Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?
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, 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.
He uses sextant observations from 3rd hand accounts in other chapters, as well as theodolites and telescopes and other even cruder instruments such as plumb bobs with a set square attached and steel tubes so called mounted vertically. All very “Herath Robinson” esq you must admit, therefore the entire book and theory can be thrown out as in error, and not accurate!
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.