we know whether the level is of the camera is the same at the water device?
Bobby has already posted a picture showing that slight modifications to the altitudes makes the horizon appear in line with the string that goes through the middle. This is a sensitive experiment. The slight altitudes and alignment in the foreground all matter very much. We need to see something that shows we can trust those altitudes and the alignment.And the point was that it misaligns the columns.
If we can't trust a pixel method, because bobby is tilting the camera willy nilly, how do we know whether the level is of the camera is the same at the water device?Gee, it's almost like there are TWO water columns for that exact purpose!
If the water levels in the tubes line up, the camera can't be anywhere else.
Gee, it's almost like there are TWO water columns for that exact purpose!
If the water levels in the tubes line up, the camera can't be anywhere else.Gee, it's almost like there are TWO water columns for that exact purpose!
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?
And yet i dont see you suggesting that any of the experiments in EnaG that use plumb bobs and protractors, or levels are in error? You seem to accept all of them as gospel, experiment 15 does, as do many of his other experiments, and that experiment measures the horizon (apparently)
If it is so vital for the experiments to be perfectly level, then why did Rowbotham not detail his method of levelling, the hieght of his experiments, or show exactly what he did to level his “clinometer” he even put the word “levelled” in brackets. I would suggest to show he might have had doubts???
Surely the same level of standards should be applied to Bobbys experiment, as at least he is willing to show how he got his answers, and discuss it, much more than EnaG does.
And yet i dont see you suggesting that any of the experiments in EnaG that use plumb bobs and protractors, or levels are in error? You seem to accept all of them as gospel, experiment 15 does, as do many of his other experiments, and that experiment measures the horizon (apparently)
If it is so vital for the experiments to be perfectly level, then why did Rowbotham not detail his method of levelling, the hieght of his experiments, or show exactly what he did to level his “clinometer” he even put the word “levelled” in brackets. I would suggest to show he might have had doubts???
Surely the same level of standards should be applied to Bobbys experiment, as at least he is willing to show how he got his answers, and discuss it, much more than EnaG does.
Rowbotham specifically avoids debates about the accuracy of his surveying methods by designing experiments that have two modes: success or fail. Is the object in the distance visible, or is it hidden by the curve of the earth? Simple experiments.
We cannot really take him to task on his surveying methods for that purpose.
And yet i dont see you suggesting that any of the experiments in EnaG that use plumb bobs and protractors, or levels are in error? You seem to accept all of them as gospel, experiment 15 does, as do many of his other experiments, and that experiment measures the horizon (apparently)
If it is so vital for the experiments to be perfectly level, then why did Rowbotham not detail his method of levelling, the hieght of his experiments, or show exactly what he did to level his “clinometer” he even put the word “levelled” in brackets. I would suggest to show he might have had doubts???
Surely the same level of standards should be applied to Bobbys experiment, as at least he is willing to show how he got his answers, and discuss it, much more than EnaG does.
Rowbotham specifically avoids debates about the accuracy of his surveying methods by designing experiments that have two modes: success or fail. Is the object in the distance visible, or is it hidden by the curve of the earth? Simple experiments.
We cannot really take him to task on his surveying methods for that purpose.
And his experiment 15?
He looks out of a window with a “clinometer” then runs up a flight of stairs with same object, and measures the horizon, and determines that there is no difference? The whole outcome of this experiment is acutely dependant on his instrument being levelled. And yet we cannot dispute the accuracy of it?
And yet...you are challenging the precision of my method.
Rowbotham specifically avoids debates about the accuracy of his surveying methods by designing experiments that have two modes: success or fail. Is the object in the distance visible, or is it hidden by the curve of the earth? Simple experiments.
We cannot really take him to task on his surveying methods for that purpose.
These water columns are only a few inches away from each other. It may as well just be big single glass of water.How did RS's clinometer work that makes it more trustworthy to you.
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?Since you mentioned it, how far away IS the horizon? I can't get a handle on what the horizon even is in EnaG.
I don't think you have proved a round earth directly, but you have certainly proved horizon dip, despite Tom's desperate flailing.This activity by Bobby has conclusively proved that the world is round.Appreciate this, but if it's proved anything yet (which I think we're still in the preliminary stage, working out kinks and challenges), it's that the horizon is not always at eye level. Whether or not that kills flat earth, I don't know.
On the other hand, if the horizon was actually always rising to eye level, there's no way the earth surface could be convex. But since we're not seeing that, convexity survives. How flatness could explain a falling horizon with rise in elevation is another story.
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/okuds0.jpg)
Maybe 800-1000ft long.
35-40ft above the waterline.
Looks like we're seeing it from close to 90degs, (probably heading out from Long Beach). Given how much of it we're seeing, I might very well be close to the distance where a globe earth would predict the visual horizon to be. Might be a fun exercise in geometry/trig to see.
(However far away it is, I'd say it's clearly below "eye level" so a FE model might need to start on a rework of the explanation for the apparent horizon, I would say.)
Just looked on Marine traffic, and i recon the ship is the “sea passion” 333M long, and she is likely to have been in the area for about 36 hours.What is her mast height? Bobby seems to be measuring it from that.
I know this because i can see from your picture she is a large crude carrier, and believe me there are NOT that many in that part of the world. As i said I have worked on that operation and in that area.
Her AIS data shows she is fully loaded and would have a about 15 metres of hull above the waterline. She will also have instructions to remain a minimum of 25 miles off the coast at the headlands, so it is safe to say she is at least that distance away.
