The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: AATW on April 01, 2018, 03:29:33 PM
-
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.
(https://image.ibb.co/cuLRVx/Horizon.jpg)
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:
(https://image.ibb.co/iL8rC7/waves.jpg)
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.
(https://image.ibb.co/f804X7/waves_b.jpg)
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:
(https://image.ibb.co/nhHUzn/waves_c.jpg)
And here it DOES matter which wave is higher than eye level, the closer the high wave the more of the building occluded:
(https://image.ibb.co/n6Df5S/waves_d.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/
-
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRCgpXkIyJ4
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/ExtbR14.png)
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.
-
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?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this is something that was done in airplane at high altitude.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD6bH03DJBI
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
... 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.
-
... 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?
-
... 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?
-
... 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.
-
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.
-
I think you may have misunderstood how the experiment works.
I see perfectly well how the experiment works. The experimenter is aligning the water to be level, but the camera is down below the water line. The camera needs to be centered with the water line.
There are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the camera is exactly centered vertically with the water line. Its just a guy holding a camera in one hand and glasses of water in the other. Bad experiment.
Now how about addressing my points? Pointing me at different experiments really sounds like you guys are saying "well, you win on this one.... but look at this other thing I found"
-
I think you may have misunderstood how the experiment works.
I see perfectly well how the experiment works. The experimenter is aligning the water to be level, but the camera is down below the water line. The camera needs to be centered with the water line.
There are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the camera is exactly centered vertically with the water line. Its just a guy holding a camera in one hand and glasses of water in the other. Bad experiment.
Now how about addressing my points? Pointing me at different experiments really sounds like you guys are saying "well, you win on this one.... but look at this other thing I found"
Perhaps we're taking a page out of your book? :D
And no, the camera cannot be "below the water line" if the the water lines are aligned. That isn't how perspective works. I suppose you could cast doubt on whether or not the water lines are level -- but that's why it's been recommended you do the experiment yourself!
-
There are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the camera is exactly centered vertically with the water line. Its just a guy holding a camera in one hand and glasses of water in the other.
This is true about the mechanism, but there are plenty of points where the two tubes of liquid line up and the horizon dip can be seen very clearly.
Here are some screen grabs from the 3 altitudes to help:
(https://image.ibb.co/i9H7Kn/horizondip.jpg)
Very clear how the horizon dips more with altitude. Not a huge dip, as I've said but measurable and these are empirical measurements which prove it.
Honestly, the wriggling you do rather than concede any point no matter how clearly you are shown to be wrong really is embarrassing.
-
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?
LOL
That "glass of water" is actually two transparent pipes connected with horizontal pipe.
Water (painted) in both pipes is level, and aims horizontally.
And obviously, horizon is below horizontal.
Try it yourself.
We all know you understand how water level works.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/jt5eoo.png)
EDIT: Yes, this directly addresses your point that "horizon always rises to the eye level".
-
There are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the camera is exactly centered vertically with the water line. Its just a guy holding a camera in one hand and glasses of water in the other.
This is true about the mechanism, but there are plenty of points where the two tubes of liquid line up and the horizon dip can be seen very clearly.
Here are some screen grabs from the 3 altitudes to help:
(https://image.ibb.co/i9H7Kn/horizondip.jpg)
Very clear how the horizon dips more with altitude. Not a huge dip, as I've said but measurable and these are empirical measurements which prove it.
Honestly, the wriggling you do rather than concede any point no matter how clearly you are shown to be wrong really is embarrassing.
Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants. Take a step back, be too close or take a photo from a slight angle, and it can be manipulated. The horizon always meets the eye level, it was proved in the 1800s. Honestly, its embarrassing how your blind Faith in 'science' will not let you see the forest for the trees.
-
There are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the camera is exactly centered vertically with the water line. Its just a guy holding a camera in one hand and glasses of water in the other.
This is true about the mechanism, but there are plenty of points where the two tubes of liquid line up and the horizon dip can be seen very clearly.
Here are some screen grabs from the 3 altitudes to help:
(https://image.ibb.co/i9H7Kn/horizondip.jpg)
Very clear how the horizon dips more with altitude. Not a huge dip, as I've said but measurable and these are empirical measurements which prove it.
Honestly, the wriggling you do rather than concede any point no matter how clearly you are shown to be wrong really is embarrassing.
Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants. Take a step back, be too close or take a photo from a slight angle, and it can be manipulated. The horizon always meets the eye level, it was proved in the 1800s. Honestly, its embarrassing how your blind Faith in 'science' will not let you see the forest for the trees.
Go do the experiment yourself. That's why he posted 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.
No, it's a large spirit level. A spirit level which indicates the horizon to be AT the level indicated by it at sea level, but BELOW its level at any significant altitude.
-
The horizon is always at eye level.
Disproved by the video above, with the spirit level at various altitudes
This is demonstrated by the fact that when you rise in altitude, the horizon rises with you and your eye level.
How do you define and measure 'eye level' at altitude, other than with a levelling device as shown in the video above? If you have empirical data from another type of device used at altitude, please share it.
Here is more evidence of the horizon rising to eye level when altitude is increased:
VIDEO
That video only shows the operator taking his drone to a height where the camera is aligned with the top of his selected building and horizon.
It carries no indication at all that the camera is level at that point. There's no eyes involved, so how does this support a claim of "eye level" - the other video has the level held in front of the camera/observer's eye, and the level can be seen
Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants. Take a step back, be too close or take a photo from a slight angle, and it can be manipulated. The horizon always meets the eye level, it was proved in the 1800s. Honestly, its embarrassing how your blind Faith in 'science' will not let you see the forest for the trees.
So let's see you construct your own water/spirit level of similar design, and photograph it such that it reinforces your viewpoint, then.
How do you determine what eye level is at this height, without a device like this?
The experimenter is aligning the water to be level, but the camera is down below the water line. The camera needs to be centered with the water line. There are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the camera is exactly centered vertically with the water line.
