The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Max_Almond on February 03, 2019, 12:17:54 PM

Title: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 03, 2019, 12:17:54 PM
Theodolite? Water level? Spirit level?

I want to do an eye level test but I want it FE-approved.

Cheers. :)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: J-Man on February 04, 2019, 04:14:30 AM
My understanding is you need to work with an optometrist. Everyone's viewing perspective is different. Do you wear corrective lens, which eye is dominant? Will you be viewing with both eyes or one? Have you trained your eye(s) for extended viewing times and distance? The eye is complex and sailors saw different things on the horizons at virtually the same time. Thus the myth of curved earth.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 04, 2019, 07:17:42 AM
While I'm a big fan of satire, I am also hopeful that at least a few flat earth believers will take the time to provide an answer to this question: it will be genuinely appreciated.

Cheers. :)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: totallackey on February 08, 2019, 12:03:53 PM
IMO, I believe any tool you utilize would need to be portable to the extent of carrying to great heights above the surface of the flat plain of the earth.

I have seen people claiming to have such devices loaded on a smartphone app, utilizing the camera on the smart phone.

I have no idea if they properly work, nor am I aware if the camera on the smartphone would skew the results, having never seen any evidence of confirmation (i.e., two persons side by side using the same app and posting the results simultaneously) or calibration tests by an independent lab.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: ChrisTP on February 08, 2019, 12:13:48 PM
Water in tubes.

https://flatearth.ws/water-level-horizon
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 08, 2019, 12:59:55 PM
Water in tubes.

https://flatearth.ws/water-level-horizon
I think that's a pretty good way. After all, "water finds its level", right?
So you can be pretty confident that if you're looking across the two connected tubes that you're looking horizontally.
It's also a pretty cheap method which anyone could reproduce with a minimum of expense.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: robinofloxley on February 08, 2019, 03:54:52 PM
My favorite is this experiment carried out by Critical Think

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54FiuS9ZplM&t=63s
in response to a video from Antonio Subirats.

The idea is very simple. Find somewhere reasonably high up where you can see the sea and a clear horizon in front of you and you can also see the sea and a horizon directly behind you (he's at Byron Bay NSW Australia).

Fasten a simple, long straight cardboard tube to a spirit level and a tripod. Stand at one end, adjust the tube so you can see the horizon in the middle when you look down the tube - eye level right?

Now, without touching anything, look down the other end of the tube - you can see the horizon again because it's at eye level - yes? Of course you can't, it's pointing up in the sky and the spirit level confirms the tube isn't level.

Needless to say Antonio Subirats wriggled and squirmed trying to discredit the video. I think at one point complaining for some reason that the experiment was invalid because the tube was made of cardboard. The back and forth ran on for a while and was very entertaining.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 08, 2019, 04:28:13 PM
The tube test is good. I have a place near me with horizons behind and in front, but don't have a spirit level, so I made two tubes side by side. When one each is pointed at the horizon they reveal...well, we all know what they reveal. ;-)

I've also been doing water levels observations, and will be going up a 1500 foot hill soon to do a whole bunch of observations simultaneously.

In the meantime, here's a photo I took from 600 feet above sea level:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/screenshot-83-png.35945/)

The mountains in the distance are up to 5100 feet tall. The 1500 foot shot is similar, but the sun sets a little more to the left of this range, so I can get both the sun and the horizon below eye level, as well those much higher peaks.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 08, 2019, 04:41:20 PM
The tube test is pretty much flawless and I'd say the spirit level is superfluous. If the horizon rises to eye level then by definition if you can see the horizon through one end then the tube must be level and you'd be able to see the horizon through the other end of the tube too.

That said, none of this proves a globe earth. Even if the earth were flat the horizon would be below eye level. The horizon would be a point on the earth, you'd still be looking down at it:

(https://image.ibb.co/fxUSB7/horizon.jpg)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 08, 2019, 05:38:13 PM
Even if the earth were flat the horizon would be below eye level.

If the earth were flat, there wouldn't be a horizon. ;)

And it at least proves that flat earthers have been saying and believing something totally incorrect yet incredibly simple to measure for at least 150 years.

Furthermore, that those pesky idiot 'globers' have been not only telling them they were wrong, but getting it right.

The intellectually developed flat earther here thinks: gee whizz, I wonder what else I've been wrong about, and in which other ways they've been right?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: markjo on February 08, 2019, 06:31:23 PM
Even if the earth were flat the horizon would be below eye level.

If the earth were flat, there wouldn't be a horizon. ;)
Actually, there would.  The horizon is defined as where earth and sky appear to meet.  That would still be a valid observation regardless of the shape of the earth.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 08, 2019, 06:51:38 PM
What would cause a horizon on a flat earth? In reality, it's caused by the curve. But a plane would just disappear into haze at an arbitrary, ever-changing distance, much further away than the actual horizon we see every day.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 08, 2019, 07:52:34 PM
The following page will give you everything that you need to know: https://wiki.tfes.org/Water_Level_Devices

Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: ChrisTP on February 08, 2019, 08:38:59 PM
The following page will give you everything that you need to know: https://wiki.tfes.org/Water_Level_Devices
that article shows water not being level in test tubes where green dye is used more to the right, then states later that dye can cause inconsistencies. It debunked itself...

Then a series of images showing the water device in different locations at different camera angles to show apparent inconsistencies... But of course they are inconsistent because of those changes, not sure what that's trying to show, could you explain?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 08, 2019, 08:43:10 PM
The following page will give you everything that you need to know: https://wiki.tfes.org/Water_Level_Devices
that article shows water not being level in test tubes where green dye is used more to the right, then states later that dye can cause inconsistencies. It debunked itself...

Dye is often used in the water level experiments...
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: ChrisTP on February 08, 2019, 08:59:12 PM
The following page will give you everything that you need to know: https://wiki.tfes.org/Water_Level_Devices
that article shows water not being level in test tubes where green dye is used more to the right, then states later that dye can cause inconsistencies. It debunked itself...

Uh, dye is often used in the water level experiments...
you seem to be ignoring the point, the dye is clearly diluted further to the left in the tube, it seems the more green dye there is, the higher the level of liquid which of course could be coincidence, but in that very same article it is also stated that dye has different properties to pure water which can give the liquid varying levels. Why isn’t there a consistent amount of dye used in that set of tubes that show inconsistent levels? How can anyone prove an inconsistency with an inconsistent experiment?