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] don't forget Tontogary's measurement from horizon to horizon using a sextant and finding >180° from an elevated position.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QVktHC8Jbms/Wvx9J1e3LvI/AAAAAAAAJkw/H7xB8SWYjcM_G0foiTRZ8xSZt9JxV2B9ACLcBGAs/s1600/Soledad%2BSunset%2B2.jpg)
(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.
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?
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
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/35l4w8m.jpg)
[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. :-)
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.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.
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?
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/0bdzHXY.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/poczgks.png)
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.
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.
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.
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/iMkuzOJ.png)
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:On the contrary, that tubes are used to demonstrate how the fluid level is independent of the shape.
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.I don't mind the critique, but do so knowledgeably. Please. Don't misapply or confuse information you look up just to seek a refutation of a result you aren't comfortable with.
/qBut clearly in that experiment the tubes have different concentrations of...whatever that green stuff is, which affects the result.
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!This. And this is where I question whether Tom is serious about FE research or a FE model which matches observations.
The Encyclopedia Britannica researcher said that we shouldn't even bother trying to gauge the level of the water.Similar to how you misquoted me earlier, you've misrepresented and misinterpreted a reference to suit a bias.
For goodness sake, Tom!/qBut clearly in that experiment the tubes have different concentrations of...whatever that green stuff is, which affects the result.
Here is another device with more equally mixed dye:
(https://i.imgur.com/9c1K58I.png)
The same sort of imprecision is seen:
(https://i.imgur.com/duJaQms.png)
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/iMkuzOJ.png)
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!
Dense materials sink, and less-dense materials float. Water is denser than alcohol, so the alcohol floats on top of the water. Dense materials sink, and less-dense materials float. Water is denser than alcohol, so the alcohol floats on top of the water.
The same sort of imprecision is seen:Try it again, but instead of drawing a straight line relative to the picture orientation (same mistake you made expecting my photos to be centered), see if you can draw a straight line through the levels, being consistent as to where you cross the meniscus.
(https://i.imgur.com/duJaQms.png)
Vodka floats on water.That's the kind of input I can appreciate.
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.Nice try, but not relevant, as you know. Where are the results of your experiments?
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/iMkuzOJ.png)
Vodka floats on water.That's the kind of input I can appreciate.
I didn't know that. I added the alcohol to see if it would minimize the meniscus. But maybe it didn't. Maybe it separated and it's floating to the top of one vertical tube but not the other, and maybe the density difference is throwing off the measurement.
I can calibrate it if you think so. I plugged the tubes when done and I haven't stirred up the fluid since the experiment. If I show you the fluid levels are unaffected by the water/alcohol mixture, will you be satisfied? It is a good point, and something I hadn't considered.
The same sort of imprecision is seen:Try it again, but instead of drawing a straight line relative to the picture orientation (same mistake you made expecting my photos to be centered), see if you can draw a straight line through the levels, being consistent as to where you cross the meniscus.
(https://i.imgur.com/duJaQms.png)
You should be able to. I can. That's level. Not the way the picture is framed. That's the point of the water leveling.
If you think a picture is always framed level, anyone can fabricate that and convince you you're seeing level. The point of the water is that you can trust it. You don't have to trust the picture-taker.
Go ahead. Retry drawing that line, but ignore the orientation/framing of the picture.
Checking -
Yes you are correct, Alcohol will float on top of water. But to do so needs carefully pouring on top of the water, and to avoid stirring or mixing.
Vodka is not pure alchol, it is already diluted to about 40% with water, so is already in suspension. Mixing of any kind will keep the alcohol in suspension.
https://www.solubilityofthings.com/water/alcohols
Vodka is soluble with water, and will not “settle out” nice try tom, but clutching at straws i am afraid!
Thank you. I suppose we will have to trust you when you say that you took them out (the bushings).
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.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.
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?
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.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5wvD2ocgBQI/Wv4VvskCeuI/AAAAAAAAJmU/4ihlbkgH3xIaYrrIjp84M69dCX6QRmP3gCLcBGAs/s1600/Margin%2Bof%2BError.jpg)
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?
Yes you are correct, Alcohol will float on top of water. But to do so needs carefully pouring on top of the water, and to avoid stirring or mixing.
Vodka is not pure alchol, it is already diluted to about 40% with water, so is already in suspension. Mixing of any kind will keep the alcohol in suspension.
https://www.solubilityofthings.com/water/alcohols
Vodka is soluble with water, and will not “settle out” nice try tom, but clutching at straws i am afraid!
I'm not even sure the alcohol is doing what I wanted it to, which was improve the wetting angle for less ambiguous sighting of water levels. I was just trying different things: windex, water with a little dish soap, hydrogen pyroxide, isopropyl alcohol, water/antifreeze...whatever I could think of that I had at the house. Settled on the vodka (now, I'm not sure if it wasn't Bacardi's rum and not vodka. Yeah, it was rum now that I think about it. I emptied what was left of 2 bottles and mixed it with distilled water. I don't think I ever got around to trying the vodka once the rum seemed to work okay.)
Yes you are correct, Alcohol will float on top of water. But to do so needs carefully pouring on top of the water, and to avoid stirring or mixing.
Vodka is not pure alchol, it is already diluted to about 40% with water, so is already in suspension. Mixing of any kind will keep the alcohol in suspension.
https://www.solubilityofthings.com/water/alcohols
Vodka is soluble with water, and will not “settle out” nice try tom, but clutching at straws i am afraid!