The screen grabs with the far away tube partly behind the nearer one, with the water levels exactly aligned. The experimenter cannot "align the water to be level" when it finds its own level....
Here's a suggestion - do it yourself. Construct the level, and mount it on a tripod with a moveable head. Align the head to be level, using a separate spirit level, and photograph along the top of the two columns of water/spirit.
Tilt the tripod head away from you, and repeat
Tilt the tripod head back toward you, and repeat.
Will the water find its own level? I think so. Will a photograph along the top of the two columns of water, regardless of the angle of the tripod head, always be aligned to the same spot in the sky? I think so.
I don't think you can manually "align the water to be level". It will find its own level.
Are you going to do some empirical work?
-
Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants.
Well firstly, those photos are simply stills from that video.
And secondly if you dispute the findings you have all the information you need to repeat the experiment. I presume that Tom has stopped posting to do just that, given how important he regards empirical evidence.
I look forward to your findings.
-
How do you determine what eye level is at this height, without a device like this?
Well it's pretty simple. You go to that height, and the horizon is level with your eyes.
-
Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants.
Well firstly, those photos are simply stills from that video.
And secondly if you dispute the findings you have all the information you need to repeat the experiment. I presume that Tom has stopped posting to do just that, given how important he regards empirical evidence.
I look forward to your findings.
I don't need to, I've seen first hand how the horizon is always at eye level.
-
Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants.
Well firstly, those photos are simply stills from that video.
And secondly if you dispute the findings you have all the information you need to repeat the experiment. I presume that Tom has stopped posting to do just that, given how important he regards empirical evidence.
I look forward to your findings.
I don't need to, I've seen first hand how the horizon is always at eye level.
Empiricism at work, ladies and gentlemen!
-
Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants.
Well firstly, those photos are simply stills from that video.
And secondly if you dispute the findings you have all the information you need to repeat the experiment. I presume that Tom has stopped posting to do just that, given how important he regards empirical evidence.
I look forward to your findings.
I don't need to, I've seen first hand how the horizon is always at eye level.
How can it be for 2 observers in the same place at different heights? Eye level defined as 90deg to the vertical.
-
Well it's pretty simple. You go to that height, and the horizon is level with your eyes.
How do you prove this to others, though? How do you prove it's not just your impression that it's level?
-
Well I'd tell them to see for themselves. Next time they are somewhere high, for them to take a look. The horizon will be at eye level.
-
Well I'd tell them to see for themselves. Next time they are somewhere high, for them to take a look. The horizon will be at eye level.
Please define eye level as the angle must be different from different heights.
-
Ok lets try and put this one to bed shall we.
I am a navigator, and have been for 35 years on varying ships, and can tell you for sure the earth is a globe, because i have sailed around the world, and end up nearly the same place by sailing east or west.
The argument around the horizon is really simple to observe and see.
Mariners have been using tables and maths to work out distances from objects of a known height for hundreds of years, and they are proved to be accurate, there are numerous references to them, and they work. I have done it myself and seen it.
Given an object of known height above the datum level (sea level, highest astronomical tide, whatever is being used) it is easy to use tables, or in fact calculate the distance you are from that distance by using a sextant.
Knowing your own hieght of eye is also important, as this will give you the distance to the visible horizon, and if the base of the object is closer than the visible horizon, then that is the only calculation needed, however, if the object is further away than the visible horizon, you can still calculate how far beyond the visible horizon the object is by doing a similar calculation taking into account the Base of the object (of a known hieght) will be below the horizon, and that can be measured.
Verification is easy since the introduction of radar, i have measured the vertical angle to lighthouses, mountains etc, and been able to calculate the range of the vessel from them. I have then used the radar to verify the calculations (and tables) and have come up with the same (or very nearly the same) answer. This has been further verified by then steaming towards the object at a certain speed for a certain time, and actually covering that distance.
https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5429240/FID89/PUB9/chapters/tblexpl.pdf
Tables 13, 14 15 and 16 all are used. The mathematics are provided.
The above links explain the maths and tables to use, and the thing is THEY WORK, so if there was no curvature of the earth, then the tables are wrong, and there will be a hell of a lot more ship wrecks around.
Either i am lying, or have been fantastically duped and lucky to get away without running my (large) ships aground all these years.
Also look at this reference, clearly explaining why an object dips below the horizon. There are pictures etc, plus diagrams. I would love to have explained to me why the science behind what i have known and practiced to be true is wrong.
http://www.splashmaritime.com.au/Marops/data/less/Nav/Vsa.pdf
Finally when looking at the home page of this site it is stressed that pictures and videos and wiki references should not be trusted as they are easily manipulated, why therefore does Tom continue to try to provide references to textbooks written over 150 years ago, when our understanding of science was more primitive, indeed we had not even flown an aeroplane at that point, and Darwin had just publish Origin of species, and most people believed in creationism, as opposed to evolution. Please lets have some sense of reality here.
Although i have provided web links, one of them is to a universally accepted journal of navigation that has been published for over 200 years, and the tables are accurate. Have been proved so many times by practice, and measurement, as well as theory.
Please provide solid evidence other than “i believe” or “it has been proved” without explaining why.
-
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.
How can this be true if we can see the sun and Moon at the horizon? They don't fade into a fog as you claim they would, despite being thousands of miles away.
-
Well I'd tell them to see for themselves. Next time they are somewhere high, for them to take a look. The horizon will be at eye level.
That's like telling them to measure the wind speed up there by wetting a finger and holding it up to the air. Or measuring the drop in atmospheric pressure by taking a few deep breaths. Or measuring the rainfall by wringing out their clothes into their hands.
It's not precise, in other words.
If you want to prove any sort of level, you need some sort of measuring device. Again, see the video above.
-
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.
I'd imagine that one could line up the horizon on a spirit level. If there was a drop at altitude, then that should show with the little bubble. However, not sure if the effect would be easily measurable.