Of course, in that same image there’s no proof that the tubes are even level with the camera used, what’s to stop someone tilting the tubes and the camera?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 08, 2019, 09:03:32 PM
The liquid is higher in the smaller tubes mainly because of capillary action. The article is accurate. If the dye plays a part, it would depend on the weight and buoyancy of the dye.

https://courses.umass.edu/plecprep/fluids/2a2010.html

(https://courses.umass.edu/plecprep/fluids/pics/2a2010.jpg)

"Description: This is a set of capillary tubes of various diameters used to show capillary rise with water."

Your argument that "dye is used therefore debunked" is pretty weak since most of the water level experiments use dye, and you are therefore arguing that those water level experiments are debunked.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: ChrisTP on February 08, 2019, 09:07:48 PM
Ok so as long as the tubes are the same width using the same mixture of liquid all should be well. I guess to further measure the accuracy you could also mark the tubes with precise ruler lines to show the liquid is meeting the correct level of the tubes
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 09, 2019, 06:58:19 AM
Ok so as long as the tubes are the same width using the same mixture of liquid all should be well. I guess to further measure the accuracy you could also mark the tubes with precise ruler lines to show the liquid is meeting the correct level of the tubes.

That's well said, Chris - and credit to Tom for pointing out the need to be careful with water levels.

I suppose an easy test to show whether a water level is showing level or not would be to place it on a level surface and measure up to the two surfaces.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2019, 09:40:49 AM
Quite incorrect and undemonstrated. The Britannica article says that the surface tension is not level and there are several examples of the water level experiment giving inconsistent results or being inaccurate. These experiments are jokes, and they give large and differing results.

Show us that water tension is level and always gives the same results.

The closer we get things to our face in the foreground, the more accurate all elements of leveling needs to be. You are assuming that we can just wing it on the imprecise nature water tension and the fact that the water levels are arguably off very slightly in the images.

None can doubt that a slight error in altitude and leveling in the foreground can create a large impact on the background. You are just winging without knowing how precise you need to be.

The errors shown and inconsistency of these experiments invalidates the matter until demonstrated otherwise. Are we to believe that it doesn't matter that the water line kept changing in relation to the bodies in the background? Are we to believe it doesn't matter that the water doesn't line up in some of the devices?

If you want to conduct an experiment you need to really prove the matter and the validity of the tools used.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: inquisitive on February 09, 2019, 10:04:52 AM
Quite incorrect and undemonstrated. The Britannica article says that the surface tension is not level and there are several examples of the water level experiment giving inconsistent results or being inaccurate. These experiments are jokes, and they give large and differing results.

Show us that water tension is level and always gives the same results.

The closer we get things to our face in the foreground, the more accurate all elements of leveling needs to be. You are assuming that we can just wing it on the imprecise nature water tension and the fact that the water levels are arguably off very slightly in the images.

None can doubt that a slight error in altitude and leveling in the foreground can create a large impact on the background. You are just winging without knowing how precise you need to be.

The errors shown and inconsistency of these experiments invalidates the matter until demonstrated otherwise. Are we to believe that it doesn't matter that the water line kept changing in relation to the bodies in the background? Are we to believe it doesn't matter that the water doesn't line up in some of the devices?

If you want to conduct an experiment you need to really prove the matter and the validity of the tools used.
What professional equipment would you propose using?

re 'Professional surveyors admit that the science is always in error.'  The amount of the error is important.  And the statement does not mention 'science'.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2019, 10:42:16 AM
Rowbotham studied the matter and the surveying tools: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za16.htm

Devices with lenses are inaccurate and there is nothing about water level experiment methods.

Read Earth Not a Globe. The matter is studied there.

If you are going to do an experiment then you really need to prove the methods. These water level experiments are amateur rubbish.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: inquisitive on February 09, 2019, 04:17:22 PM
Rowbotham studied the matter and the surveying tools: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za16.htm

Devices with lenses are inaccurate and there is nothing about water level experiment methods.

Read Earth Not a Globe. The matter is studied there.

If you are going to do an experiment then you really need to prove the methods. These water level experiments are amateur rubbish.
What have you proved recently with the latest equipment available?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 09, 2019, 04:28:07 PM
It's clear that Tom disapproves of water levels because observations using them contradict the flat earth notion.

Maybe he can tell us, then, what he does approve of for measuring where eye level is?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2019, 05:05:30 PM
If the water level tools and other methods showed a consistent distance above the horizon, it would be undeniable.

In ENAG Rowbotham shows at least two methods where the horizon registers at eye level or very close to it.

Also, find a calculator showing what the drop would be under RET. It is nowhere close to the 1 degree+ that these horizon drop experiments show. Show that your theory matches the results. It is deceptive to show us a random drop that may or may not match your theory. Be honest.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: inquisitive on February 09, 2019, 05:19:23 PM
If the water level tools and other methods showed a consistent distance above the horizon, it would be undeniable.

In ENAG Rowbotham shows at least two methods where the horizon registers at eye level or very close to it.

Also, find a calculator showing what the drop would be under RET. It is nowhere close to the 1 degree+ that these horizon drop experiments show. Show that your theory matches the results. It is deceptive to show us a random drop that may or may not match your theory. Be honest.
Why can you not show what the drop is?  You know the numbers.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2019, 05:42:20 PM
What are you talking about? These are your experiments. You have calculators available to you online. Show that the water level tools give consistent results, and that those results match your theory.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 09, 2019, 05:51:46 PM
The tests match the predicted drop amount very well, Tom. Here's a photo from a theodolite app calibrated at sea level, taken from a hill of 1500 feet elevation. Predicted drop at that height is -0.635°.

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/7b-th000011-jpg.35875/)

Accuracy for the app is said to be 0.1°, which seems to bear out the times I've used it.

I think the thing you're not quite understanding about the water levels is that they're accurate enough for purpose, and backed up by what professional tools, theory, and common sense all tell us.

I'll be happy to look at Rowbotham's methods, but I'd appreciate it if you'd pinpoint where I can find them.

Cheers.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 09, 2019, 06:24:27 PM
These devices are not "accurate for the purpose". They need to give consistent results, and those results need to match RET.

Another issue is that the operators are not ensuring that the containers are perfectly parallel. The height of the surface tension changes when viewed at a slight angle.

(https://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/meniscus2.png)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: stack on February 09, 2019, 06:35:43 PM
If the water level tools and other methods showed a consistent distance above the horizon, it would be undeniable.