I would take something like ethanol or isopropanol. Should not be too expansive.
Not going to try?The same sort of imprecision is seen:Try it again, but instead of drawing a straight line relative to the picture orientation (same mistake you made expecting my photos to be centered), see if you can draw a straight line through the levels, being consistent as to where you cross the meniscus.
(https://i.imgur.com/duJaQms.png)
You should be able to. I can. That's level. Not the way the picture is framed. That's the point of the water leveling.
If you think a picture is always framed level, anyone can fabricate that and convince you you're seeing level. The point of the water is that you can trust it. You don't have to trust the picture-taker.
Go ahead. Retry drawing that line, but ignore the orientation/framing of the picture.
I'm not even sure the alcohol is doing what I wanted it to, which was improve the wetting angle for less ambiguous sighting of water levels. I was just trying different things: windex, water with a little dish soap, hydrogen pyroxide, isopropyl alcohol, water/antifreeze...whatever I could think of that I had at the house. Settled on the vodka (now, I'm not sure if it wasn't Bacardi's rum and not vodka. Yeah, it was rum now that I think about it. I emptied what was left of 2 bottles and mixed it with distilled water. I don't think I ever got around to trying the vodka once the rum seemed to work okay.)
Yes you are correct, Alcohol will float on top of water. But to do so needs carefully pouring on top of the water, and to avoid stirring or mixing.
Vodka is not pure alchol, it is already diluted to about 40% with water, so is already in suspension. Mixing of any kind will keep the alcohol in suspension.
https://www.solubilityofthings.com/water/alcohols
Vodka is soluble with water, and will not “settle out” nice try tom, but clutching at straws i am afraid!
I would take something like ethanol or isopropanol. Should not be too expansive.
But I do want to try the Rain-x. I just don't have any, and I'm loathe to buy things for this project. I like spending time on this because it's fun and you never know what you might learn; but I'm not so concerned with the flat/globe debate that I need to spend any money on it.
I do appreciate your honesty in your detection of this. This experiment, and others like it, are not easy or straight forward things like everyone believes. Surveying is difficult. Random public YouTubers can't just go off and perform experiments like in those videos.Fine, and that's probably true. But when random YouTubers make a video which backs up something you believe you accept it unquestioningly.
I was going to post a few pictures of intentionally tilted and skewed pictures of the water leveler and have Tom show me level.
But in doing so, I discovered something odd.
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/24o8xlx.jpg)
Why is that left (usually forward-facing) water not level? Yes, it's small but it's noticeable. I'm gauging square by the door panels in the background. They should give me a parallel line to the level line of the water tubes. But even when I level the apparatus all out and correct for any skewing angle, that one on the left side seems a tad higher.
I checked for any trapped air in the PVC elbows.
I didn't have this last night when I "calibrated". Or maybe I did? Looking back with a more critical eye at those pictures comparing water level against a spirit level, maybe there IS a slight difference with the "forward" one showing a slightly higher level than the other?
(I did just check to make sure the door in the background was square and plumb. It is.)
I have been assuming that your camera is leveled exactly horizontally here. If the camera were fixed in a horizontal position the pixels need to match up in frame to ensure that the center of the lens was in line with the objects. You are right. I have been assuming that the camera was exactly horizontal. I was wrong to assume too much. If you are just tilting the camera willy nilly, there could be several issues with the leveling, enough that a pixel count is insufficient.
How am I supposed to know how much you are tilting your camera at and the altitude of the center of the lens?
Regardless, the illustration I have provided shows that this is a very sensitive experiment.
Do you have any rigid clear tubing that you could use? That way the cross section is equal, and the effect will be the same across both ends.I have lengths of small diameter, flex tubing, yes. I started out with that in v1 of this project. I went with the larger diameter tubing because it was easier to see.
If I'd seen that video earlier, I might never have bothered with this topic.I posted that video because I've been to Flaxton Gardens and seem Mt Coolum many times, but never personally thought to check this out.
If I'd seen that video earlier, I might never have bothered with this topic.I posted that video because I've been to Flaxton Gardens and seem Mt Coolum many times, but never personally thought to check this out.
It's a great video with solid analysis. Would be interested to hear what the rebuttal is, if any.If I'd seen that video earlier, I might never have bothered with this topic.I posted that video because I've been to Flaxton Gardens and seem Mt Coolum many times, but never personally thought to check this out.
Be sure to calibrate it right: bloody difficult, I found.You're right. I had calibrated it yesterday, but today the roll angle was way off. Pitch angle looked like what I'd expect (for a globetard), but if there's anything wonky, I don't want to submit it for inspection.
Best way seemed to be at sea level and set it to zero with the horizon there.
It may not give you perfectly accurate angles, but it will reflect perfectly that the angle you look down to the horizon at increases in tandem with your elevation.
Same location. Same time. Better camera.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HqTPYChOm3M/WwYL47yYVWI/AAAAAAAAJzY/Ct7bLwhsMGQQCDKCp49yZEDYF-UIgCWvwCLcBGAs/s1600/Coronado%2BHorizon%2B6a.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/gvvzSnX.jpg)The top line is estimated to be eye level. I'm going to work out what the potential margin for error is because I'm not absolutely sure what the height of the island is. I'm going off one a single topo chart, and comparing photographs. Wikipedia has got to be wrong since it claims the two islands are close to the same elevation, but obviously they are not, and the topographical chart disagrees as well. But if that larger island isn't 4x the elevation of the "pile of sugar," what is it at least? 2x? Could it be 200-300' and not 400'? Right now, my leveling tools are leaning me toward 400', but I don't want be biased.
