The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Bobby Shafto on December 31, 2018, 07:16:39 PM
-
A flat earth YouTuber made this challenge.
Set a narrow pipe up level on a hill or mountain that has views to an ocean horizon 180° apart. Sight the horizon centered through the tube from one end, then go around to the other end and see if the horizon is centered in that view.
I don't have a vantage point that fits the bill, exactly. I can gain a vantage point on Cabrillo Point that is ~400' elevation with no land fall along a southerly line of sight all the way to Antarctica. But 180° away from that direction, I only get 50-some miles before the line of sight crosses inland at San Onofre and then the Santa Ana mountain range beyond at around 70 miles.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Wf8D7HVTzsA/XCpgnOwoeuI/AAAAAAAAAOs/EJEP4WWhDq0w0i49cVRZ8ytYSveDr45OACLcBGAs/s1600/180%2BPipe%2BProject.jpg)
Here's the question: on a globe, from 400' the visual horizon should be around 25-30 miles, well before landfall at San Onofre. That doesn't mean one can't see land rising up beyond that on a globe horizon if it is high enough. I know from experience that I can see the Santa Ana range, including ~5700 Santiago Peak, from that spot if the air is clear. Clear enough, and with recent snows, I'm sure I could even see 10,000+ ft Mt San Antonio in the San Gabriel mountains, over 100 miles away.
But if I try to perform this pipe experiment, will that backdrop of mountains confuse the issue?
What if I were to do it this way? Mount the pipe on a 48" carpenter's level, set upon a tripod, get it level and then make the first sighting to the south.
On a globe, I'd expect the horizon to be below center. On a flat earth, the horizon should be centered.
Say the horizon is below center. That may not mean "globe." It may just mean I didn't get the level right. So, then adjust the level until the southerly horizon IS centered.
Then, go around and sight to the north. Centered in the pipe should be eye level line of sight for a flat earth.
Is there anything wrong with that reasoning?
-
Is there anything wrong with that reasoning?
Yes. You have already taken pictures showing that the atmosphere affects the height of the horizon at different times.
-
Is there anything wrong with that reasoning?
Yes. You have already taken pictures showing that the atmosphere affects the height of the horizon at different times.
It affects discernment of the horizon at times. Not the height of the horizon. I'd be sure to do this when discernment is not an issue.
Okay then?
(This wasn't my idea. It's what a flat earth proponent challenged "globies" to do.)
-
Is there anything wrong with that reasoning?
The reasoning is sound. If the horizon rises to eye level, which you have already clearly shown it doesn’t, then if you can see the horizon through the pipe in one direction then you should be able to see the horizon through the pipe in the other direction. The two horizons and the pipe should form a straight line, this is the FE claim.
But Tom does another piece of “heads I win, tails you lose” reasoning which I see he has already preempted.
If your experiment showed that the horizons were at eye level then he would claim that this demonstrates the claim. Obviously that isn’t what you’ll find so he then just claims that you are not observing the true horizon.
Note that even on a flat earth the horizon can’t be at eye level. If your pipe is at altitude and the horizon in either direction is a point on the flat earth then those 3 points cannot be in a straight line. The pipe is above the 2 horizon points so it’s a triangle. That is true regardless of the shape of the earth.
EDIT: I always find this a strange FE claim because even if the earth were flat the horizon wouldn’t be at eye level at altitude and the fact it isn’t is so easily demonstrated.
-
But Tom does another piece of “heads I win, tails you lose” reasoning which I see he has already preempted.
I don't believe that we ever issued any challenge to demonstrate any particular tenet of the atmosphere or the horizon. These challenges are entirely things you guys are making up in your head.
This horizon kick you guys are on is particularly bad. Even the couple of sentences in ENAG about it says that the horizon is near eye level in a balloon and practically at eye level from a three story building at sea level.
The horizon being "at eye level" tenet is mainly used as a tool to show that the horizon ascends as it recedes. If you thought it was a challenge in any manner you were mistaken. Virtually no one disagrees, or likely would have ever disagreed, that the horizon can be modified.
-
But Tom does another piece of “heads I win, tails you lose” reasoning which I see he has already preempted.
I don't believe that we ever issued any challenge to demonstrate any particular tenet of the atmosphere or the horizon. These challenges are entirely things you guys are making up in your head.
This horizon kick you guys are on is particularly bad. Even the couple of sentences in ENAG about it says that the horizon is near eye level in a balloon and practically at eye level from a three story building at sea level.