In ENAG Rowbotham shows at least two methods where the horizon registers at eye level or very close to it.

I think I found one in the link you provided:

"Another proof will be found in the following experiment. Select any promontory, pier, lighthouse gallery, or small island, and, at a considerable altitude, place a smooth block of wood or stone of any magnitude; let this be "levelled." If, then, the observer will place his eye close to the block, and look along its surface towards the sea, he will find that the line of sight will touch the distant horizon. Now let any number of spirit levels or theodolites be properly placed, and accurately adjusted; and it will be found that, in every one of them, the same sea horizon will appear in the field of view considerably below the cross-hair; thus, proving that telescopic instrumental readings are not the same as those of the naked eye."

A few things about this:

1) Not surprising that the naked eye and a block of wood may result in a different result than anything with magnification. Kind of like saying you can't see the detail of the moon's surface with the naked eye as well as with a telescope. Go figure.
2) I don't think water levels are any less accurate than staring across the plane of a block of wood. I would think more so, actually.
2) Lot's of pretty impressive structures are built around the world these days requiring hyper accurate telescopic surveying readings/measurements. Maybe these surveying instruments weren't super great back 150 years ago. Maybe they were. Point is, if the argument is that surveying gear gives a different result than a block of wood and your eyeball, I think engineering relies more on the surveying gear.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: stack on February 09, 2019, 06:39:02 PM
These devices are not "accurate for the purpose". They need to give consistent results, and those results need to match RET.

Another issue is that the operators are not ensuring that the containera are perfectly parallel. The height of the surface tension changes when viewed at a slight angle.

(https://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/meniscus2.png)

As well, you're saying this is a "meniscus effect". If so, it's one heck of a meniscus and one that I or anyone else can't see.

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/screenshot-83-png.35945/)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: inquisitive on February 09, 2019, 06:48:39 PM
These devices are not "accurate for the purpose". They need to give consistent results, and those results need to match RET.

Another issue is that the operators are not ensuring that the containera are perfectly parallel. The height of the surface tension changes when viewed at a slight angle.

(https://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/meniscus2.png)
Which devices would you use today from the world of surveying to measure the earth we all live on?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 09, 2019, 07:48:51 PM
If the water level tools and other methods showed a consistent distance above the horizon, it would be undeniable.
It's things like this which make me struggle to believe you are sincere in what you say you believe.
You yourself have posted videos which show the horizon rising and falling over the course of a day.
So you do understand that there are atmospheric effects which can change the observable horizon, now you are demanding consistent results and claiming that if that can't be achieved then it discredits all these experiments.

The consistent thing which all these experiments demonstrate - and multiple methods have been shown on here since I've been posting here - are the two results that:
1) Horizon dips below eye level and
2) The amount of dip increases with altitude.

This is as predicted by the globe earth model. Whether the degree of dip is exactly as predicted by a mathematical model is not relevant. For a start most of the experiments have merely sought to show the two results above, they haven't measured exact angles of dip. And secondly because of the above atmospheric effects - the ones you yourself have cited in the past - the exact mathematical model and reality may not perfectly match. But the two results above are still good enough to give confidence of the globe earth model unless there is some way of explaining those results on your flat earth model.

The experiments I've read about from Rowbotham are the one on Brighton pier and one in the Grand Hotel in Brighton. Neither of these structures are tall enough to observe a measurable horizon dip. In the link you posted above he goes on to claim that the same result was achieved from other higher vantage points but there are no details, no evidence he actually did the experiments, it's just him saying it. Here you're being shown photos and video of other experiments which show a very different results and all you've done is wriggle and try and discredit anything which doesn't back up Rowbotham's claims. And all the while you have refused to do any tests of your own.

The silly thing about all this is that the horizon could not rise to eye level on a flat earth anyway. If we agree that the horizon is a point on the earth which is the limit of your vision then it would still be below eye level on a flat earth because it's a triangle between your eye, the ground directly below your eye and the point on the horizon:

(https://image.ibb.co/fxUSB7/horizon.jpg)

I've seen you grumble on here about "appeals to authority" but this is all you're doing here - your authority is Rowbotham and so anything done which contradicts his findings is dismissed somehow. If you dispute the findings of all these experiments then perform your own tests and post the results for review.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 09, 2019, 07:54:40 PM
These devices are not "accurate for the purpose". They need to give consistent results, and those results need to match RET.

The results are completely consistent: they always show that the horizon is below eye level from altitude.

I'm surprised you're having a hard time understanding that, Tom. Is there a way I can explain it more clearly?

Also, you still haven't put forward what you think is the best tool for the job.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 10, 2019, 02:13:50 AM
I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe for the proper experiments.

Everything needs to be level. Any slight error makes a large error in the background.

(https://i.imgur.com/7RWzNRD.png)

Phucket World had shown you that the elements in the experiment are often not level.

https://youtu.be/BYQmSwCUvVY?t=521
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: stack on February 10, 2019, 05:30:22 AM
I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe for the proper experiments.

Everything needs to be level. Any slight error makes a large error in the background.

(https://i.imgur.com/7RWzNRD.png)

Phucket World had shown you that the elements in the experiment are often not level.

https://youtu.be/BYQmSwCUvVY?t=521

Agreed. Level is crucial. However, Phuket gets it all wrong in his assessment. He's taking a screen grab of the image and lets say the grab is 200px tall, 300px wide.  Pops it into photoshop, splits the the image horizontally with a line at 100px and calls that line eye level. Even though the water levels show level, Phuket's ,middle of the screen grab does not. In other words, what he thinks is eye level is just him splitting a cropped photo in two.  Very sloppy on his part.

And for anyone doing the experiment and documenting it, make sure to include the full frame of the image so that someone like a Phuket can't come along and make up his own eye level.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 10, 2019, 07:43:31 AM
I haven't seen much of Nick Davies's videos (Phuket Word) but, yes, as pointed out above, even after many hundreds have people have told him otherwise, he still thinks 'the centre of the frame' signifies something. It's hard to understand why a thinking person would believe this. He could test it and see that he's wrong about that in seconds.

Please pinpoint 'the proper experiments' Tom.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: robinofloxley on February 10, 2019, 09:09:53 AM
If the water level tools and other methods showed a consistent distance above the horizon, it would be undeniable.

In ENAG Rowbotham shows at least two methods where the horizon registers at eye level or very close to it.