The top line is eye level; the bottom line is where the horizon only appears to be because of haze and perspectives and optics; and the space in between is actually supposed to look like the sea, and it's just coincidence that it looks like the sky?
The best method would be to find an obstacle of a known height, set it a distance away, and then set the height of your camera to the height of the top of the obstacle. The camera, object, and horizon should make a straight line. The further the objects are located from each other, the better. The horizon should line up with to top of the object, and there would far fewer surveying errors since everything is set on the ground rather than being dependent on aligning angles in a device of unknown calibration or holding everything in your hands.
Bobby, you are now using an acceptable method to test with a pass/fail if the horizon is at eye level. This is great progress.Spoiler alert:
The larger island is Middle Coronado yes?
Nautical charts show the max height to be 76.5M.
The smaller one to the right shows to be 30.7M high.
I got the heights from a nautical chart of the area.
I am not sure if you can get an online edition of the chart, as they normally require a subscription.
The other place you may find it would be the US coast pilot. Again i am not sure if you can access it on line for free.
I can take a photo of the screen showing the chart, and height if you wish?
I got the heights from a nautical chart of the area.
I am not sure if you can get an online edition of the chart, as they normally require a subscription.
The other place you may find it would be the US coast pilot. Again i am not sure if you can access it on line for free.
I can take a photo of the screen showing the chart, and height if you wish?
Please? We'll call it Fair Use? You can just PM it to me.
That person can't prevent you from taking pictures. You may not want to deal with it, but that person needs to review the rights of photographers.It's federal property. I'm not aware of any rights that permit trumping government facility security rules. The fact that it's posted as federal property but access is not controlled and no signage informing that photography is forbidden might give me an argument if they threatened to take my camera or penalize me for having snapped some photos, but I don't think I have any argument to claim I can stay and continue to photograph once informed.
But if horizon rises to eye level, they will surely just say that the islands along that line can have their tops above eye level? (the and first top above the bottom of the second top)Not if they're tops are at the same height as eye level.
(https://i.imgur.com/5BCyvva.png)
How do you know that the line with the eye on actually is at eye level?
Oh I see. Didn't realise it was a water level.
Isn't this conclusive proof then?
Yup. No CGI, satellites etc required.Oh I see. Didn't realise it was a water level.
Isn't this conclusive proof then?
I'd like to make more observations at different elevations and validate that this is repeatable and the "dip" is outside any margin for error. But, for me, it's trending toward conclusive.
But the point of this is that its something anyone could do. You don't have to rely on reports (or photos) of others. See for yourself.
Oh I see. Didn't realise it was a water level.It is, but Tom will find some spurious objection while refusing to get out there and do any observations himself.
Isn't this conclusive proof then?
Would also love to hear how the supposed "Electromagnetic Accelerator" makes light bend upwards beneath the clouds... in a U shape?
For the record that WAS one of the suggestions during the thread on it: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6875.0Would also love to hear how the supposed "Electromagnetic Accelerator" makes light bend upwards beneath the clouds... in a U shape?
I dont want to give them ammunition, but i am sure they will say something daft like reflected off the ocean......
Also not my photo; but my annotations.Antsy for good viewing weather.
Photo is from Mount Soledad looking past Point Loma toward Mexico's Coronado Islands.
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/2a6ov21.jpg)
Define "eye-level".Am i missing something here? Is there another gazza711 as im new here?
And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
Bobby I don't think you're dealing with a mirage. Wouldn't you expect the same effect to occur on the lower part of the Island on the left? They are very close to the same height. I think your are seeing the top of the rock on right due to refraction not mirage.No doubt, refraction is making that island tip on the right visible, but an inversion layer is distorting it, as well as the portion of the island on the left that is coincident with the inversion layer:
FES links one of the best examples for mountains sticking out above the horizon in the Wiki:
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_view_from_Everest
No other point on Earth is higher than Mount Everest. So if horizon is at eye level, you should not see any other mountain stick out above the horizon ...
You may have to turn around the panorama view a bit, to find one rather close and others in the distance.
If you are on top of Everest then you have to be looking down on everything else, yes?FES links one of the best examples for mountains sticking out above the horizon in the Wiki:
https://wiki.tfes.org/A_view_from_Everest
No other point on Earth is higher than Mount Everest. So if horizon is at eye level, you should not see any other mountain stick out above the horizon ...
You may have to turn around the panorama view a bit, to find one rather close and others in the distance.
It's not quite clear what you mean here. The distance to the horizon depends entirely on the height of the observer above sea or ground level. Whether you can see a mountain or not depends on how close you are to it, and how tall it is. Not sure how Mount Everest comes into it.
Today is shaping up to be a good viewing day, so I'm going to make "official" observations for 100', 400' and 800' using both the cube and the water level.
I appreciate all of the commentary since the start of this topic. If there are any lingering concerns or suggestions, feed them to me now, if you please.
Define "eye-level".who's gazza711
And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
Not a cloud in a beautiful blue sky, but the horizon has been a blurred haze all day, despite aviation and maritime wx calling it 10+ miles visibility.I honestly think you've done more than enough already. I note that there has been no FE response to your more recent photos, since some are at sunset there is no way to sensibly claim that the "true horizon" is further away and thus higher.