The horizon being "at eye level" tenet is mainly used as a tool to show that the horizon ascends as it recedes. If you thought it was a challenge in any manner you were mistaken. Virtually no one disagrees, or likely would have ever disagreed, that the horizon can be modified.
But Tom does another piece of “heads I win, tails you lose” reasoning which I see he has already preempted.
I don't believe that we ever issued any challenge to demonstrate any particular tenet of the atmosphere or the horizon. These challenges are entirely things you guys are making up in your head.
This horizon kick you guys are on is particularly bad. Even the couple of sentences in ENAG about it says that the horizon is near eye level in a balloon and practically at eye level from a three story building at sea level.
The horizon being "at eye level" tenet is mainly used as a tool to show that the horizon ascends as it recedes. If you thought it was a challenge in any manner you were mistaken. Virtually no one disagrees, or likely would have ever disagreed, that the horizon can be modified.
Seems pretty clear from the wiki (my bolding):
"A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer."
That's not "near" or "practically". That's "always".
-
(This wasn't my idea. It's what a flat earth proponent challenged "globies" to do.)
Why are you avoiding naming the proponent, or providing his/her own explanation of the challenge? Trust issues aside, it would be best not to rely on just one party's interpretation, don't you think?
-
Why are you avoiding...?
::)
Antonio Subirats.
So 2 TFES flat earthers heard from, neither of whom seem to support the premise of this challenge experiment.
-
Why is it so difficult to get a link out of you? Instead of saying "this is totally what this guy is saying, honest," just show us.
-
He has hours of archived YouTube hangouts. I didn't think it would be necessary to locate the actual segments where he's issued that challenge. But for you, Pete, I'll find it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7GRU84ALhM&t=5645 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7GRU84ALhM&t=5645)
-
(http://oi68.tinypic.com/309u9uu.jpg)
Is this a "Tom said a thing" thing? Or is Tom speaking for "we?"
This is a rather astounding response, considering I started that horizon topic in April (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9492.0) and through all of that, never did you discount the "always at eye level" tenet. Not too long ago, you did seem to relent and concede that it wasn't "always" but that turned out to be a discernment issue, as in sometimes conditions will cause the horizon to appear to drop. I agree with that. But you weren't conceding that, if conditions were good enough, the horizon would appear at eye level.
Now, apparently, you are conceding? And I suppose it's what you meant along? The horizon always rises nearly to eye level?
I'm glad I asked, because I was working under the understanding all these months that it was a flat earth principle (except for advocates of a flat earth model that incorporates EAT or something akin to it where light curves away from the surface of the flat earth) that the horizon was always at eye level regardless of observer elevation. If that's not true, then this proposed test is pointless.
-
Rhetorical questions: who authored this and does it represent a Flat Earth Society claim or just that of the author?
"A fact of basic perspective is that the line of the horizon is always at eye level with the observer. (https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level)"
I will get off the horizon kick (at least on this forum) if that "fact of basic perspective" is being retracted.
(http://oi64.tinypic.com/2pshws5.jpg)
-
In FET the true horizon is always at eye level, and moves with you. Whether you can see that is another story. The error we made was in the wiki, by leaving out that you may not be able to see it.
I still do think that many of those experiments which involve aligning a device close to you with a very distant horizon are easily flawed, however. I do also believe that at sea level the horizon is probably very close to eye level.
Per your picture above, with the straight lines, that is addressed in ENAG:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm
The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point. Whereas it is demonstrable that lines most distant from an eye-line must of necessity converge less rapidly, and must be carried further over the eye-line before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the vanishing point.
...
The theory which affirms that all parallel lines converge to one and the same point on the eye-line, is an error. It is true only of lines equi-distant from the eye-line; lines more or less apart meet the eye-line at different distances, and the point at which they meet is that only where each forms the angle of one minute of a degree, or such other angular measure as may be decided upon as the vanishing point. This is the true law of perspective as shown by nature herself; any idea to the contrary is fallacious, and will deceive whoever may hold and apply it to practice.
-
In FET the true horizon is always at eye level, and moves with you. Whether you can see that is another story.
If you can't see it, then how do you know it's always at eye level and moves with you?
I'm a zetetic. I want to test that claim about the true horizon. How can I do that?
It's a super clear day today with winds having blown out all the haze and marine layer moisture. Is what I see today not the true horizon?
-
In FET the true horizon is always at eye level, and moves with you. Whether you can see that is another story. The error we made was in the wiki, by leaving out that you may not be able to see it.