I think I found one in the link you provided:

"Another proof will be found in the following experiment. Select any promontory, pier, lighthouse gallery, or small island, and, at a considerable altitude, place a smooth block of wood or stone of any magnitude; let this be "levelled." If, then, the observer will place his eye close to the block, and look along its surface towards the sea, he will find that the line of sight will touch the distant horizon. Now let any number of spirit levels or theodolites be properly placed, and accurately adjusted; and it will be found that, in every one of them, the same sea horizon will appear in the field of view considerably below the cross-hair; thus, proving that telescopic instrumental readings are not the same as those of the naked eye."


This seems very similar to the experiment carried out by Critical Think at Byron Bay I referred to earlier. He's doing more or less the same experiment in reverse. He's looking through a tube and aligning it with the horizon and then checking to see if it is level (spoiler - it isn't, not even close). Obviously he is filming it, so there is a camera lens involved, but other than that there are no instruments or lenses of any kind here, just a mark 1 human eyeball, but using a cardboard tube to look through. Clearly if he leveled the tube, he'd have to raise the dipped end and hence would no longer see the horizon dead center in the tube.

If anyone is going to dismiss this evidence because of a lens in the camera then that's game over because no photographic evidence can ever be acceptable.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: stack on February 10, 2019, 09:31:45 AM
I haven't seen much of Nick Davies's videos (Phuket Word) but, yes, as pointed out above, even after many hundreds have people have told him otherwise, he still thinks 'the centre of the frame' signifies something. It's hard to understand why a thinking person would believe this. He could test it and see that he's wrong about that in seconds.

Please pinpoint 'the proper experiments' Tom.

Other pinpoints to be aware of. After 21 or so pages of a similar thread you were involved in, Tom stated:

I agree that the horizon isn't always at eye level, and drops as elevation increases. I have actually been planning to update the Wiki with some of Bobby's content. I have been thinking of making a page dedicated to the water level experiment as well.

I like to see the results of bobby's experiments and posts. I wouldn't mind putting every one of them somewhere in some kind of repository. I have sent a PM to some of the others about what we can do.

When questioned, went on to say:

I agree that the horizon isn't always at eye level, and drops as elevation increases. I have actually been planning to update the Wiki with some of Bobby's content.

There are a lot of people on here who would strongly disagree with you Tom. Before updating the wiki why don't we first determine if the horizon really drops or if we just perceive the drop of the horizon due to some sort of environment/atmospheric/optical phenomenon

I believe that was the point of all of this. The horizon isn't "always at eye level" as asserted in the Wiki, and a change is needed. The Wiki forgot about the concept of fog and atmosphere.

Bobby posted some images of the horizon level changing based on changing atmospheric conditions. I think that this is a fair change, and I do think that most FE'ers use the atmosphere argument when this subject comes up. You were misinterpreting the meaning of my post. It agrees with you.

So there's that. Refraction as the RE/FE escape hatch.

But I thought Shafto's follow up imagery was particularly relevant with no response from FE:

Annotated:

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/24whidj.jpg)

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/xfck06.jpg)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 10, 2019, 03:58:30 PM
I suppose if there were a problem with these levels, there would be occasions when the horizon does appear to be at eye level (from elevation). Yet it never, ever does.

Anyway, I can recreate that Rowbotham observation easily enough, and better. If Tom tells me what the other one is I'll incorporate that one too.

Cheers. :)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: inquisitive on February 10, 2019, 04:57:44 PM
I suppose if there were a problem with these levels, there would be occasions when the horizon does appear to be at eye level (from elevation). Yet it never, ever does.

Anyway, I can recreate that Rowbotham observation easily enough, and better. If Tom tells me what the other one is I'll incorporate that one too.

Cheers. :)
Still waiting for Tom to specify equipment available today for this project.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 10, 2019, 04:59:47 PM
A block of wood is one of them. I think I can manage that. Or maybe something even better. :)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 10, 2019, 06:02:02 PM
I suppose if there were a problem with these levels, there would be occasions when the horizon does appear to be at eye level (from elevation). Yet it never, ever does.

Correct. If this result was because of error then the error would cause different results. Sometimes the horizon would appear above eye level, sometimes below. But that isn’t what the experiments show. Several different ways consistently show the two results that the horizon dips below eye level and the amount of dip increases with altitude. The experiment with the tube is yet another way of demonstrating the first of those results. No lenses involved.

I look forward to the results of Tom’s experiments
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on February 10, 2019, 09:18:58 PM
.. Even if the earth were flat the horizon would be below eye level. The horizon would be a point on the earth, you'd still be looking down at it:

I agree that we don't have a problem saying that the horizon definitely should be below eyelevel with a flat earth.

I guess what I'm struggling with is "how far down" would the horizon be?

Obviously, if we were half a mile from the outside edge, sure, it'd be down a pretty good angle.

However, if we're near the center of the earth at 600ft above sea level, looking straight out towards the edge where the sky meets the water, it's maybe what, 10,000 miles to the edge?

We would be looking down about 0.0006 degrees from true level. If there was a 600 foot high mountain at the edge, then we'd be looking straight out level.

What I'm struggling with is that even a 600 foot high mountain at 10,000 miles away is still going to be too small to see. Something 10,000 miles away will appear in the same spot whether it's at sea level or 600 feet up. That's why we say that the horizon rises to the observer's eyelevel.

Even at sealevel, it's going to be only 0.0006 degrees down, and that is such a small angle from true level, that any attempts to sight out with a water level would make the horizon to appear right at eye level for all practical purposes.



Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 10, 2019, 10:38:09 PM
The problem with that maths is you're assuming that we can see all the way to the edge which is obviously not true, it's impossible to see 10,000 miles through our atmosphere. This diagram:

(https://image.ibb.co/fxUSB7/horizon.jpg)

Is intended to show a flat earth horizon as the limit of your vision. I imagine if the earth were really flat you wouldn't get a sharp horizon line but more of a fading out of the land as it gets further away - that is what you sometimes see at altitude, the horizon is so much further away, because at altitude you can see further over the curve of the earth, so it can be harder to see a sharp horizon line because of the limits of how far we can see through the atmosphere.

The reason the horizon appears to "rise to eye level" is simply because the angle of horizon dip is so small and doesn't increase significantly until you get to heights way above what people would be at in day to day life. It is hard to perceive the dip but several different methods have consistently shown the results that horizon does dip below eye level at altitude and the amount of dip increases with altitude.