Just not the right time of year here, so I'm going to table this "experiment" and report back after I get a good opportunity to record some non-ambiguous observations with my toys.
Define "eye-level".who's gazza711
And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
It is frustrating that the FE response so far has been "la, la, la, can't hear you" or just trying to find any tiny seed of doubt to claim your experiments are invalid with no attempt to do any experimenting themselves. But whatever, to pretty much everyone else you have done more than enough to disprove the assertion that the horizon always rises to eye level. Good job, as you Americans say. (English translation: "Well done, old bean" ;) )
[/qu
I think you're missing what the purpose of this experiment was. It wasn't primarily to show that the horizon does not, in fact, rise to eye level. We knew that before, and the claim that it does had no supporting evidence and didn't even make any consistent sense to begin with. We knew what the results of the experiments would be. What was really interesting was to see how the FE proponents would deal with the problem of having one of their beliefs disproved.
I know it seems frustrating to not get any kind of engagement with the argument - but we need to accept that this won't happen, and indeed, it can't. That's not what's going on here. Look at how the perspective thread was moved out of the debate forum because nobody was interested enough to debate it. (Another piece of excellent work which left me a lot better informed.)
I'll add my own congratulations to Bobby Shafto for an excellent piece of work - and he shouldn't feel frustrated at any failure to convince anyone. That's not possible, and thinking it is will just lead to frustration.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pt3UfRzvZ_E/WxB88tUXuGI/AAAAAAAAJ1Q/tsjpjCtbm486Fbqq8cTXaxkus2Q6vYMdwCLcBGAs/s1600/IMG_0147_sm.jpg)
...I stumbled across a live webcam at Pacific Beach (http://www.pacificterrace.com/webcam.aspx#gref).
I can use this to see how clear the horizon is before trekking out with my gear. Plus, it pans past a palm tree that has a little identifiable indent right that we can use as a crude index to see how much the horizon rises or falls with visibility, all from the comfort of a keyboard...
It doesn't really help with the "eye level" question, but it can help with confidence what the "true horizon" is.
...I stumbled across a live webcam at Pacific Beach (http://www.pacificterrace.com/webcam.aspx#gref).
I can use this to see how clear the horizon is before trekking out with my gear. Plus, it pans past a palm tree that has a little identifiable indent right that we can use as a crude index to see how much the horizon rises or falls with visibility, all from the comfort of a keyboard...
It doesn't really help with the "eye level" question, but it can help with confidence what the "true horizon" is.
A few days worth of horizon checks:
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/110x6w1.jpg)
I would say the horizon is pretty steady. It does not appear to move up or down, just sharpens somewhat.The counter-intuitive one is the brightest day didn't have a cloud in the sky, but that was the one day where the surface marine haze off the coast "lowered" the apparent horizon.
Good luck within the observations
Have you tried Mick West's refraction and mirage simulator?I had not. Thanks for that. Now I'm going to be distracted for the next 30 minutes playing with that. ;)
https://www.metabunk.org/simulating-atmospheric-refraction-and-mirages.t7881
But take a look at that last photo I posted from June 1st.
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/27xfqqb.jpg)
Is that ship at or beyond Flat Earth H distance? If so, then that must be the "true" horizon (which wasn't at eye-level). If not, then it's lower hull shouldn't be yet merging with a "convergence zone."
If you cannot produce significant evidence for this wild claim, other than fallacious appeals, then you will need to stop making it.
We do generally admit the limits of our knowledge. However, you guys consistently state "this is known" and "the data is consistent" and similar statements. If you are going to make such claims of something being known, then you are expected to demonstrate your claims.
If you cannot demonstrate your claims, that is an automatic lose.
From another topic (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9883.msg155074#msg155074):If you cannot produce significant evidence for this wild claim, other than fallacious appeals, then you will need to stop making it.We do generally admit the limits of our knowledge. However, you guys consistently state "this is known" and "the data is consistent" and similar statements. If you are going to make such claims of something being known, then you are expected to demonstrate your claims.
If you cannot demonstrate your claims, that is an automatic lose.
Agreed.
Rather than citing a drawing handbook, an anecdote where it "appears" or "seems" to be true, and a simulated perspective in video games, I challenge anyone to demonstrate the "horizon always at eye level (https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level)" claim.
I'm anticipating clear enough skies and horizons tomorrow to accomplish this test. And if I can time it with some shipping traffic at or near calculated horizon lines, that'll be a bonus.
That's alright. Thanks anyway.I'm anticipating clear enough skies and horizons tomorrow to accomplish this test. And if I can time it with some shipping traffic at or near calculated horizon lines, that'll be a bonus.
And this just isn't going to happen. I can't see marine traffic 20 miles off the coast due to the haze, even though the sky overhead is crystal blue. The Coronados are in the mist, and conditions are just not prime for performing this "experiment."
So, I'm going to table this for a few months and wait for more Fall-like weather. If I'm not over the subject by then, I'll check back in. But I don't think there's anything more to add to the subject until then.
Out.
I don't get this. His image says "we should not see the ground at an angle of -3.3 degrees if the Earth is a sphere" when that's (about) exactly what we should see. And if the Earth was flat, his theodolite should be reading just below 0 degrees.Form the video: "I placed the cross-hairs down to -3.3°, which is where the horizon should be." (on a globe earth).
If he's calibrated correctly, everything he's done points to the horizon being substantially below eye level and to a spherical Earth.That's the point: Calibration of the inclinometer.