At the very least, actually doing the experiment and filming it would show something.
But this is a very typical example. Here's an assertion of something observable and verifiable. This is the website of an organisation devoted to the exposure of a worldwide conspiracy. They're actively proselytising, trying to persuade everyone to see through the lies and to accept that the Earth is not a globe and this is just a way that powerful people control the masses.
So why aren't there FE advocates performing this experiment on every hillside that overlooks the sea? Set up a little stall with a big hand-lettered sign saying "See the truth of the Flat Earth - THERE IS NO DIP". Verify that no matter what the height, the horizon is at eye level. Thousands of new converts every day.
And yet... it seems that the people actually doing this experiment, and reporting it, and most importantly, telling other people to try it aren't FE advocates. Why is that? I mean, if it's true that the horizon is always at eye level, and that this proves Flat Earth to be true, then surely...
But in fact there's always a little tickle at the back of the mind which provides self-preservation. It doesn't always work - see the hilarious instance where an advocate denied that the Pontchartrain power lines actually existed - but it does quite a good job of avoiding the dangerous areas. Think of FE belief as a living creature inside the minds of its hosts, making sure that they avoid anything that might harm it.
However, just as we saw with the Pontchartrain power lines, it's a resilient little chap, and if it's unavoidably exposed to proof of a dipping horizon, it will spring back with an assertion that the dipping horizon is and always has been part of FE theory and in fact disproves the Round Earth.
-
The experimenter is aligning the water to be level, but the camera is down below the water line. The camera needs to be centered with the water line. There are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the camera is exactly centered vertically with the water line. Its just a guy holding a camera in one hand and glasses of water in the other. Bad experiment.
Name a good experiment, then.
I think the same result would be got from a shop-bought spirit level instead of the guy's home-made rig. Mount that on (say) an adjustable camera tripod, line it up to be level, then sight along it with the camera
What do you think?
-
The experimenter is aligning the water to be level, but the camera is down below the water line. The camera needs to be centered with the water line. There are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the camera is exactly centered vertically with the water line. Its just a guy holding a camera in one hand and glasses of water in the other. Bad experiment.
Name a good experiment, then.
I think the same result would be got from a shop-bought spirit level instead of the guy's home-made rig. Mount that on (say) an adjustable camera tripod, line it up to be level, then sight along it with the camera
What do you think?
There are spirit levels that come with tripods. Or you could just prop it up carefully on a little table until it's pointing precisely at the horizon.
Funny how spirit levels are trusted when it comes to an aircraft's armrest but not when lining up on the horizon.
-
And yet... it seems that the people actually doing this experiment, and reporting it, and most importantly, telling other people to try it aren't FE advocates. Why is that? I mean, if it's true that the horizon is always at eye level, and that this proves Flat Earth to be true, then surely...
It is telling that they are so reluctant to try experiments. I guess at some level they know they're wrong. Or maybe they're just trolling. I note Tom has departed the thread as he so often does when shown up, the interesting thing is he probably thinks he won the debate. Again, I suspect he's just a troll and doesn't really believe any of this.
The particularly stupid thing about this example is that a horizon dip does not prove a globe earth
I showed in my diagram at the start of this thread that there would be a horizon dip on a flat earth too.
It's a right angled triangle - the ground is the base, the vertical side is from the ground to your eye and the hypotenuse is from your eye to the part of the ground which is the limit of your vision. We all agree this is finite so it has to be a triangle, there will be a horizon dip.
The difference is because we know the size of the globe earth we can calculate the dip angle at different altitudes and then check that experimentally. Maybe that is why they are so reluctant to experiment on this because they know it would prove the globe earth - not because of a dip, that would occur either way, but because the angle of the dip would match round earth predictions.
-
It is telling that they are so reluctant to try experiments. I guess at some level they know they're wrong. Or maybe they're just trolling.
I have little doubt that this is true. I've seen it with a number of conspiracists. Faced with the opportunity to put up or shut up, they'll always veer away from the verification, because at some level they know that it won't actually work.
Hence the reliance on experiments performed in the distant past, rather than simply repeating them over and over to demonstrate to us that they're right.
-
Ok lets try and put this one to bed shall we.
I am a navigator, and have been for 35 years on varying ships, and can tell you for sure the earth is a globe, because i have sailed around the world, and end up nearly the same place by sailing east or west.
The argument around the horizon is really simple to observe and see.
Mariners have been using tables and maths to work out distances from objects of a known height for hundreds of years, and they are proved to be accurate, there are numerous references to them, and they work. I have done it myself and seen it.
Given an object of known height above the datum level (sea level, highest astronomical tide, whatever is being used) it is easy to use tables, or in fact calculate the distance you are from that distance by using a sextant.
Knowing your own hieght of eye is also important, as this will give you the distance to the visible horizon, and if the base of the object is closer than the visible horizon, then that is the only calculation needed, however, if the object is further away than the visible horizon, you can still calculate how far beyond the visible horizon the object is by doing a similar calculation taking into account the Base of the object (of a known hieght) will be below the horizon, and that can be measured.
Verification is easy since the introduction of radar, i have measured the vertical angle to lighthouses, mountains etc, and been able to calculate the range of the vessel from them. I have then used the radar to verify the calculations (and tables) and have come up with the same (or very nearly the same) answer. This has been further verified by then steaming towards the object at a certain speed for a certain time, and actually covering that distance.
https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5429240/FID89/PUB9/chapters/tblexpl.pdf
Tables 13, 14 15 and 16 all are used. The mathematics are provided.
The above links explain the maths and tables to use, and the thing is THEY WORK, so if there was no curvature of the earth, then the tables are wrong, and there will be a hell of a lot more ship wrecks around.
Either i am lying, or have been fantastically duped and lucky to get away without running my (large) ships aground all these years.