Rather than just denying this effect exists when it has been shown so clearly in several different ways it would make more sense to think about how that can be explained on a flat earth. Or if the results are really in dispute then people who dispute them should be conducting their own tests and publishing the results on here for review.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on February 11, 2019, 02:21:26 AM
If the water level tools and other methods showed a consistent distance above the horizon, it would be undeniable.

In ENAG Rowbotham shows at least two methods where the horizon registers at eye level or very close to it.

I think I found one in the link you provided:

"Another proof will be found in the following experiment. Select any promontory, pier, lighthouse gallery, or small island, and, at a considerable altitude, place a smooth block of wood or stone of any magnitude; let this be "levelled." If, then, the observer will place his eye close to the block, and look along its surface towards the sea, he will find that the line of sight will touch the distant horizon."

The problem with sighting down a block of wood is that it forces a bias.
In order to really sight straight down, you would have to have half of your pupil obscured by the wood. But then you can't see the target very well, so you instinctively raise your eye up a half a pupils width so your eye can see clearly over the board -- but now the centerline of your eye is half a pupils width *above* the edge of the wood, thus allowing you to see below the other edge of the wood.

You need a method that removes the bias - for example, sight through a straight tube or straw that's taped to the top of the level block of wood. That way you naturally center your pupil, and you naturally look out the center of the other end of the straw.

Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on February 11, 2019, 02:49:29 AM
The problem with that maths is you're assuming that we can see all the way to the edge which is obviously not true, it's impossible to see 10,000 miles through our atmosphere.
 
... snip ...

Is intended to show a flat earth horizon as the limit of your vision.

First, I have a problem with the phrase "Limit of your vision" in regards to distance. Your eyes don't reach out and grope the distant scenery and come back with a report.
Your vision in fact is not a thing, it's what we call the ability of the eye to record optical light rays entering through the lens.

Now, our eye does have a limit to angular resolution - but that is different than distance, although increase in distance does reduce the angular size of an object so it can affect the eye's resolving power.

But as far as distance, there is no limit to the distance the eye can see -- if the light source in question is powerful enough to reach all the way to our eye with enough remaining light for our eye to detect the light, then by George we can see that far! That's why we can see the sun just as it slides down outside the dome, even though it's 10,000 miles away. Conversely, if the light source is too dim, we may not be able to see it 3 feet away. But that doesn't mean we can't see past 3 feet.

While we cannot see the details of things like trees or mountains or whatever at 10,000 miles away, we can often see the sun set on the ocean, getting obscured bottom side first. If you're on a ship at sea and you look out with a telescope and there's half a sun showing, I guess it's intuitive that there's the horizon, or the edge. Obviously there's no land or ocean between you and the upper visible part of the sun, and yet there's a clean horizontal cutoff line below which you do not see the sun, so obviously something is blocking it, and I guess that would be the edge.

I know that some of us here don't believe that the sun sets but that it's always a few thousand miles up somewhere nearly over the "equatorial" path, but I'm struggling with that  because that does not provide any means for it to actually set on the horizon., for anyone, anywhere on the face of the earth. And it very clearly goes down to level and vanishes bottom end first. Math just doesn't allow it to be 3,000 miles up, and 10,000 miles away, and down on the horizon.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on February 11, 2019, 03:17:22 AM
Theodolite? Water level? Spirit level?

I want to do an eye level test but I want it FE-approved.

Cheers. :)

A theodolite should be good - just make sure it's calibrated and everything. The bubble levels on them are often out of adjustment, so you must level it, turn 90, level it, then turn 90 more, and if the bubble says it's not level, then level it back to bring the bubble half way back to level. The idea is you get it so the bubble, even if off centered, reads the same all the way around. Then it's level. But if you don't know what's going on, it can be frustrating.
And the vertical zero-position can also be off, so when you sight in a vertical angle, you then write that down and rotate it 180 degrees, flip the viewfinder around, and sight it again, and average the two readings and that cancels out the vertical zero point error.
However, if both readings are the same then you don't have to worry about double-reading and averaging. But historically, surveyors always double read and averaged.
Other than that, they are very accurate compared to trying to use carpenters levels and stuff, you can literally measure the angular size of a fly across your living room with them. If the fly holds still.
You can find youtube videos on how to use them as well.
Keep the sun off the bubble levels while leveling -- if you slightly warm one end of the bubble level, the bubble goes to that end if it's level.

As far as water levels, that's about as good as it gets but there's a few gotchas to keep in mind.
If the tube is too small, capillary action can distort things - so use the same size/kind of tube, and make it at least half an inch.
The further between the end points, the better. 
Do not seal off the ends of the tube or vapor lock will prevent the water from seeking level.  You can connect them to eachother in a loop however.
You can dye the water red, but make sure it's mixed well or the water may be more dens in one end.
Make sure the water is all the same temperature, because warmer water is lighter and will rise higher in the column.
If there are bubbles in the water, wait till they stop rising. Rising bubbles will raise the water column with them. Bubbles stuck to the tube are OK.
If you use a flexible rubber tube, you can bring both ends together to check and verify that they are seeking the same level. Then move them 10 or more feet apart to check horizon.
Another possibility would be to build a "fish tank" out of plexiglass that was a couple inches wide and 4 inches deep and 48 inches long. Just prop it up and fill it with water half way!
You could even build two identical floating sight rings to look through - and again, swap ends if you suspected bias and see if the bias went to the other direction.
But a long tube is best because you can have the two vertical sections lined up and compare them to each other quite accurately by sighting past one onto the other and then onto the horizon.
If you wanted to get fancy, you could in fact put a Y in the line at one end so there was two vertical tubes on one end, so you could sight it like gun sights.

But pretty much if a large scale water level isn't good enough, nothing is going to be good enough.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 11, 2019, 06:17:55 AM
Well said. :)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 11, 2019, 09:52:11 AM
First, I have a problem with the phrase "Limit of your vision" in regards to distance. Your eyes don't reach out and grope the distant scenery and come back with a report.
Your vision in fact is not a thing, it's what we call the ability of the eye to record optical light rays entering through the lens.

Limit of your vision was perhaps not the right wording. What I meant was the limit of visibility. You only get a clear, sharp horizon if visibility is greater than the distance to the edge of the globe earth - and that varies with altitude. This is why at high altitude the horizon may not be as clear, it's further to the horizon. At ground level the horizon is only a few miles so you can usually see it clearly but on a foggy say you get the same effect at ground level:

(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)

This is how I imagine the horizon would look like were the earth flat. Why would there be a sharp line? Why would the horizon be further away as your altitude increases? This makes perfect sense on a globe, altitude allows you to see further over the curve. On a flat earth though it shouldn't make any difference.