I don't get this. His image says "we should not see the ground at an angle of -3.3 degrees if the Earth is a sphere" when that's (about) exactly what we should see. And if the Earth was flat, his theodolite should be reading just below 0 degrees.
Form the video: "I placed the cross-hairs down to -3.3°, which is where the horizon should be." (on a globe earth).
But the cross-hairs point lower than the horizon.
Ditching the wire cube. Made sense to me, but too hard to explain and too unwieldy to tote about and set up. (Also, it drew crowds and made me face a lot of questions I'd rather not have to answer.)Outstanding work, as always.
On a lark this past weekend, I cobbled this together from some surplus irrigation parts (12" long 1/2" threaded PVC pipe and two barbed elbows). Bought a 10' length (only need about a foot or two) of 1/2" ID vinyl tubing and, voila: a portable water level sighting tool. Found a way to clamp it onto a travel tripod, and with a little water and food coloring....
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/34nr19z.jpg)
(http://oi63.tinypic.com/35aroew.jpg)
Check of the horizon from 90' from here (https://goo.gl/maps/naQwE5VBMKy):
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/rli4cm.jpg)
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/2m4d4ip.jpg)
and from 360' from here (https://goo.gl/maps/rsAzMxhje542):
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/vnnviq.jpg)
I like it.
Outstanding work, as always.
I'm sure in the light of this the Horizon Always At Eye Level page will be amended and FE Theory will be moved on immeasurably.
I have never heard anyone who says they believe that the horizon is always at eye level post a photo with some actual measurements in it: usually they just figure 'cos it's in the middle of the frame, that means it's at eye level. Then they don't understand when you tell them it doesn't work like that.I think this is part of their over-reliance of the senses.
This is Flat Earth 101. If they don't understand the basics, how are they going to understand more complex things?
I have never heard anyone who says they believe that the horizon is always at eye level post a photo with some actual measurements in it: usually they just figure 'cos it's in the middle of the frame, that means it's at eye level. Then they don't understand when you tell them it doesn't work like that.Bobby’s experiment with the water level sighting tool is excellent as usual. But the problem as usual is the chain of inference required to address ‘Horizon is Always at Eye Level’. The inference is something like this:
This is Flat Earth 101. If they don't understand the basics, how are they going to understand more complex things?
Bobby’s experiment with the water level sighting tool is excellent as usual. But the problem as usual is the chain of inference required to address ‘Horizon is Always at Eye Level’. The inference is something like this:
1. We can draw an imaginary straight line between the two menisci in the two tubes. [Problem: is an imaginary line a real line, is Euclidean geometry true, what is a ‘meniscus’]
2. This line must be parallel to the surface of the (purportedly flat) earth. [Problem: this follows from the FE claim that water ‘finds its own level’ – whatever that means]
3. If we place our eye so that it is on the ‘line of sight’ connecting the two menisci, then anything on that line must be parallel to surface of [flat] earth [Problem: what exactly is a ‘line of sight’]
4. A straight line drawn in the surface of the earth parallel to the imaginary line will, by the laws of perspective, appear to converge with that imaginary line when it reaches the horizon [Problem: what exactly are ‘laws of perspective’? Are there FE laws different from RE laws.]
For each step there is the problem of explaining the terms, and there are four steps in the chain. My estimate that any FE discussion requiring more then two steps will fail. The other side will stop responding at some point, without any conclusion reached.
I agree that the horizon isn't always at eye level, and drops as elevation increases. I have actually been planning to update the Wiki with some of Bobby's content. I have been thinking of making a page dedicated to the water level experiment as well.
I like to see the results of bobby's experiments and posts. I wouldn't mind putting every one of them somewhere in some kind of repository. I have sent a PM to some of the others about what we can do.
I agree that the horizon isn't always at eye level, and drops as elevation increases.
I agree that the horizon isn't always at eye level, and drops as elevation increases. I have actually been planning to update the Wiki with some of Bobby's content. I have been thinking of making a page dedicated to the water level experiment as well.*starts crying*
I like to see the results of bobby's experiments and posts. I wouldn't mind putting every one of them somewhere in some kind of repository. I have sent a PM to some of the others about what we can do.
I agree that the horizon isn't always at eye level, and drops as elevation increases. I have actually been planning to update the Wiki with some of Bobby's content. I have been thinking of making a page dedicated to the water level experiment as well.When is it at eye level?
I like to see the results of bobby's experiments and posts. I wouldn't mind putting every one of them somewhere in some kind of repository. I have sent a PM to some of the others about what we can do.
I agree that the horizon isn't always at eye level, and drops as elevation increases. I have actually been planning to update the Wiki with some of Bobby's content. I have been thinking of making a page dedicated to the water level experiment as well.When is it at eye level?
I like to see the results of bobby's experiments and posts. I wouldn't mind putting every one of them somewhere in some kind of repository. I have sent a PM to some of the others about what we can do.
I agree that the horizon isn't always at eye level, and drops as elevation increases.Wow. That is only the 3rd time I've ever seen you cede any ground in any discussion and the first time it's something which actually contradicts Rowbotham's FE model.
I agree that the horizon isn't always at eye level, and drops as elevation increases. I have actually been planning to update the Wiki with some of Bobby's content.
I agree that the horizon isn't always at eye level, and drops as elevation increases. I have actually been planning to update the Wiki with some of Bobby's content.
