[AATW]

So, in response to pictures and videos showing a distant tall building over water occluded by the curve of the earth, the claim is the building is actually obscured by waves.
The old "a dime can obscure an elephant" argument, example of the reasoning here:

Since the horizon is always at eye level, any imperfection on the horizon will therefore be above the level of the eye, and create an area where something larger can shrink behind it from the bottom up. It does not matter if that mass is very small, because as I have said, it is possible for a dime to obscure an elephant. The object need only get far enough behind it to become obscured

OK. Firstly, the horizon DOES NOT RISE TO EYE LEVEL.
I don't know why this lie is repeated so often. The simplest diagram will demonstrate that is not true.



Whether the earth is a sphere or flat, in either case the horizon will be BELOW eye level, the person is looking slightly downwards:
The confusion here is that the horizon is very close to eye level. This graph shows that even at an altitude of 20 miles, far higher than any normal human experience, the dip is only about 6 degrees:

https://www.desmos.com/calculator/vhmcatpgud

But there IS a dip and the dip is measurable with the right equipment. If flat earthers are so bothered about empiricism, as they claim, why don't they test this?

Anyway. Waves. Let's assume that the waves are around a meter high and your eye level is nearer 2 meters. You can see in this diagram that because you can see over the waves the only part of the building which would be obscured is just under a meter by the farthest wave:



And note that this is the worst cast scenario, in real life buildings are not built on the beach, the building would be some meters above sea level and not obscured at all by waves on a flat earth.

If the wave was as high as eye level then then the amount of building occluded would be the height of eye level.



Note that as this is a straight line it doesn't matter which wave is as high as eye level.
But what if the wave is higher than eye level? Here it would occlude more of the building:



And here it DOES matter which wave is higher than eye level, the closer the high wave the more of the building occluded:



This is where Tom's claim gets a bit ridiculous because he says:
"any imperfection on the horizon will therefore be above the level of the eye, and create an area where something larger can shrink behind it from the bottom up[/quote]

My empahsis. So he's claiming there that it's waves on the horizon which can obscure buildings. Although I've seen him elsewhere claim that the horizon is the vanishing point where perspective lines meet so by definition you couldn't see anything beyond that anyway.

So, in brief it's actually waves closer to you that could obscure distant buildings. But they can only obscure more of the building than their own height if they are higher than your eye level. So if you're a few meters above sea level it can't be waves obscuring the buildings unless the waves are higher than that which, across a narrow channel, they are unlikely to be.

The infamous Bishop experiment:

"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore"

For this to be true even on a flat earth it would mean no wave of over 20 inches high over a 23 mile stretch of sea. I'd suggest that is implausible, especially as he claims to be able to repeat this at any time in any conditions.

[Westprog]

The infamous Bishop experiment:

"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore"

For this to be true even on a flat earth it would mean no wave of over 20 inches high over a 23 mile stretch of sea. I'd suggest that is implausible, especially as he claims to be able to repeat this at any time in any conditions.

Excellent diagrams. This is a field where representing things visually is very helpful. As we've seen from some of the obscure and confused diagrams in other threads, visual aids can be used to clarify or obfuscate.

If it's possible to see that distance across water, then it's possible to take a picture, presumably.

[Frocious]

The infamous Bishop experiment:

"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore"

For this to be true even on a flat earth it would mean no wave of over 20 inches high over a 23 mile stretch of sea. I'd suggest that is implausible, especially as he claims to be able to repeat this at any time in any conditions.

Excellent diagrams. This is a field where representing things visually is very helpful. As we've seen from some of the obscure and confused diagrams in other threads, visual aids can be used to clarify or obfuscate.

If it's possible to see that distance across water, then it's possible to take a picture, presumably.

Laying down on your stomach would introduce refraction into the equation, correct? Same problem Rowbotham had.

[Tom Bishop]

OK. Firstly, the horizon DOES NOT RISE TO EYE LEVEL.

The horizon is always at eye level. This is demonstrated by the fact that when you rise in altitude, the horizon rises with you and your eye level.

If the horizon were resting on a globe, as in your illustration, the horizon would always sink as you increased your altitude. It would not rise.

An excerpt from Zetetic Cosmogony and the London Journal:

If the world be a ball, as Sir R. Ball gravely informs us, the aeronaut should be one of his most ardent supporters, as the highest part of the "surface of the globe" would be directly under the car of a balloon, and the sides would fall away or "dip" down in every direction. The universal testimony of aeronauts, however, is entirely against the globular assumption, as the following quotations show.
   
    The London Journal 18th July, 1857, says: --
    "The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a considerable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary."

How does this happen in your illustration of perspective on the globe model?

The fact that it rises with your eye, rather than sinks, shows that there is something (perspective) attempting to keep it at the level of your eye.

[Parallax]

The horizon rises to eye level, it has been proved. If earth was a globe, then when you ascend upwards you would have to look down at the horizon. Yet you do not, therefore this is proof earth is not a globe.