I'm confused about your thoughts on sunset, if the sun is really disappearing below the edge of the earth (I believe this is what some ancient civilisations believed) then surely it would be night everywhere. A reasonable belief in the ancient world where there was no quick long distance communication or transport, but now we know that when it's dark in London, England it's light in Sydney, Australia

You are correct though that a sun 3,000 miles above the plane of the earth would not set, there would be nothing to stop you seeing it at all times.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on February 11, 2019, 04:43:02 PM
First, I have a problem with the phrase "Limit of your vision" in regards to distance. Your eyes don't reach out and grope the distant scenery and come back with a report.
Your vision in fact is not a thing, it's what we call the ability of the eye to record optical light rays entering through the lens.

Limit of your vision was perhaps not the right wording. What I meant was the limit of visibility. You only get a clear, sharp horizon if visibility is greater than the distance to the edge of the globe earth - and that varies with altitude. This is why at high altitude the horizon may not be as clear, it's further to the horizon. At ground level the horizon is only a few miles so you can usually see it clearly but on a foggy say you get the same effect at ground level:

(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)

This is how I imagine the horizon would look like were the earth flat. Why would there be a sharp line? Why would the horizon be further away as your altitude increases? This makes perfect sense on a globe, altitude allows you to see further over the curve. On a flat earth though it shouldn't make any difference.

I'm confused about your thoughts on sunset, if the sun is really disappearing below the edge of the earth (I believe this is what some ancient civilisations believed) then surely it would be night everywhere. A reasonable belief in the ancient world where there was no quick long distance communication or transport, but now we know that when it's dark in London, England it's light in Sydney, Australia

You are correct though that a sun 3,000 miles above the plane of the earth would not set, there would be nothing to stop you seeing it at all times.

Ahh, ok, "Limit of visibility" -- I can definitely go with that.
There's definitely days when clouds, fog, smoke, or smog obscure our view of the sun when it is low on the horizon. Heh, there's even days when they obscure it when it's straight over head!

But hey, there are also days we can see bright lights from a long ways away. That's what I'm concerned with. The fact that some days are cloudy doesn't mean we can't talk about the clear days! Our vision may be obscured way shorter than 10,000 miles on some days, but on others we can see stuff very far away.

But yeah, we do have some issues to work through with the sun.

On one hand, when it sets on a clear evening, we get the effect where the sun vanishes bottom first like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbaJ1SPjLnc
so in that case, we do have a clear horizon line and we're obviously seeing something from a long ways away.
We can't hardly say that the sun is just going down to ground level 3000 miles away because then it'd be sitting in someone's back yard. It has to be farther. And yet it doesn't get much smaller when it sets so I'm not sure how to work that out.

In fact, a lot of people would swear that the sun and the moon look bigger when they are on the horizon, which is exactly the opposite of what we would expect because they should be farther then, not closer.
My belief on that though is that they actually have essentially the same angular size but that it's just an optical illusion that make them look bigger on the horizon because the brain compares them to the trees and stuff in front of them. One day I'll get out and take two photos on the same day at rise/set and straight up.

As I said, some things to work through there.

As to the horizon, granted it cannot always be seen, but on those days and situations where we can see a clear horizon line, then on a flat earth the horizon line should definitely rise to eyelevel. You should be able to look out and see the line at whatever your eyelevel is, even using a level to make sure you're looking straight out.
In actuality, if you're above sea level, the horizon would not be exactly straight out, but it's so close to straight out that your eye does not have the resolving power to discern that  few millionths of a degree.

Conversely, that's why it would be so easy for the globists -- if they could -- just go up a few hundred feet and sight to the horizon and measure the down tilt to confirm their beloved 8 inches per mile squared.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 11, 2019, 05:20:04 PM
A lot of people swear that the sun and the moon look bigger when they are on the horizon, which is exactly the opposite of what we would expect because they should be farther then, not closer.

My belief on that though is that they actually have essentially the same angular size but that it's just an optical illusion that make them look bigger on the horizon because the brain compares them to the trees and stuff in front of them. One day I'll get out and take two photos on the same day at rise/set and straight up.

No need for belief there, sir: the sun's angular size throughout the day has been measured many times, such as this:

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2_NJkJOcL1c/WQJDdnM-kDI/AAAAAAAADcM/3vmBKqXh9jssTJG7nzepKyIubYmLMjTJACLcB/s640/AAD6856F-7177-4542-9EDA-E7E350C17C78-1350-0000028E58C23DDA_tmp.jpg)

Conversely, that's why it would be so easy for the globists - if they could - to just go up a few hundred feet and sight to the horizon and measure the down tilt to confirm their beloved 8 inches per mile squared.

It is easy to do that, and has been done many times also - a few examples of which are in this thread.

I don't think "8 inches per mile squared" is any globist's 'beloved equation', though - that's more of a flat earth thing. In reality, it's not useful for very much, apart from confusing people. ;)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on February 11, 2019, 06:16:52 PM
A lot of people swear that the sun and the moon look bigger when they are on the horizon, which is exactly the opposite of what we would expect because they should be farther then, not closer.

My belief on that though is that they actually have essentially the same angular size but that it's just an optical illusion that make them look bigger on the horizon because the brain compares them to the trees and stuff in front of them. One day I'll get out and take two photos on the same day at rise/set and straight up.

No need for belief there, sir: the sun's angular size throughout the day has been measured many times, such as this:

It is easy to do that, and has been done many times also - a few examples of which are in this thread.

I don't think "8 inches per mile squared" is any globist's 'beloved equation', though - that's more of a flat earth thing. In reality, it's not useful for very much, apart from confusing people. ;)

OK thanks for the pictures, but what's that dark spot? did the ISS take a dump last time it transited? Just sayin'.

Now, regarding 8 inches per mile squared, if you'll be so kind as to pardon my British, 8 inches per mile squared is bloody  useful.
Equally useful is it's inverse function miles_to_horizon=sqrt(observer_height_inches/8)
I checked it against the Pythagorean Theorem (which is the correct way to do the calculations on a sphere) and 8 inches per mile squared  was within a percent out to like a thousand miles range as I recall. I was surprised as anything but yeah it's not a bad approximation really, and it's super handy to remember and do quick calculations with.