Also look at this reference, clearly explaining why an object dips below the horizon. There are pictures etc, plus diagrams. I would love to have explained to me why the science behind what i have known and practiced to be true is wrong.
http://www.splashmaritime.com.au/Marops/data/less/Nav/Vsa.pdf
Finally when looking at the home page of this site it is stressed that pictures and videos and wiki references should not be trusted as they are easily manipulated, why therefore does Tom continue to try to provide references to textbooks written over 150 years ago, when our understanding of science was more primitive, indeed we had not even flown an aeroplane at that point, and Darwin had just publish Origin of species, and most people believed in creationism, as opposed to evolution. Please lets have some sense of reality here.
Although i have provided web links, one of them is to a universally accepted journal of navigation that has been published for over 200 years, and the tables are accurate. Have been proved so many times by practice, and measurement, as well as theory.
Please provide solid evidence other than “i believe” or “it has been proved” without explaining why.
I would really like to see this answered to. Tontogary, can you provide is with any confirmable credentials? The community here has a tendency to not believe posters are actually experts.
-
Yes i can,
I have beeen sailing since 1985, Gained my 1st certificate of competency as 2nd mate in 1989, and chief Officer licence in 1996, and my Masters licence in1999. I have been sailing as a Master of oil and gas tankers since 2004, so 14 years in command.
I can show a copy of my masters licence, although for obvious reasons (security and ID fraud being 2) will not show my licence number. As part of my navigational training we studied many subjects, Magnetism, correction of magnetic compasses, and the earths magnetic field.
Electronic navigational systems, such a GPS, transit sat NAV, as well as radio nav systems, nav aids, such as gyros and gyro compasses, radars, theory and understanding of them.
Navigation, celestial navigation which relies heavily on spoherical trigonometry, and principles of position fixing, as well as in depth position fixing from celestial bodies.
Surface navigation, using Rhumb lines, GFreat circles, composite great circles, and calculation of distances along different courses and to different destinations.
Calculation of vertical sextant angles to find distance from a known point, horizontal angles for the same, as well as bearings and ranges from objects.
Cartography, different projections of charts and why, Mercator, gnomonic projection etc, and how the world is charted.
I have spent years practicing celestial navigation, and it works...
As well as law, safety of life at sea, commercial and civil law, and loading of cargos and carriage of cargoes. Stability and damage control, rules of sailing and rules of the road. World wide weather patterns and the reasons for them
All of these things i have studied and understood to be able to pass my master mariners licence, of which i can provide a copy in a few hours. We are in the indonesian islands passages at present, it is late but i can provide my Master mariners licence.
Does that qualify Me as someone who has experienced quite a bit when it comes to actual real life experiences, and not some dragged up references for nearly 200 years ago?
-
Does that qualify Me as someone who has experienced quite a bit when it comes to actual real life experiences, and not some dragged up references for nearly 200 years ago?
I have always assumed that pilots, navigators, around the world sailors etc must de facto be part of the conspiracy. OTOH there might be people who've sailed to Australia using flat Earth navigation. If so, no doubt we'll hear from them.
-
Yes i can,
I have beeen sailing since 1985, Gained my 1st certificate of competency as 2nd mate in 1989, and chief Officer licence in 1996, and my Masters licence in1999. I have been sailing as a Master of oil and gas tankers since 2004, so 14 years in command.
I can show a copy of my masters licence, although for obvious reasons (security and ID fraud being 2) will not show my licence number. As part of my navigational training we studied many subjects, Magnetism, correction of magnetic compasses, and the earths magnetic field.
Electronic navigational systems, such a GPS, transit sat NAV, as well as radio nav systems, nav aids, such as gyros and gyro compasses, radars, theory and understanding of them.
Navigation, celestial navigation which relies heavily on spoherical trigonometry, and principles of position fixing, as well as in depth position fixing from celestial bodies.
Surface navigation, using Rhumb lines, GFreat circles, composite great circles, and calculation of distances along different courses and to different destinations.
Calculation of vertical sextant angles to find distance from a known point, horizontal angles for the same, as well as bearings and ranges from objects.
Cartography, different projections of charts and why, Mercator, gnomonic projection etc, and how the world is charted.
I have spent years practicing celestial navigation, and it works...
As well as law, safety of life at sea, commercial and civil law, and loading of cargos and carriage of cargoes. Stability and damage control, rules of sailing and rules of the road. World wide weather patterns and the reasons for them
All of these things i have studied and understood to be able to pass my master mariners licence, of which i can provide a copy in a few hours. We are in the indonesian islands passages at present, it is late but i can provide my Master mariners licence.
Does that qualify Me as someone who has experienced quite a bit when it comes to actual real life experiences, and not some dragged up references for nearly 200 years ago?
My friend has been a mariner for about 20 years now, he's failed His masters ticket 4 times! Partly because he's not good at exams but also due to the sheer volume of subject matter they are tested on. TontoGary should be considered an absolute authority where the subjects he lists are concerned in my opinion.
-
Yes i can,
I have beeen sailing since 1985, Gained my 1st certificate of competency as 2nd mate in 1989, and chief Officer licence in 1996, and my Masters licence in1999. I have been sailing as a Master of oil and gas tankers since 2004, so 14 years in command.
I can show a copy of my masters licence, although for obvious reasons (security and ID fraud being 2) will not show my licence number. As part of my navigational training we studied many subjects, Magnetism, correction of magnetic compasses, and the earths magnetic field.
Electronic navigational systems, such a GPS, transit sat NAV, as well as radio nav systems, nav aids, such as gyros and gyro compasses, radars, theory and understanding of them.
Navigation, celestial navigation which relies heavily on spoherical trigonometry, and principles of position fixing, as well as in depth position fixing from celestial bodies.
Surface navigation, using Rhumb lines, GFreat circles, composite great circles, and calculation of distances along different courses and to different destinations.
Calculation of vertical sextant angles to find distance from a known point, horizontal angles for the same, as well as bearings and ranges from objects.
Cartography, different projections of charts and why, Mercator, gnomonic projection etc, and how the world is charted.