[Parallax]

The infamous Bishop experiment:

"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore"

For this to be true even on a flat earth it would mean no wave of over 20 inches high over a 23 mile stretch of sea. I'd suggest that is implausible, especially as he claims to be able to repeat this at any time in any conditions.

Excellent diagrams. This is a field where representing things visually is very helpful. As we've seen from some of the obscure and confused diagrams in other threads, visual aids can be used to clarify or obfuscate.

If it's possible to see that distance across water, then it's possible to take a picture, presumably.

Laying down on your stomach would introduce refraction into the equation, correct? Same problem Rowbotham had.

Dr Rowbotham never had a problem with refraction, stop peddling lies.

[AATW]

The horizon is always at eye level. This is demonstrated by the fact that when you rise in altitude, the horizon rises with you and your eye level.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
I've given a link above which shows the horizon dip below eye level at different altitudes.
I've also shown with a diagram why whether we are on a flat earth or a globe the horizon can never be exactly at eye level.

If the horizon were resting on a globe, as in your illustration, the horizon would always sink as you increased your altitude. It would not rise.

It does sink but only very gradually. Again, I've given a link to a graph above - even at 20 miles the angle is less than 6 degrees. At normal heights the dip is not discernible with the naked eye but it can be measured with the right equipment. You claim to value empiricism, let's see your measurements and evidence.

The rest of your post, to quote you - I see words, not evidence.

[AATW]

The horizon rises to eye level, it has been proved. If earth was a globe, then when you ascend upwards you would have to look down at the horizon. Yet you do not, therefore this is proof earth is not a globe.

Again, repeating the lie doesn't make it true. You say it's been proved, show your evidence.

https://www.metabunk.org/a-diy-theodolite-for-measuring-the-dip-of-the-horizon.t8617/

[Tom Bishop]

It does sink but only very gradually. Again, I've given a link to a graph above - even at 20 miles the angle is less than 6 degrees. At normal heights the dip is not discernible with the naked eye but it can be measured with the right equipment. You claim to value empiricism, let's see your measurements and evidence.

The rest of your post, to quote you - I see words, not evidence.

The London Journal claim is evidence. Written claims are a form of evidence.

Here is more evidence of the horizon rising to eye level when altitude is increased:



The horizon does not "descend" as altitude is increased, as would be required by the illustration in your diagram of the round earth horizon. It rises to stay level with the eye.

You said that the scene should look as so:



If this is true then the horizon should be seen to drop when altitude is increased. The fact that it does not drop when one increases altitude, is evidence that the depiction is fallacious and wrong.

[Macarios]

Apparent Horizon Dip is known in celestial navigation.
Horizon drops with altitude.
It drops slower than altitude increases, but it drops.

We can repeat "it does" or "it doesn't" and get nowhere.
Let's be "zetetic" (inquisitive) and check it out.

Now, I'm not saying this video is proof.
This video is "user manual" how to test it yourself, and be sure nobody tampered with your result.
This device is very easu to make.
Few pieces of cheap plastic piping, some glue (or rubber seals), and some water and paint

You can do something, or do nothing, then you can come back and say "I did it and horizon was/wasn't always at eye level".
But you know that anyone can do it too, and know exactly if you are telling the truth.
(I believe that the author knew that too.)

So, how honest can you be with yourself?



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this is something that was done in airplane at high altitude.

[AATW]

The London Journal claim is evidence. Written claims are a form of evidence.

Your quote says:

"The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a considerable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two miles

My emphasis. "Practically". So your own quote agrees the horizon is not at eye level. And at a height of 2 miles the dip to the horizon is less than 2 degrees. Hard to discern but certainly possible to measure. Where are the measurements? As for the video...I honestly can't tell if you're joking. Again, no measurements, no marker on the camera to demonstrate that the horizon angle doesn't change. But, just for fun - put your finger on the screen during that video around about the 50 second mark. Put it on the side of the frame to mark where the ground meets the sky. Leave your finger where it is as the drone descends. Even in that video you can see the horizon line clearly rises as the drone gets lower. So your own video demonstrates the exact effect you're claiming doesn't happen

The horizon does not "descend" as altitude is increased, as would be required by the illustration in your diagram of the round earth horizon. It rises to stay level with the eye.

I've done a diagram of a round earth and an imaginary flat earth. In both cases the horizon is below eye level, in both cases it would dip more with altitude.
In a flat earth model the ground (which you claim is flat) is one side of a triangle, the vertical distance from the ground to your eye is the second side. The hypotenuse is from your eye to the horizon, so the angle cannot be 0. Again, this is all measurable. You claim to be interested in empirical measurements.

[Macarios]

I've done a diagram of a round earth and an imaginary flat earth. In both cases the horizon is below eye level, in both cases it would dip more with altitude.
In a flat earth model the ground (which you claim is flat) is one side of a triangle, the vertical distance from the ground to your eye is the second side. The hypotenuse is from your eye to the horizon, so the angle cannot be 0. Again, this is all measurable. You claim to be interested in empirical measurements.