As to 8 inches per mile confusing people, if you look at the kind of people that get confused when they see 8 inches per mile squared, just imagine what mental consternation they would suffer if you told them C^2=A^2+B^2! It would turn their brains to CABbage^2!

That's what's different about us is we don't mind a little math and we don't mind facing the challenging issues!
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2019, 06:20:35 PM
As to 8 inches per mile confusing people, if you look at the kind of people that get confused when they see 8 inches per mile squared, just imagine what mental consternation they would suffer if you told them C^2=A^2+B^2! It would turn their brains to CABbage^2!

That's what's different about us is we don't mind a little math and we don't mind facing the challenging issues!
Keep this sort of trash to CN.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on February 11, 2019, 07:01:33 PM
As to 8 inches per mile confusing people, if you look at the kind of people that get confused when they see 8 inches per mile squared, just imagine what mental consternation they would suffer if you told them C^2=A^2+B^2! It would turn their brains to CABbage^2!

That's what's different about us is we don't mind a little math and we don't mind facing the challenging issues!
Keep this sort of trash to CN.

My sincere apologies good sir, I will do my best to keep that kind of trash to CN, but as I am new here could you enlighten me as to which part was the trash, and what is CN?
I didn't mean any trash by the fact that so many NASA supporters get confused about 8 inches per mile squared.

Thank you very much!
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 11, 2019, 07:28:49 PM
To clarify, eight inches per mile squared calculates the drop below a hypothetical horizontal plane measured from a hypothetical observer's feet. The reason I say it's not very useful is because, in general, we want to measure the predicted hidden amount of things. And the reason I say it confuses people is because flat earth believers often use it when what they really want is the predicted hidden amount.

In a nutshell, I'm not saying it's inaccurate, I'm just saying there's rarely a reason to apply it.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on February 11, 2019, 07:49:20 PM
To clarify, eight inches per mile squared calculates the drop below a hypothetical horizontal plane measured from a hypothetical observer's feet. The reason I say it's not very useful is because, in general, we want to measure the predicted hidden amount of things. And the reason I say it confuses people is because flat earth believers often use it when what they really want is the predicted hidden amount.

In a nutshell, I'm not saying it's inaccurate, I'm just saying there's rarely a reason to apply it.

OK gotcha. That's why I find it so useful, since it's the same math we use on a soccer ball.
We use the inverse formula to get the distance to the obsever's horizon, then the 8 inches per mile squared to get drop beyond the horizon. Or so they say.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 12, 2019, 05:40:55 AM
I'm really not sure who uses that, other than confused flat earthers. Or who says its used to calculate "drop beyond horizon".

It's used to calculate the "drop", full stop, whether beyond, before, or at the horizon - which is almost never a useful thing to know.

Distance to the horizon is calculated by sqrt((r+h)*(r+h)-r^2)

Also not sure who uses the same kind of math as "8 inches per mile" on a football.

Can you clarify please?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on February 12, 2019, 06:10:03 AM
I'm really not sure who uses that, other than confused flat earthers. Or who says its used to calculate "drop beyond horizon".

It's used to calculate the "drop", full stop, whether beyond, before, or at the horizon - which is almost never a useful thing to know.

Distance to the horizon is calculated by sqrt((r+h)*(r+h)-r^2)

Also not sure who uses the same kind of math as "8 inches per mile" on a football.

Can you clarify please?

By "same math as used on a soccer ball," I meant the Pythagorean theorem which just happens to be readily approximated by 8 inches per mile squared, at least for the first thousand miles on a sphere 4k miles in radius.

The reason I mentioned the soccer ball is because I'm trying to help bring credibility to the cause, and many flat earthers seem to cringe at the idea that there is math to describe the curve of a sphere. But no, we as flat earthers can fully accept and understand the math of a sphere without accepting that the earth is one.

This is important because when a ball earther is visiting with a flat earther and finds the flat earther doesn't even understand the math for a sphere, it doesn't help things.

And sqrt(h/8) takes the observer height and gives you distance to your horizon. It's just the inverse of 8 inches per mile squared, and it's a handy way to estimate the distance to your horizon given a specific altitude in inches.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 12, 2019, 06:30:02 AM
I think that's an admirable pursuit, to try to bring credibility to the flat earth side of things. I've generally reached a stage where I don't mind people believing something incorrect - but I do like it if they at least try to use the correct calculations. ;)

I actually think most flat earthers do believe there is mathematics to describe a sphere, but just that many of them don't know how to apply it properly, or which equation they should use for which measurement.

That's probably why I describe "8 inches per mile squared" as, for all intents and purposes, as far as the flat earth discussion is concerned, "useless".

I mean, when would you actually use that?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 12, 2019, 08:52:19 AM
As for Tom being confused as to why something can be "accurate enough for purpose", it's occurred to me that perhaps it's a simple and even forgiveable misunderstanding.

Maybe this will help clear it up. Here's a photo of a water level showing the dip to the horizon from 1500 feet:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/img_1047-jpg.35816/)

And here's the same water level with the camera raised so that the water in the far bottle is level with the horizon:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/img_1049-jpg.35817/)

I think maybe he was confused because he was thinking that a millimetre here or there would make a significant difference. Whereas in reality it's much more clearcut than that, and not possible to receive ambiguous results.

Hope that helps. :)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on February 12, 2019, 04:22:03 PM
I think that's an admirable pursuit, to try to bring credibility to the flat earth side of things. I've generally reached a stage where I don't mind people believing something incorrect - but I do like it if they at least try to use the correct calculations. ;)

I actually think most flat earthers do believe there is mathematics to describe a sphere, but just that many of them don't know how to apply it properly, or which equation they should use for which measurement.

That's probably why I describe "8 inches per mile squared" as, for all intents and purposes, as far as the flat earth discussion is concerned, "useless".

I mean, when would you actually use that?

"8 inches per mile squared" can be used for any situation where you can use C^2=A^2+B^2 if exact accuracy doesn't matter and it's a sight distance under 1000 miles.
It's simpler as it removes a bunch of constants and still gives surprising accuracy.

By way of comparison, the dip at 1000 miles according to C^2=A^2+B^2 and 8 inches per mile squared is as follows:

656,525ft for C^2=A^2+B^2, and
666,667ft for 8"/mi^2

That is an error of only 1.5%. And that's at a thousand miles which of course is usually too far to clearly see objects unless they are super bright.