Honestly. This makes my head spin. In your FAQ you say that your evidence for a FE is:
derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the Sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empirical approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses
My emphasis, but you do often highlight the importance of empiricism. Now you are claiming that the “true” horizon is always at eye level. Your evidence for that is observations and testimony from people who say that the horizon remained “practically” at eye level at altitude.
But then when you are shown observations which demonstrate the horizon dips below eye level you claim that we are not seeing the “true” horizon?
If you’re going to claim to care about empirical evidence you can’t only cite it when it backs up your claim and ignore it when it doesn’t.
-
In FET the true horizon is always at eye level, and moves with you. Whether you can see that is another story.
If you can't see it, then how do you know it's always at eye level and moves with you?
I'm a zetetic. I want to test that claim about the true horizon. How can I do that?
It's a super clear day today with winds having blown out all the haze and marine layer moisture. Is what I see today not the true horizon?
You should first start by demonstrating the premise of your methods. You should show that all lines would converge at the eye level, not just assume so.
JTolan has shown that some of these methods and assumptions don't make sense on either a globe earth or a Flat Earth. See the folllowing video at 16:02: https://youtu.be/-7M107rgdmM (https://youtu.be/-7M107rgdmM)
In FET the true horizon is always at eye level, and moves with you. Whether you can see that is another story. The error we made was in the wiki, by leaving out that you may not be able to see it.
Honestly. This makes my head spin. In your FAQ you say that your evidence for a FE is:
derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the Sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empirical approach, or an approach that relies on information from your senses
My emphasis, but you do often highlight the importance of empiricism. Now you are claiming that the “true” horizon is always at eye level. Your evidence for that is observations and testimony from people who say that the horizon remained “practically” at eye level at altitude.
But then when you are shown observations which demonstrate the horizon dips below eye level you claim that we are not seeing the “true” horizon?
If you’re going to claim to care about empirical evidence you can’t only cite it when it backs up your claim and ignore it when it doesn’t.
You have to start from first principles. Use your senses to understand the true nature of perspective, like Rowbotham did. Not just wildly assume things and post debunk videos. Assumptions of perspective must be shown by nature.
If you study perspective closely, you can understand what is happening. I would recommend reading Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, as a start, to know what you will need to look into.
-
Per Earth Not a Globe, the best way to do this experiment is to align the pipe with two known bodies in the distance, such as in Experiment 9: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm
Then no one can tell you that the horizon was a little foggy in the distance. Rowbotham did think of all of these considerations when designing his experiments.
-
Per Earth Not a Globe, the best way to do this experiment is to align the pipe with two known bodies in the distance, such as in Experiment 9: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm
Then no one can tell you that the horizon was a little foggy in the distance. Rowbotham did think of all of these considerations when designing his experiments.
This would be a good experiment. Rowbotham's assumptions agree with the curve calculator https://www.metabunk.org/curve, such as the horizon being 6 miles away. The question is whether his main claim is correct.
The distance across St. George's Channel, between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbour, near Dublin, is at least 60 statute miles. It is not an uncommon thing for passengers to notice, when in, and for a considerable distance beyond the centre of the Channel, the Light on Holyhead Pier, and the Poolbeg Light in Dublin Bay, as shown in fig. 23.
[EDIT] See my OP here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=11728.0).
-
You have to start from first principles. Use your senses to understand the true nature of perspective, like Rowbotham did. Not just wildly assume things and post debunk videos. Assumptions of perspective must be shown by nature.
That’s a complete fudge of a response.
I honestly don’t know how else one could investigate the matter of where the horizon is other than making observations. When I look out to sea the sharp line (on a clear day) where the sea ends and the sky starts is the horizon. That is not a wild assumption, it’s a definition:
“The line at which the earth's surface and the sky appear to meet”
If that line is shown to be below eye level at altitude, and the amount it is below eye level increases with altitude - and Bobby has shown this result very clearly - then it’s utterly nonsensical to claim that the line is not the “true horizon”. That line IS the horizon, by definition.
-
In FET the true horizon is always at eye level, and moves with you. Whether you can see that is another story.
If you can't see it, then how do you know it's always at eye level and moves with you?
I'm a zetetic. I want to test that claim about the true horizon. How can I do that?
It's a super clear day today with winds having blown out all the haze and marine layer moisture. Is what I see today not the true horizon?
You should first start by demonstrating the premise of your methods...