There are a lot of people on here who would strongly disagree with you Tom. Before updating the wiki why don't we first determine if the horizon really drops or if we just perceive the drop of the horizon due to some sort of environment/atmospheric/optical phenomenon
I agree that the horizon isn't always at eye level, and drops as elevation increases. I have actually been planning to update the Wiki with some of Bobby's content.
There are a lot of people on here who would strongly disagree with you Tom. Before updating the wiki why don't we first determine if the horizon really drops or if we just perceive the drop of the horizon due to some sort of environment/atmospheric/optical phenomenon
I believe that was the point of all of this. The horizon isn't "always at eye level" as asserted in the Wiki, and a change is needed. The Wiki forgot about the concept of fog and atmosphere.
Bobby posted some images of the horizon level changing based on changing atmospheric conditions. I think that this is a fair change, and I do think that most FE'ers use the atmosphere argument when this subject comes up. You were misinterpreting the meaning of my post.
Ah, I knew there had to be a qualifier.I agree that the horizon isn't always at eye level, and drops as elevation increases. I have actually been planning to update the Wiki with some of Bobby's content.
There are a lot of people on here who would strongly disagree with you Tom. Before updating the wiki why don't we first determine if the horizon really drops or if we just perceive the drop of the horizon due to some sort of environment/atmospheric/optical phenomenon
I believe that was the point of all of this. The horizon isn't "always at eye level" as asserted in the Wiki, and a change is needed. The Wiki forgot about the concept of fog and atmosphere.
Bobby posted some images of the horizon level changing based on changing atmospheric conditions. I think that this is a fair change, and I do think that most FE'ers use the atmosphere argument when this subject comes up. You were misinterpreting the meaning of my post. It agrees with you.
Yes, locating the horizon is affected by atmospheric conditions. Fog and haze can obscure the horizon, and if it's in the distance, it can present appearance of a false horizon.
No. The horizon does not rise with eye level. It would IF the earth was flat, but since it does not, the earth can't be flat. Failure of the horizon to match eye level doesn't mean the earth is a globe, but it can't be flat. It also means EnaG's explanation of perspective is in error. That's just a zetetic conclusion.
I suggest taking pictures at the same time of the same object on the same day at the exact same second (maybe have a buddy on the phone and say 3-2-1-snap) to take a picture. This will eliminate ANY claims about environmental/atmospheric conditions because both images would have been taken under virtually the EXACT same atmospheric and optical conditions.I was about to suggest the same thing.
Annotated:
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/24whidj.jpg)
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/xfck06.jpg)
However, it all depends on what you believe in.No, it doesn't.
Math was never designed to be applied to real-life situations. What is the point of linear approximation? What is the point of life? Nobody can come to a conclusion and thus prove that the Earth is flat. However, it all depends on what you believe in. Yes, the horizon is always eye-level, so yes, I believe the earth is flat. It doesn't matter in any other perspective, only my sole perspective is what counts for me. Ignorance is bliss and I can proud to be an American.What do you mean by 'eye level'?
Yowza! That's pretty much what I was thinking about doing.Define "eye-level".
And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
Wasn't there an experiment performed a short while ago that soundly disproved this, using a u-tube filled with coloured water?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI
But I thought I'd invite the community here to talk it through first: what am I measuring. How should I be sure to do it (and document it). And make predictions about the results or analysis of predicted results. Do all that before putting in the effort.
The wiki is making the claim and using that as the basis for a flat earth argument about horizons. I thought it might be worthwhile to test the claim.
This experiment only proves a second horizontal line is gaining height above another making it appear the lower is dropping as elevation is increased. The lower will always appear even lower as the other gains height.So in your view the hypothesis that the earth is flat is consistent with the horizon not rising to eye level?
No, the horizon does not lower on a plane as elevation is increased. It's geometrically impossible on a plane.No. Well, on an infinite plane maybe.
This experiment only proves a second horizontal line is gaining height above another making it appear the lower is dropping as elevation is increased. The lower will always appear even lower as the other gains height.So in your view the hypothesis that the earth is flat is consistent with the horizon not rising to eye level?
No, the horizon does not lower on a plane as elevation is increased. It's geometrically impossible on a plane.No. Well, on an infinite plane maybe.
On a finite plane you can either see the edge of the plane of you can see...as far as you can see.
Either way, you'd still be looking down at the horizon
(https://image.ibb.co/fxUSB7/horizon.jpg)
There is no "Maybe"
Yes, we are looking down at the horizon, but it's so minute it really can't be measured nor does it matter.
If it's an finite plane, then Earth is a horizontal rod or other type of shape, but it damn sure isn't a continuous curve that forms a sphere. Globies lose anyway. We don't lose because we live within the boundary of a plane and within the boundary of where the Sun shines. Anything beyond it is not really a part of our world, therefore does not really matter.
Yes, we are looking down at the horizon, but it's so minute it really can't be measured nor does it matter.It can be measured, it has been measured and the amount the horizon dips varies by altitude.
It can be measured, it has been measured and the amount the horizon dips varies by altitude.My point, and the premise of this thread, was whether or not the horizon "dips" with increased viewing elevation is a feature that would distinguish a flat earth from a convex one.
That has all been shown very clearly...I think earlier in this thread.
If you dispute those results then feel free to do your own experiment and post the results for review.
The only way to explain it on a flat surface is if the Actual Horizon on my diagram stay at the same distance regardless of height.But what would produce such a horizon?
Does anyone disagree with any of the following?Where's the data? Where are the calculations and what model ar they based on?