I have spent years practicing celestial navigation, and it works...
As well as law, safety of life at sea, commercial and civil law, and loading of cargos and carriage of cargoes. Stability and damage control, rules of sailing and rules of the road. World wide weather patterns and the reasons for them
All of these things i have studied and understood to be able to pass my master mariners licence, of which i can provide a copy in a few hours. We are in the indonesian islands passages at present, it is late but i can provide my Master mariners licence.
Does that qualify Me as someone who has experienced quite a bit when it comes to actual real life experiences, and not some dragged up references for nearly 200 years ago?
My friend has been a mariner for about 20 years now, he's failed His masters ticket 4 times! Partly because he's not good at exams but also due to the sheer volume of subject matter they are tested on. TontoGary should be considered an absolute authority where the subjects he lists are concerned in my opinion.
I think arguing against him as an authority that is something even most FE'rs would struggle to do. Unfortunately, that just means he will be ignored.
-
Given an object of known height above the datum level (sea level, highest astronomical tide, whatever is being used) it is easy to use tables, or in fact calculate the distance you are from that distance by using a sextant.
Knowing your own hieght of eye is also important, as this will give you the distance to the visible horizon, and if the base of the object is closer than the visible horizon, then that is the only calculation needed, however, if the object is further away than the visible horizon, you can still calculate how far beyond the visible horizon the object is by doing a similar calculation taking into account the Base of the object (of a known hieght) will be below the horizon, and that can be measured.
Verification is easy since the introduction of radar, i have measured the vertical angle to lighthouses, mountains etc, and been able to calculate the range of the vessel from them. I have then used the radar to verify the calculations (and tables) and have come up with the same (or very nearly the same) answer. This has been further verified by then steaming towards the object at a certain speed for a certain time, and actually covering that distance.
"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.
-
Given an object of known height above the datum level (sea level, highest astronomical tide, whatever is being used) it is easy to use tables, or in fact calculate the distance you are from that distance by using a sextant.
Knowing your own hieght of eye is also important, as this will give you the distance to the visible horizon, and if the base of the object is closer than the visible horizon, then that is the only calculation needed, however, if the object is further away than the visible horizon, you can still calculate how far beyond the visible horizon the object is by doing a similar calculation taking into account the Base of the object (of a known hieght) will be below the horizon, and that can be measured.
Verification is easy since the introduction of radar, i have measured the vertical angle to lighthouses, mountains etc, and been able to calculate the range of the vessel from them. I have then used the radar to verify the calculations (and tables) and have come up with the same (or very nearly the same) answer. This has been further verified by then steaming towards the object at a certain speed for a certain time, and actually covering that distance.
"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.
We have yet see any studies, data etc. from yourself. Actual measurements that can be repeated today.
-
Given an object of known height above the datum level (sea level, highest astronomical tide, whatever is being used) it is easy to use tables, or in fact calculate the distance you are from that distance by using a sextant.
Knowing your own hieght of eye is also important, as this will give you the distance to the visible horizon, and if the base of the object is closer than the visible horizon, then that is the only calculation needed, however, if the object is further away than the visible horizon, you can still calculate how far beyond the visible horizon the object is by doing a similar calculation taking into account the Base of the object (of a known hieght) will be below the horizon, and that can be measured.
Verification is easy since the introduction of radar, i have measured the vertical angle to lighthouses, mountains etc, and been able to calculate the range of the vessel from them. I have then used the radar to verify the calculations (and tables) and have come up with the same (or very nearly the same) answer. This has been further verified by then steaming towards the object at a certain speed for a certain time, and actually covering that distance.
"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.
Why did you deliberately leave out the parts of the quoted post that gave you exactly what you are asking for?
-
Given an object of known height above the datum level (sea level, highest astronomical tide, whatever is being used) it is easy to use tables, or in fact calculate the distance you are from that distance by using a sextant.
Knowing your own hieght of eye is also important, as this will give you the distance to the visible horizon, and if the base of the object is closer than the visible horizon, then that is the only calculation needed, however, if the object is further away than the visible horizon, you can still calculate how far beyond the visible horizon the object is by doing a similar calculation taking into account the Base of the object (of a known hieght) will be below the horizon, and that can be measured.
Verification is easy since the introduction of radar, i have measured the vertical angle to lighthouses, mountains etc, and been able to calculate the range of the vessel from them. I have then used the radar to verify the calculations (and tables) and have come up with the same (or very nearly the same) answer. This has been further verified by then steaming towards the object at a certain speed for a certain time, and actually covering that distance.
"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.
Why did you deliberately leave out the parts of the quoted post that gave you exactly what you are asking for?
Are you talking about this?
https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5429240/FID89/PUB9/chapters/tblexpl.pdf
Tables 13, 14 15 and 16 all are used. The mathematics are provided.
That's a document titled "explanation of navigation tables". This is not study. It is explaining how tables work.
-
Given an object of known height above the datum level (sea level, highest astronomical tide, whatever is being used) it is easy to use tables, or in fact calculate the distance you are from that distance by using a sextant.
Knowing your own hieght of eye is also important, as this will give you the distance to the visible horizon, and if the base of the object is closer than the visible horizon, then that is the only calculation needed, however, if the object is further away than the visible horizon, you can still calculate how far beyond the visible horizon the object is by doing a similar calculation taking into account the Base of the object (of a known hieght) will be below the horizon, and that can be measured.
Verification is easy since the introduction of radar, i have measured the vertical angle to lighthouses, mountains etc, and been able to calculate the range of the vessel from them. I have then used the radar to verify the calculations (and tables) and have come up with the same (or very nearly the same) answer. This has been further verified by then steaming towards the object at a certain speed for a certain time, and actually covering that distance.
"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.
Why did you deliberately leave out the parts of the quoted post that gave you exactly what you are asking for?
Are you talking about this?
https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5429240/FID89/PUB9/chapters/tblexpl.pdf
Tables 13, 14 15 and 16 all are used. The mathematics are provided.
