[Tom Bishop]

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.

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.

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.

[Bobby Shafto]

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?

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Bobby Shafto]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[AATW]

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.

[Bobby Shafto]

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.




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.

[Bobby Shafto]

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.

[AATW]

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



(I couldn't find the original video he's analysing)

[Bobby Shafto]

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.)

[Bobby Shafto]

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:



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?

[TomFoolery]

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:



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.