If the Eaerth was flat, and your eye was 2 meters above the surface, your eye level will still be 2 meters above surface at 10 kilometers.
Unfortunately, you woun't be able to see it with naked eye.
In such case those 2 meters will reach eye resolution at 6.86 kilometers, and all the ground beyound that point will simply belong to the horizon / vanishing point.
If you want to see something with naked eye beyond 6.86 kilometers, it has to sit vertically and be bigger than 2 meters.
10 meters big circle or square will be visible until up to 34.3 km.
(10 m / tan(0.0167) = 34 309 m)

[Tom Bishop]

The London Journal claim is evidence. Written claims are a form of evidence.

Your quote says:

"The chief peculiarity of the view from a balloon at a considerable elevation was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye at an elevation of two miles

My emphasis. "Practically". So your own quote agrees the horizon is not at eye level. And at a height of 2 miles the dip to the horizon is less than 2 degrees. Hard to discern but certainly possible to measure. Where are the measurements?

It doesn't matter whether the horizon is perfectly at eye level or not. When you rise to great altitude the atmosphere tends to build up at the horizon and it's all just a fog in the distance. The true horizon is at risk of being hidden behind that fog.

The fact that it rises as you increase in altitude, rather than descends, is evidence that your depiction is not true.

As for the video...I honestly can't tell if you're joking. Again, no measurements, no marker on the camera to demonstrate that the horizon angle doesn't change. But, just for fun - put your finger on the screen during that video around about the 50 second mark. Put it on the side of the frame to mark where the ground meets the sky. Leave your finger where it is as the drone descends. Even in that video you can see the horizon line clearly rises as the drone gets lower. So your own video demonstrates the exact effect you're claiming doesn't happen

What are you talking about? This footage is being taken from an unstabilized drone which might tilt up or down when moving vertically.

If you watch the horzion in relation to the tall buildings in the distance, it does rise when altitude is increased.

I've done a diagram of a round earth and an imaginary flat earth. In both cases the horizon is below eye level, in both cases it would dip more with altitude.

Well, then it seems that you need to go back to the drawing board with your rationalized theories, because we see in emperical reality that the horizon does rise with altitude.

[AATW]

Well, then it seems that you need to go back to the drawing board with your rationalized theories, because we see in emperical reality that the horizon does rise with altitude.

Yeah. Have a look at Macarios's video.
Is that empirical enough for you?

[Frocious]

Well, then it seems that you need to go back to the drawing board with your rationalized theories, because we see in emperical reality that the horizon does rise with altitude.

You're just going to completely ignore the easy-to-do experiment shown to you a couple of posts ago? Just go do it. Get yourself some empirical evidence.

[Macarios]

... because we see in emperical reality that the horizon does rise with altitude.

You can test your "empirical reality" yourself, using easy affordable device descrbed in the video I linken in my previous post.
In that video there is no fog or blur at the horizon there.

Do it and see it.

[Tom Bishop]

... because we see in emperical reality that the horizon does rise with altitude.

You can test your "empirical reality" yourself, using easy affordable device descrbed in the video I linken in my previous post.
In that video there is no fog or blur at the horizon there.

Do it and see it.

The video you provided just has a guy holding up what is essentially a glass of water above the horizon line. He claims that he disproved something.

Is it impossible to hold a glass of water above the line of the horizon?

Why not address my points rather than trying to distract with various videos of different experiments?

[inquisitive]

... because we see in emperical reality that the horizon does rise with altitude.

You can test your "empirical reality" yourself, using easy affordable device descrbed in the video I linken in my previous post.
In that video there is no fog or blur at the horizon there.

Do it and see it.

The video you provided just has a guy holding up what is essentially a glass of water above the horizon line. He claims that he disproved something.

Is it impossible to hold a glass of water above the line of the horizon?

Why not address my points rather than trying to distract with various videos of different experiments?

Please provide some diagrams.  Nobody agrees with you, or do they?

[Frocious]

... because we see in emperical reality that the horizon does rise with altitude.

You can test your "empirical reality" yourself, using easy affordable device descrbed in the video I linken in my previous post.
In that video there is no fog or blur at the horizon there.

Do it and see it.

The video you provided just has a guy holding up what is essentially a glass of water above the horizon line. He claims that he disproved something.

Is it impossible to hold a glass of water above the line of the horizon?

Why not address my points rather than trying to distract with various videos of different experiments?

I think you may have misunderstood how the experiment works.

[AATW]

The video you provided just has a guy holding up what is essentially a glass of water above the horizon line. He claims that he disproved something.

No. The two tubes of liquid are connected so that the level in each is the same. So if the camera/eye and the two tubes are in a line then that must be horizontal.
At ground level the two tubes and the horizon appeared in a line.
The higher the altitude he was it the more the horizon dipped below that.

Is it impossible to hold a glass of water above the line of the horizon?

If the horizon "rises to eye level" no matter the altitude then yes, what that video shows is impossible. But it doesn't

Why not address my points rather than trying to distract with various videos of different experiments?

Now this is funny, someone who claims to be interested in empirical measurements grumbling that a video showing empirical measurements is a distraction simply because those measurements prove him wrong.