Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #80 on: May 02, 2018, 10:56:23 PM »
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.


Forget about convincing sceptics. They won't be convinced, regardless. After your results are posted, they'll carry on citing Rowbotham and the horizon rising to eye level as if you hadn't posted anything. What you're doing - designing an experiment to determine whether a phenomenon exists, and adapting it to fit circumstances.

I note that things have been very, very quiet here for a while - which is perhaps a tribute to the effectiveness of your experiments.

« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 07:16:06 AM by Westprog »

kasai

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #81 on: May 03, 2018, 05:49:27 PM »
Define "eye-level".

And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
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.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #82 on: May 03, 2018, 06:02:04 PM »
...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.


Horizon will be at an angle below straight out according to spherical surface explanation.


Determining if the horizon is always at eye level is the objective.

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #83 on: May 03, 2018, 06:04:24 PM »
Define "eye-level".

And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
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.
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.
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

kasai

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #84 on: May 03, 2018, 06:12:05 PM »
Define "eye-level".

And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.
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.
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.
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.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6552
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #85 on: May 03, 2018, 08:48:12 PM »
...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.


Horizon will be at an angle below straight out according to spherical surface explanation.


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:



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.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

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

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #86 on: May 03, 2018, 09:43:23 PM »
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:

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.

This is the vanishing point argument. If you look straight ahead, that's where that particular ocular vanishing point is. If you look up, that's another vanishing point. But straight ahead, due to perspective, the vanishing point appears on the horizon.

And that's a convention oft repeated in art direction. The horizon is the straight-ahead vanishing point. Squat down? Still on the horizon. Stand up? Horizon. 3rd story of the Grand Brighton? VP still on the horizon.

It works for everyday situations when your perspective is relatively near the ground.

But what I don't see is anyway to calculate such a distance as if it's anything actually empirical and not just a principle. That's why I call such a horizon "apparent." It depends on visual acuity, resolution, focal length, etc. And even then, is it anything more than subjective?

The horizon on a curved surface is something real. It's a quantifiable distance that factors height and radius of the sphere to know where that tangent line is. It's not "apparent."

I've kind of stopped worrying about how an art/drawing principle of capturing a 3D space on a 2D medium can be applied to understanding physical space. So the ground appears to rise and the sky appears to descend, FE says. So what? If that's what flat earth believes, I'm not going to change minds.

But it ought to be measurably verifiable whether or not a horizon is always level with the eye. It's not proving to be so, so even if it were an attribute of a flat plane perspective, it definitely is not one in space with spherical geometry. So, it seems reasonable to me that if it's a discriminator between flat and spherical, it ought to settle the matter. And I think anyone could check, as long as it's not done sloppily, which is how Rowbotham's experiment seems to have been accomplished. But you don't need a government agency or MIT team to verify. You don't need expensive equipment.

If the horizon DOES always measure to be level to the eye (not appear; be measurable on the horizontal), then it refutes the globe. If it doesn't, then that's a big point in globe's favor and maybe then flat earth proponents will abandon the vanishing point argument.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2018, 09:49:10 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6552
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #87 on: May 03, 2018, 10:55:18 PM »
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?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

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

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #88 on: May 03, 2018, 11:40:11 PM »
I don't know.


*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #89 on: May 04, 2018, 07:23:32 AM »
Is it really that hard to understand what we mean?

Not hard to understand at all, just that what you say you mean is most often filled with towering vagueness.

If something is 1 foot in front of me, and at exactly 6ft off the ground, I can confidently say it is at eye level. This becomes more difficult to say with certainty as it gets farther away.

When a flat earther takes a picture from a plane, and claims the horizon to be at eye level, then what height is the flat earther at? Was the camera held to their eye, or not? If the plane is at 38,000 feet, do we take 'eye level' as 38,006, or 38,003 because the flat-earther was in their seat? Is the flat-earther claiming a horizon at eye-level because they've put the horizon at centre frame, without any kind of levelling device, or not?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #90 on: May 04, 2018, 07:28:54 AM »
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.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6552
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #91 on: May 04, 2018, 10:12:02 AM »
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:

Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

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

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #92 on: May 04, 2018, 02:03:21 PM »
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:



There was some excuse for Rowbotham - he would have found it difficult to get up in a balloon - but all you need to do is look out of the window and the horizon is clearly below eye level at altitude. You could sight along a spirit level or your complimentary glass of champagne, but you can easily just eyeball it.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #93 on: May 04, 2018, 02:15:15 PM »
It might have been difficult, but certainly not impossible, as he quoted a number of times accounts of balloon pilots.
Unfortunately most of the accounts were not scientific, and scalped from different publications and newspapers.