Why is the onus on me? You made a big deal in another topic about positive claims. Just earlier, you made a positive claim. So, how do YOU substantiate that claim?
The premise of my methods, as you put it, is your claim: the horizon is always at eye level. So, how do you know? What's YOUR method to check whether that's true or not?
-
Every time I've looked at the horizon I was seeing half land and half sky, with an apparent line cutting through my vision. Take a mirror and turn around, with the horizon facing your back and, when studying the mirror, the horizon follows the level of your eye: See Experiment 10 of Earth Not a Globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za15.htm).
The default is, therefore that the horizon is at eye level. If someone has a crazy theory about the earth being a ball and the horizon being imperceptibly below the eye level, in contradiction to observation, it seems that the onus is on that person to demonstrate their claim.
None of this is to say that the horizon is always at eye level at every altitude and atmospheric condition, or that one could expect to see the same from a plane where the horizon is very foggy, just that it has been tested at sea level to be so, just as Rowbotham tested it from the third story building in Experiment 15 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za20.htm).
I understand that the common response to this is "that's too low," or whatever, but yet, it remains a test of the horizon. If one is to argue something about the imperceptible drop, that is a claim against reality, and thus one should be burdened to show it rather than argue that it is the burden of others to prove that there is no imperceptible drop.
Asking others to prove that there is no imperceptible drop is akin to, in a discussion about ghosts, asking someone to prove that there are no ghosts that they cannot see. Surely we can see the fallacy with that.
Rowbotham tests the matter further by testing the altitude of distant bodies on opposite horizons, and they are lined up, providing additional evidence that the horizon is at eye level. This is a better test than a direct test of the horizon, since one can always argue that there is fog in the distance that just seems sharp because of its distance.
-
Every time I've looked at the horizon I was seeing half land and half sky, with an apparent line cutting through my vision...
You can see the horizon?
What your method for determining "half land and half sky?"
Why is it you can see a horizon but the horizon I'm trying to sight is uncertain?
Why is it you can provide naught but anecdotal "evidence" but I provide visual evidence to the contrary and you demand greater accuracy or better methodology?
The "default" is not that the horizon is always at eye level. As is often said around here by FET advocates, "you need to substantiate."
I'm not averse to doing the work to substantiate the claim. But if you're going to question the methodology, then say what is the method for substantiating YOUR claim and I'll do it. Antonio Subirats said his horizon tube idea would prove the tenet. But you've said both that it's not a tenet AND that it's true "by default" since you saw it with your own eyes. Is that really your "methodology?" Just looking and judging by your sense of it and declaring it so?
-
Its true by default because I looked out my window and saw it. Rowbotham provides further tests of the matter. If you happen to see an imperceptible drop by default, you should let us know.
-
Its true by default because I looked out my window and saw it. Rowbotham provides further tests of the matter. If you happen to see an imperceptible drop by default, you should let us know.
Not sure if serious.
-
Its true by default because I looked out my window and saw it. Rowbotham provides further tests of the matter. If you happen to see an imperceptible drop by default, you should let us know.
Not sure if serious.
If two people are looking out of a window and see a blue sky, the sky is blue by default.
If one person is saying that the sky is really green because of the material of the window, or because of the carbon in the air, he can go ahead and demonstrate that. The person who sees and accepts the blue sky has nothing to demonstrate, for the evidence is right in front of him.
-
The default is, therefore that the horizon is at eye level. If someone has a crazy theory about the earth being a ball and the horizon being imperceptibly below the eye level, in contradiction to observation, it seems that the onus is on that person to demonstrate their claim.
You know what? I’m actually going to agree with you on this one. You look out to sea on the beach or near the coast and I’d agree that the horizon does look pretty much straight in front of you.
I’d argue that vague “this is what it looks like” is not a great way of progressing knowledge, our senses are extremely limited, but basically you are correct.
So if the globe earth predicts horizon drop at altitude then that should be demonstrated to build confidence in the theory and model.
But where you are trolling, or suffering from a serious mix of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, is that this claim HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED. In other threads you have been shown multiple ways of demonstrating horizon dip, Bobby has spent a commendable amount of time doing his own experiments and shown the result clearly. If you dispute his findings then you are welcome to do your own experiments. For a self proclaimed empiricist you are curiously reluctant to perform your own observations.
You are right to ask globe earth to demonstrate its claims, but on this one it has. It’s notable the level of scrutiny and spurious problems you find with experiments which don’t show the result your beliefs claim while taking at face value vague accounts of experiments which seem to reinforce your beliefs.