That's a document titled "explanation of navigation tables". This is not study. It is explaining how tables work.
All right. I will leave it to our navigator to argue the specifics here, as clearly he knows much more about it than either of us.
I am curious as to why a study is necessary for you in this case, as scientific papers/studies seem to matter very little to you when it comes to your beliefs.
-
Given an object of known height above the datum level (sea level, highest astronomical tide, whatever is being used) it is easy to use tables, or in fact calculate the distance you are from that distance by using a sextant.
Knowing your own hieght of eye is also important, as this will give you the distance to the visible horizon, and if the base of the object is closer than the visible horizon, then that is the only calculation needed, however, if the object is further away than the visible horizon, you can still calculate how far beyond the visible horizon the object is by doing a similar calculation taking into account the Base of the object (of a known hieght) will be below the horizon, and that can be measured.
Verification is easy since the introduction of radar, i have measured the vertical angle to lighthouses, mountains etc, and been able to calculate the range of the vessel from them. I have then used the radar to verify the calculations (and tables) and have come up with the same (or very nearly the same) answer. This has been further verified by then steaming towards the object at a certain speed for a certain time, and actually covering that distance.
"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.
Why did you deliberately leave out the parts of the quoted post that gave you exactly what you are asking for?
Are you talking about this?
https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5429240/FID89/PUB9/chapters/tblexpl.pdf
Tables 13, 14 15 and 16 all are used. The mathematics are provided.
That's a document titled "explanation of navigation tables". This is not study. It is explaining how tables work.
Do you agree to document produces the correct results? If you are unsure you need to do some research of your own before you comment.
-
Verification is easy since the introduction of radar, i have measured the vertical angle to lighthouses, mountains etc, and been able to calculate the range of the vessel from them. I have then used the radar to verify the calculations (and tables) and have come up with the same (or very nearly the same) answer. This has been further verified by then steaming towards the object at a certain speed for a certain time, and actually covering that distance.
"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.
That's a document titled "explanation of navigation tables". This is not study. It is explaining how tables work.
Do you agree to document produces the correct results? If you are unsure you need to do some research of your own before you comment.
This is a good one, because it will require really strong levels of denial. We have someone who actually navigates around the world. He's shown in some detail how he does it, and how at every level it requires the assumption of a round Earth.
We know that this won't change anyone's mind, but it will be interesting to see how it's rejected. There'll be various ways - he'll be accused of misrepresentation or downright lying, that the techniques used are in fact compatible with a flat Earth, that this is all a CIA trick - mostly though it will just be ignored.
We have in the above "verification" quote an example of how nowadays our lives are totally bound up with the reality of the globe, and that it requires a very particular mindset to ignore it.
-
Tontogary is a classic example of someone who thinks he is going round the globe, but in reality isn't.
-
"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.
Unless it's from Rowbotham of course in which case him saying "this is what I saw" is cast-iron proof. No data required. :D
How are your empirical measurements of horizon dip coming along? You're am empiricist so I'm sure you're keen to get going on that.
You've been given a suggested experiment to try, or you can devise your own.
Looking forward to seeing you studies and data...
-
Dr Rowbotham did provide proof.
-
Tontogary is a classic example of someone who thinks he is going round the globe, but in reality isn't.
This schtick is getting old. Starting to think this is simply Tom's troll account rather than a standard troll.
-
Dr Rowbotham did provide proof.
Which has been summarily debunked by modern (and ancient) science.
-
Starting to think this is simply Tom's troll account rather than a standard troll.
I thought Tom's account was a troll account.........
Rowbotham's book is full of anecdotal 'evidence', it relies on us believing second hand accounts when Rowbotham assures us that "a person of good standing assured him that......" and other such like.
-
Dr Rowbotham did provide proof.
Which has been summarily debunked by modern (and ancient) science.
Except it hasn't though.
-
Dr Rowbotham did provide proof.
Which has been summarily debunked by modern (and ancient) science.
Except it hasn't though.
Please describe measurements that prove a flat earth.
-
Tontogary is a classic example of someone who thinks he is going round the globe, but in reality isn't.
Then please explain where i am going, and how i am deluded into thinking i went around the globe. I would be fascinated to hear how you are able to know this better than i am, one person among thousands, if not millions who have.
-
Given an object of known height above the datum level (sea level, highest astronomical tide, whatever is being used) it is easy to use tables, or in fact calculate the distance you are from that distance by using a sextant.
Knowing your own hieght of eye is also important, as this will give you the distance to the visible horizon, and if the base of the object is closer than the visible horizon, then that is the only calculation needed, however, if the object is further away than the visible horizon, you can still calculate how far beyond the visible horizon the object is by doing a similar calculation taking into account the Base of the object (of a known hieght) will be below the horizon, and that can be measured.
Verification is easy since the introduction of radar, i have measured the vertical angle to lighthouses, mountains etc, and been able to calculate the range of the vessel from them. I have then used the radar to verify the calculations (and tables) and have come up with the same (or very nearly the same) answer. This has been further verified by then steaming towards the object at a certain speed for a certain time, and actually covering that distance.
"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.
Why did you deliberately leave out the parts of the quoted post that gave you exactly what you are asking for?
Are you talking about this?
https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5429240/FID89/PUB9/chapters/tblexpl.pdf
Tables 13, 14 15 and 16 all are used. The mathematics are provided.
That's a document titled "explanation of navigation tables". This is not study. It is explaining how tables work.
Yes the link does explain how the tables are calculated, the mathematics involved, so you can do your own calculations.
I have used the calculations, and tables, and they work, and have told you that they work. Please can you do some experiments, and observations to prove i am a liar, and i will look at your “experiment” and see what you have to say. Calling me a liar does not cut it with me. I want you to be able to explain through practical experiments why the tables dont work.
As part of my job i also teach apprentices in navigation, and where we pass suitable landmark this is one of the methods that we teach, and i verify the observations by radar. How do you do verify your distances when you do the experiment? Oh thats right you have never done it yourself have you?