So not Zetetic at all.

These days much much easier to get to a point up high, even if it is a high point overlooking the ocean

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

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6552
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #94 on: May 04, 2018, 02:26:22 PM »
There's this which Tom quoted in a previous thread about this:

Quote
"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

Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za15.htm

I've highlighted the word which is a slight weakness in the argument. Practically. Yes, at two miles the horizon dip would be less than 2 degrees.
Not necessarily that easy to discern, but perfectly possible to measure with the right equipment.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

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

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #95 on: May 04, 2018, 04:28:26 PM »
The concept of "zetetic" is confusing to me. Rowbotham stands it in contrast to "theoretic," which is connoted disparagingly with "speculative."

But also, there seems to be an element of skepticism in the zetetic mind, as if to say don't take anyone's word for something or to beware of being influenced by pre-conceived notions. Find out for yourself.

If so, it seems odd to me, then, that principle of "the horizon is always at eye level" is accepted as an axiom by those claiming to be zetetic. The principle of perspective in art says the vanishing point is at the horizon. Rowbotham's experiment (with vagueness as to how) claimed to have affirm this principle. But the zetetic mind shouldn't accept it just because Rowbotham said he confirmed it 150 years ago, nor just because artists use the principle to convey 3D in a 2D medium.

I believe Rowbotham's experiment/observation was wrong. I also believe that in art, the horizon is in most instances closely level with the horizontal sight line. But while the vanishing point surely rises with elevation (or swings to whatever the ocular focal point one might have), it's contested whether or not the horizon rises with it. The horizon and vanishing point are not tied together as perspective principle has been interpreted. People need to, and can, test and verify for themselves. As I understand it, the zetetic philosophy demands that.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2018, 06:08:04 PM by Bobby Shafto »

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #96 on: May 05, 2018, 03:25:23 PM »
In my opinion, the term Zetetic as with regards to flat earth means "accept any statements about observation that supports flat earth"

Few flat earthers ever conduct any sort of experiments with a view to removing  possible errors or even designing experiments that have a sound basis in the first place. Flat earth research is mainly watching flat earth youtube videos sprinkled with pointless spirit- levels -on -airplanes attempt to find a dip that by it's nature shouldn't even be there in the first place.

This is a thread 5 pages long with the only 2 flat earth responses being "you cannot be anywhere near Rowbotham's accuracy" and "I'm out because you all don't understand us as we don't understand math". You would expect the so called Zetetics to be out in force trying to design an experiment that they can all do to observe for themselves. But noooo. Much easier to watch youtube.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #97 on: May 06, 2018, 10:30:46 PM »
I don't have a clear horizon today, but this is what I think I'm going with for measuring whether or not the horizon is always at eye-level.



It's a square wire frame shelving assembly that provides a converging set of orthogonal perspective lines when viewed through its center.

I attached a water leveling tube to the left sight for leveling pitch (forward/backward tilt) and a guide line between two orthogonal lines to serve as a transverse sight. Line that up so that it and the two (left/right) orthogonals make a straight line, and that's your vanishing line, which either will or won't line up with the horizon (as long as the rig is level, 90° to vertical. That's what the water level in the tubing is for.

All of the other orthogonal lines should converge on that transverse to give you vanishing point, which would need to be added in post:



Today, the horizon lies somewhere between the two small red lines I added.

Honestly, with this, you don't even need to get the camera/eye right at that level line. The vanishing point will change with any camera elevation, and you can figure out where that is by drawing in where the lines converge:



But you can't do that in real time, at time of survey. You can only do that digitally after seeing the picture. But the vanishing point/line will rise or fall with camera/eye elevation.

The question is, will the horizon line follow the vanishing point?

This viewpoint is about 400' above MSL. The other coastal viewpoints I have planned are around 700', 1100', and 1700'. Unless anyone (and I mean anyway - flat earth proponents or critics) has any critiques of this tool, I hope to get images this week, weather permitting.

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #98 on: May 06, 2018, 11:59:03 PM »
I think you should make the leveling water easier to see.
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #99 on: May 07, 2018, 12:06:45 AM »
I think you should make the leveling water easier to see.
On it.

Also adding a level for the roll axis.
Also replacing the twine with taut wire.