-
If two people are looking out of a window and see a blue sky, the sky is blue by default.
If one person is saying that the sky is really green because of the material of the window, or because of the carbon in the air, he can go ahead and demonstrate that. The person who sees and accepts the blue sky has nothing to demonstrate, for the evidence is right in front of him.
Hundreds of people saw this today. Compare with a couple of days ago when the horizon was less definitive.
(http://oi66.tinypic.com/2m4zo0k.jpg)
These were taken from an elevation of 770': a hazy day a few days ago and a very clear one just today.
Is the horizon at eye level?
Is the summit of South Coronado Island at eye level?
What do you need to determine where "eye level" either in this image or if you were standing on this spot and looking out at the vista? If you and the ghost of St. Rowbotham were both there and agreed that that horizon is "eye level," then how in the world are lower elevations seen to be above that horizon?
The horizon is NOT eye level by default. You must substantiate it.
-
The default is, therefore that the horizon is at eye level. If someone has a crazy theory about the earth being a ball and the horizon being imperceptibly below the eye level, in contradiction to observation, it seems that the onus is on that person to demonstrate their claim.
You know what? I’m actually going to agree with you on this one. You look out to sea on the beach or near the coast and I’d agree that the horizon does look pretty much straight in front of you.
The claim isn't that the horizon looks like it is eye level when you're on the beach. It's that no matter the elevation, the horizon always stays at eye level. Just "looking out your window" doesn't make it true by default, no matter how many people look out that window and agree. Appeal to the majority is not a basis for establishing the truth of a claim.
-
The default is, therefore that the horizon is at eye level. If someone has a crazy theory about the earth being a ball and the horizon being imperceptibly below the eye level, in contradiction to observation, it seems that the onus is on that person to demonstrate their claim.
You know what? I’m actually going to agree with you on this one. You look out to sea on the beach or near the coast and I’d agree that the horizon does look pretty much straight in front of you.
The claim isn't that the horizon looks like it is eye level when you're on the beach. It's that no matter the elevation, the horizon always stays at eye level. Just "looking out your window" doesn't make it true by default, no matter how many people look out that window and agree. Appeal to the majority is not a basis for establishing the truth of a claim.
Fair point. I guess the FE side would claim that even up a hill it looks like the horizon is about eye level. And I guess it does, the angle of dip is quite small until you get to heights which you don't normally experience day to day. I don't think it really matters which "side" has the burden of proof", I think the point here is the way of resolving this debate it to do some tests. But you have, and you've shown the result clearly. The rational response it to either concede the point or, if they dispute your findings, do their own tests. It's telling that they have refused to do either. Some good video here which shows the result
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXdDXou4XXM
(I couldn't find the original video he's analysing)
-
I don't think it really matters which "side" has the burden of proof".
It shouldn't be, but it's tedious to have a "side" making an affirmative claim do nothing to demonstrate it, acting like it's true by "default" and shifting the burden to the counter demonstration to disprove it (and rejecting or resisting such counter demonstrations based on standards he/they never adhered to in establishing the claim.)
-
I gave Antonio's "horizon pipe" a try, albeit due to geographic constraints, I had to substitute a horizon in one direction with an equal-height land target sighting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev_3gfQ80CY
I could try again with a longer pipe and spirit level and better camera/video, but if that northeastern sighting target is not convincing enough, I'll have to find an alignment with a summit or peak of some kind.
But I'm not going to pursue this any further unless someone else does some work and shows me something to the contrary. We'll see if the YouTuber who issued this challenge to "globies" responds with his own demonstration of how the pipe does center on a horizon in both directions without adjustment. I've got too many other "experiments" that I want to finish up. My wife is already starting to get annoyed by this...what is this? A hobby?
-
I gave Antonio's "horizon pipe" a try, albeit due to geographic constraints, I had to substitute a horizon in one direction with an equal-height land target sighting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev_3gfQ80CY
I could try again with a longer pipe and spirit level and better camera/video, but if that northeastern sighting target is not convincing enough, I'll have to find an alignment with a summit or peak of some kind.
But I'm not going to pursue this any further unless someone else does some work and shows me something to the contrary. We'll see if the YouTuber who issued this challenge to "globies" responds with his own demonstration of how the pipe does center on a horizon in both directions without adjustment. I've got too many other "experiments" that I want to finish up. My wife is already starting to get annoyed by this...what is this? A hobby?
The problem with your method is that NASA is fake.