-
Tontogary is a classic example of someone who thinks he is going round the globe, but in reality isn't.
And yet, somehow, he ends up where he intends to go. lf he is able to direct his ship across the Earth, using the methods he's described in some detail, then how come it gets to where it's headed.
Here are some possibilities:
- He's just a big ol' liar. He's never been on a ship, even. He's never done any navigation. He's a shill for the whole round Earth conspiracy.
- He is a real navigator, but he doesn't calculate things the way he says he does. Part of his training is to learn the fake techniques, and then how to do real navigation on the real maps.
- He does all the things he says and somehow, due to some weird coincidence, the round Earth model happens to work for navigating on a flat Earth.
- The Earth is a globe, Tontogary navigates using the techniques he's shown, and Parallax knows this very well, and he's testing just how absurd he can get without us copping on. (My own preferred theory). The stuff about Australia being upside down was a bit much.
As a navigator, Tontogary will be able to confirm that the distances in the Southern Hemisphere (so-called) are twice as great as would be expected on a globe, and correspond to the distances we'd expect from a North Pole centred flat Earth. (That's just about the point where I thought "No, Parallax couldn't really be meaning this stuff, there's something else going on.")
-
"No, Parallax couldn't really be meaning this stuff, there's something else going on."
Much like the original Parallax :D
-
I want you to be able to explain through practical experiments why the tables dont work.
That is not how things work. It was your claim, so it is your burden to demonstrate it.
I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea. Did you see me telling people "prove me wrong?" I went and found some evidence and demonstrated that the horizon line rose with the observer.
That is what is expected of you. Demonstrate your positive claims. We frankly don't have the time, resources, or inclination to answer all "prove me wrong" queries we get; and it is not really our responsibility to do that. It is the claimant's responsibility to demonstrate his own claims.
"Ghosts exist, prove me wrong" is an invalid argument. No one is obligated to disprove someone's wild claims of the existence of ghosts. But "Here is some evidence that ghosts exist" is a slightly more valid, although perhaps ultimately faulty, argument. Understand?
-
I want you to be able to explain through practical experiments why the tables dont work.
That is not how things work. It was your claim, so it is your burden to demonstrate it.
I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea. Did you see me telling people "prove me wrong?" I went and found some evidence and demonstrated that the horizon line rose with the observer.
That is what is expected of you. Demonstrate your positive claims. We frankly don't have the time, resources, or inclination to answer all "prove me wrong" queries we get; and it is not really our responsibility to do that. It is the claimant's responsibility to demonstrate his own claims.
"Ghosts exist, prove me wrong" is an invalid argument. No one is obligated to disprove someone's wild claims of the existence of ghosts. "Here is some evidence that ghosts exist" is a slightly more valid, although perhaps ultimately faulty, argument. Understand?
You being able to post this is proof of his claims.
-
I want you to be able to explain through practical experiments why the tables dont work.
That is not how things work. It was your claim, so it is your burden to demonstrate it.
I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea. Did you see me telling people "prove me wrong?" I went and found some evidence and demonstrated that the horizon line rose with the observer.
That is what is expected of you. Demonstrate your positive claims. We frankly don't have the time, resources, or inclination to address everything. Asking others to prove a negative is not a valid form of debate.
Ok the next time we are passing a suitable piece of land i will do so, however i am sure that you will claim my photos are fake, or it was false.
Surely the burden too debunk my experiences are on you. You say they are false, therefore prove it. I have done the practical measurements, and have made the calculations, that is my evidence, you need to prove i am lying, and i have given you the tools to disprove me, therefore you should go out and prove i am wrong.
Sitting there saying you are wrong does not cut it with me.
When real scientists, not charlatans, give their method, and results, (i clearly stated i had followed the method, and have achieved the results, i.e. replicated the experiment) then other REAL scientists follow the method to replicate the results. You are not a real scientist, as all you are saying is, i dont want to follow the experiment, i just claim its false, and you need to do more and more, however your past record shows whatever photos or other evidence is placed in front of you will be claimed as photoshopped, or fake.
Be a real man of science, i challenge you, and go and do this experiment yourself, if you can work a sextant and radar set i would be most surprised though.
-
Yes i can,
I have beeen sailing since 1985, Gained my 1st certificate of competency as 2nd mate in 1989, and chief Officer licence in 1996, and my Masters licence in1999. I have been sailing as a Master of oil and gas tankers since 2004, so 14 years in command.
I can show a copy of my masters licence, although for obvious reasons (security and ID fraud being 2) will not show my licence number. As part of my navigational training we studied many subjects, Magnetism, correction of magnetic compasses, and the earths magnetic field.
Electronic navigational systems, such a GPS, transit sat NAV, as well as radio nav systems, nav aids, such as gyros and gyro compasses, radars, theory and understanding of them.
Navigation, celestial navigation which relies heavily on spoherical trigonometry, and principles of position fixing, as well as in depth position fixing from celestial bodies.
Surface navigation, using Rhumb lines, GFreat circles, composite great circles, and calculation of distances along different courses and to different destinations.
Calculation of vertical sextant angles to find distance from a known point, horizontal angles for the same, as well as bearings and ranges from objects.
Cartography, different projections of charts and why, Mercator, gnomonic projection etc, and how the world is charted.
I have spent years practicing celestial navigation, and it works...
As well as law, safety of life at sea, commercial and civil law, and loading of cargos and carriage of cargoes. Stability and damage control, rules of sailing and rules of the road. World wide weather patterns and the reasons for them
All of these things i have studied and understood to be able to pass my master mariners licence, of which i can provide a copy in a few hours. We are in the indonesian islands passages at present, it is late but i can provide my Master mariners licence.
Does that qualify Me as someone who has experienced quite a bit when it comes to actual real life experiences, and not some dragged up references for nearly 200 years ago?