1. The horizon appears increasingly below eye level the higher we rise in elevation
2. This angle can be measured fairly easily with a variety of instruments
2. The amount the angle increases is consistent with being on a ball of around 7,900 miles in diameter
3. A horizon occurs as a result of curvatureIf the earth were an infinite plane the horizon would easily be explained because of the logical fact that if an observer were standing parallel to an infinite flat surface he would be able to see no higher than eye level. Ignoring refraction, if he could see higher than eye level while looking straight ahead that would imply that the ground was tilted upwards. If looking straight ahead the ground appeared lower than eye level that would imply the ground was sloped down but according to the premises the earth and the observers eyes are parallel so by deduction, the observer would, looking straight ahead, only be able to see a horizon line at eye level, that horizon line being at some finite distance that is a function of the observer's height.
4. There is no mechanism to cause a horizon on a flat plane
5. Even if there was, the actual measured dip of the horizon (or anything) isn't in line with what it should be on a flat planeThe horizon dip at higher altitudes is explained by flat earthers as being caused by refraction caused by the continual increase in intervening atmosphere between the observer and the horizon. As far as I know nobody has actually calculated the predicted horizon drop caused by refraction vs. the horizon drop caused by curvature.
6. The measurable dip to the horizon (or another distant object) is an excellent proof of a spherical earthIt could be if the math fits the spherical model better than the flat model. I used to lean RE but the fact that so many internet RErs use complete red-herring arguments to defend the globe is undeniable like the claim that a horizon is impossible on a flat earth.
Does anyone disagree with any of the following?
1. The horizon appears increasingly below eye level the higher we rise in elevation
2. This angle can be measured fairly easily with a variety of instruments
2. The amount the angle increases is consistent with being on a ball of around 7,900 miles in diameter
3. A horizon occurs as a result of curvature
4. There is no mechanism to cause a horizon on a flat plane
5. Even if there was, the actual measured dip of the horizon (or anything) isn't in line with what it should be on a flat plane
6. The measurable dip to the horizon (or another distant object) is an excellent proof of a spherical earth
To reiterate from my last post, the standard FE claim is that the higher you go the greater the distance the light must travel from the horizon line to your eye meaning the light has to travel through a greater volume of refraction-causing atmosphere to reach your eye the higher up you go. It is this supposed effect that FEs claim causes the horizon drop. It makes a certain amount of sense to me but I don't know if it actually fits the empirical data.
#6, by the way, is the key premise of this topic, started way back when. If there isn't agreement between flat and globe earth proponents on that, then much posted on this topic has been pointless. But if there is a mechanism that could explain the apparent dip in the horizon with increased elevation on a flat earth, I'd love to invite it.
To reiterate from my last post, the standard FE claim is that the higher you go the greater the distance the light must travel from the horizon line to your eye meaning the light has to travel through a greater volume of refraction-causing atmosphere to reach your eye the higher up you go. It is this supposed effect that FEs claim causes the horizon drop. It makes a certain amount of sense to me but I don't know if it actually fits the empirical data.
#6, by the way, is the key premise of this topic, started way back when. If there isn't agreement between flat and globe earth proponents on that, then much posted on this topic has been pointless. But if there is a mechanism that could explain the apparent dip in the horizon with increased elevation on a flat earth, I'd love to invite it.
Thanks for the optics lesson. :)To reiterate from my last post, the standard FE claim is that the higher you go the greater the distance the light must travel from the horizon line to your eye meaning the light has to travel through a greater volume of refraction-causing atmosphere to reach your eye the higher up you go. It is this supposed effect that FEs claim causes the horizon drop. It makes a certain amount of sense to me but I don't know if it actually fits the empirical data.
#6, by the way, is the key premise of this topic, started way back when. If there isn't agreement between flat and globe earth proponents on that, then much posted on this topic has been pointless. But if there is a mechanism that could explain the apparent dip in the horizon with increased elevation on a flat earth, I'd love to invite it.
A couple things about this.
On a flat earth, you'd have an atmolayer, not an atmosphere. That's not just semantics. In an atmolayer, air density doesn't curve away from the line of sight as it would with an atmosphere. Having to penetrate more atmo- (air) isn't what causes refractive "bending" of light. Extinction due to scattering and absorption yes, but not refraction. Not unless there are reasons for why the density gradient of the air is different at different distances through which that line of sight passes. But as a characteristic of an atmolayer, it's not "refraction-causing" in the way that an atmosphere would be. Standard atmoSPHERE will cause light to bend toward the curve of the underlying sphere. Standard atmoLAYER would not have that feature.
Secondly, claiming horizon dip on a flat earth is due to refraction of an atmolayer due to an angle of viewing from an elevation of rarer air to a lower elevation of denser air relies on a bending of light that is the opposite of how refraction works. If light from a dipped horizon is being refracted as it encounters the less dense air of the viewer, it will be refracted toward the denser medium, back to toward the surface of the earth. This has the visual effect of raising the apparent elevation of the sighted object not lowering it. In this case, the object is the horizon. For the horizon to appear to decline in angle, the light would have to bend UPWARD, away from the surface of the earth. Horizon dip could be explained by EAT (https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator) because it's claimed mechanism has light bending upward, away from earth's surface. Refraction by the air could do that too, but it is far from typical. You need a density inversion of the atmolayer for refraction to cause upward-bending light and make the horizon appear to "dip."
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
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.
I did a short summary of what I found during course of this discussion. Very short.
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.