Attached are copies of my licence as a Master Mariner
-
I want you to be able to explain through practical experiments why the tables dont work.
That is not how things work. It was your claim, so it is your burden to demonstrate it.
I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea. Did you see me telling people "prove me wrong?" I went and found some evidence and demonstrated that the horizon line rose with the observer.
That is what is expected of you. Demonstrate your positive claims. We frankly don't have the time, resources, or inclination to answer all "prove me wrong" queries we get; and it is not really our responsibility to do that. It is the claimant's responsibility to demonstrate his own claims.
"Ghosts exist, prove me wrong" is an invalid argument. No one is obligated to disprove someone's wild claims of the existence of ghosts. But "Here is some evidence that ghosts exist" is a slightly more valid, although perhaps ultimately faulty, argument. Understand?
Using professional equipment. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6viR_GJ8998
Saying the horizon rises makes no sense.
-
Tin will be dismissed by tom or parallax as fake or photoshop!
-
It will be dismissed by tom or parallax as fake or photoshop!
Something he could easily measure himself. Or someone else in the group he calls 'we'.
-
I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea.
Actually, your original claim was
The horizon is always at eye level.
Your video doesn't support that at all. You admitted yourself that the video is:
from an unstabilized drone which might tilt up or down when moving vertically.
And therefore useless for demonstrating that original claim.
You have been shown an experiment which clearly shows that the horizon is NOT always at eye level, an experiment you can easily repeat with minimal cost.
You're an empiricist (allegedly), why not repeat the experiment? Or devise your own if you think that experiment is not valid for some reason.
We await the results...although we know we won't get any, because you know we are correct. :)
The stupidest thing about all this is the horizon would dip on a flat earth too, my diagram in the initial post shows this clearly.
But you're so unwilling to concede any ground in any debate that you won't admit this even though it doesn't actually debunk the idea of a flat earth.
Which just reinforces the idea that you're actually just trolling and enjoy trying to argue indefensible positions for the fun of it.
-
I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea.
Actually, your original claim was
The horizon is always at eye level.
...
TBF the two claims are effectively equivalent.
It is funny how willing the FE community are to make assertions that are so easily disproved. This is not a measurement that's difficult to do. It shows how ad hoc and off the cuff the whole thing is, for all the wikis and books and YouTube videos. There's no body of flat Earth theory - it's whatever pops into someone's head at any time. This one will probably be abandoned now, here, but will resurface immediately somewhere else.
-
I made a claim earlier in this thread about the horizon rising as an observer increases altitude, and I provided evidence and a video to support that idea. Did you see me telling people "prove me wrong?" I went and found some evidence and demonstrated that the horizon line rose with the observer.
Did you read the posts immediately after, wherein I and others pointed out the flaws in your conclusion based on that video?
-
TBF the two claims are effectively equivalent.
They're similar but not equivalent. The FE claim is that the horizon is always at eye level.
It isn't, the dip to the horizon is measurable at different altitudes and changes with altitude.
The confusion here is that even at 10000 feet the angle of dip is less than 2 degrees because the earth is so big.
So it is hard to discern but it can be measured.
An experiment to do so has been shown, for people who claim to be empiricists they are amazingly reluctant to do any experimentation.
-
TBF the two claims are effectively equivalent.
They're similar but not equivalent. The FE claim is that the horizon is always at eye level.
It isn't, the dip to the horizon is measurable at different altitudes and changes with altitude.
The confusion here is that even at 10000 feet the angle of dip is less than 2 degrees because the earth is so big.
So it is hard to discern but it can be measured.
An experiment to do so has been shown, for people who claim to be empiricists they are amazingly reluctant to do any experimentation.
Well, why use a quick, cheap and easy way to accurately measure something when you can just eyeball it and make an assertion?
-
I rather enjoy easy experiments like this. I have some stuff laying around I can make a water level out of, and will get some pictures or video when I ride up a mountain nearby again in a week or two. I'll even center the camera on the water level, with both mounted on tripods.
-
And i can even provide a set of tables which will quantify the dif for elevation.
They are from Norris’s nautical tables first published in 1805 when Rowbotham was not even a twinkle in his daddies eye, but more importantly they have stood the test of time, and literally millions of navigators have used them. Without them navigation would not work.....
-
And i can even provide a set of tables which will quantify the dif for elevation.
They are from Norris’s nautical tables first published in 1805 when Rowbotham was not even a twinkle in his daddies eye, but more importantly they have stood the test of time, and literally millions of navigators have used them. Without them navigation would not work.....
Navigation is no problem without the table "Distance to light appearing at Horizon"
There's a easy formula to calculate the values in the table. So navigators or hobby sailors like me can also calculate these vales without the tables.
And: I very seldom use these distance calculation, as often - due to variable atmospheric refraction, tides, waves - more accurate distances can be derived from other navigation means (besides GPS, e.g. triangulation or dead reckoning).
AH sorry, I should have read the attachment first.
"Dip of Sea horizon", Yes, essential for astronavigation with sextant
-
And i can even provide a set of tables which will quantify the dif for elevation.
They are from Norris’s nautical tables first published in 1805 when Rowbotham was not even a twinkle in his daddies eye, but more importantly they have stood the test of time, and literally millions of navigators have used them. Without them navigation would not work.....
Navigation is no problem without the table "Distance to light appearing at Horizon"
There's a easy formula to calculate the values in the table. So navigators or hobby sailors like me can also calculate these vales without the tables.
And: I very seldom use these distance calculation, as often - due to variable atmospheric refraction, tides, waves - more accurate distances can be derived from other navigation means (besides GPS, e.g. triangulation or dead reckoning).
AH sorry, I should have read the attachment first.
"Dip of Sea horizon", Yes, essential for astronavigation with sextant
Without the use of dip to the horizon, all Navigation calculations are off by a fairly large amount, in the case of my ship with 34M hieght of eye, the error will be over 10 miles for each position line, making it impossible to find the vessels position.
Proof enough methinks!