For more reasonable distances, like 100 miles:
6667.287ft for P's T, and
6666.667ft for 8"/mi^2

The error there is less than 0.01%!

So for near distances, like a hundred miles, it's very accurate -- its error is much less than other errors like leveling errors or atmospheric refraction etc.

So yeah, a simple easy accurate shortcut can be real handy when a glober and I are standing on a hill looking at another hill 100 miles away, and we're talking about whether the far hill appears where it should appear, or if it's about 6700 feet too low or not.

It's important to be able to keep things simple so nobody gets lost in the math. Right?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 12, 2019, 05:09:52 PM
I guess. I've always thought of the dip to the horizon being measured as an angle rather than in feet, but I suppose 8 inches per mile squared could occasionally have some practical purposes. Like if you and I were stood in the location of one of my recent shots of the Spanish coast:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/screenshot-83-png.35945/)

We could say: those mountains are about 80 miles away, and 80 squared is 6400, multiplied by 8 inches is...gee whizz, let's just convert it to feet: multiply by two - 12800 - and divide by three - 4270ish and...

How high are the mountains again?

The one on the left's about 4600 feet. The one on the right's 5100 feet.

And how high are we?

About 600 feet.

So with a drop of 4300ish, the peaks of those mountains should be right at our eye level, if the earth's a globe, and massively above it - like 80-90% of them - if the earth is flat.

Whaddya know: it can be quite useful. :)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on February 12, 2019, 05:41:15 PM
I guess. I've always thought of the dip to the horizon being measured as an angle rather than in feet, but I suppose 8 inches per mile squared could occasionally have some practical purposes. Like if you and I were stood in the location of one of my recent shots of the Spanish coast:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/screenshot-83-png.35945/)

We could say: those mountains are about 80 miles away, and 80 squared is 6400, multiplied by 8 inches is...gee whizz, let's just convert it to feet: multiply by two - 12800 - and divide by three - 4270ish and...

How high are the mountains again?

The one on the left's about 4600 feet. The one on the right's 5100 feet.

And how high are we?

About 600 feet.

So with a drop of 4300ish, the peaks of those mountains should be right at our eye level, if the earth's a globe, and massively above it - like 80-90% of them - if the earth is flat.

Whaddya know: it can be quite useful. :)

That is a lovely sunset.

I guess about the only thing I have to say in response is that NASA is fake and perspective.
I do feel that I've won the argument though because that's two reasons, and globers only have one kind of duct tape - gravity.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: ChrisTP on February 12, 2019, 05:47:16 PM
And all those photos from space of the earth from private companies and different national space agencies.

EDIT: regarding perspective, obviously theres nothing fake about that. It is simply objects in the distance taking up less of your cone shaped vision. So the less of your vision they take up, the smaller they appear. There is no bendy tricky illusion of perspective, that's just how our eyes work. Perspective doesn't bend the horizon down.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 12, 2019, 05:57:59 PM
That is a lovely sunset.

I guess about the only thing I have to say in response is that NASA is fake and perspective.

My hope is that before I die I will have found two more solid proofs to support my shaky and insubstantial belief, and then I can rest at peace in my soul - assuming we Pythagorean Satanist Freemasons have one. ;)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on February 13, 2019, 05:43:20 AM
As to 8 inches per mile confusing people, if you look at the kind of people that get confused when they see 8 inches per mile squared, just imagine what mental consternation they would suffer if you told them C^2=A^2+B^2! It would turn their brains to CABbage^2!

That's what's different about us is we don't mind a little math and we don't mind facing the challenging issues!
Keep this sort of trash to CN.

I've finally figured out that CN means Complete Nonsense, but I'm still completely mystified about what the trash is.
The other guy had said that the formula of 8 inches per mile squared confused people. I simply replied that the real formula, (known as the Pythagorean Theorem, which is the mathematical formula C squared equals A squared plus B squared,) would really confuse people. The cabbage squared was just a little mathematical humor.

Did you mistake the mathematical expression "c^2=a^2+b^2" and think it was bleeped out bad language?

Or was it my indication that we are different because we don't mind a little math and we don't mind a good challenge?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 13, 2019, 06:14:45 AM
I just noticed something in pictures like this one:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/img_1047-jpg.35816/)

The clouds are also below eye level.

This does a number of things, but mainly what I want to point out is that it falsifies the claim that the horizon would rise to eye level if we could actually see it: obviously the sea level horizon can't appear higher than clouds for a guy 600 feet above it.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: ChrisTP on February 13, 2019, 08:33:51 AM
To be fair though round or flat, clouds will converge with the land or sea at the vanishing point anyway.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 13, 2019, 09:29:59 AM
Vanishing point is always at eye level, [added for clarity] for an observer looking straight ahead/perpendicular to down. Clouds might converge there, but they can't be below it. ;)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: ChrisTP on February 13, 2019, 09:38:28 AM
Vanishing point is always at eye level. Clouds might converge there, but they can't be below it. ;)
Thats a strange thing to say... The vanishing point doesn’t physically exist, it’s simply a point at which the distance of things is so far that your eyes cannot make it out anymore. So if you see train tracks in the corner of your eyes whiling looking up and to the side it’ll still have a point at which the railway converges to, it won’t be your eye level, it would be anywhere within your vision.

Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on February 13, 2019, 10:50:01 AM
Vanishing point is always at eye level. Clouds might converge there, but they can't be below it. ;)
thats a strange thing to say... the vanishing point doesn’t physically exist, it’s simple a point at which the distance of things is so far that your eyes cannot make it out anymore. The if you see train tracks in the corner of your eyes whiling looking up and to the side it’ll still have a point at which the railway converges to, it won’t be your eye level, it would be anywhere within your vision.
The FE understanding of "vanishing point" is particularly bizarre. As you say, the vanishing point doesn't actually exist, it's a concept from art, not physics.
If you're looking up at these buildings then you can draw perspective lines and "vanishing points"

(https://i.ibb.co/4MwKk0v/Vanishing-Point.jpg)

That doesn't mean that if the sun went over these buildings it would "set", you'd still see it.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on February 13, 2019, 07:25:26 PM
I guess. I've always thought of the dip to the horizon being measured as an angle rather than in feet, but I suppose 8 inches per mile squared could occasionally have some practical purposes. Like if you and I were stood in the location of one of my recent shots of the Spanish coast:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/screenshot-83-png.35945/)

We could say: those mountains are about 80 miles away, and 80 squared is 6400, multiplied by 8 inches is...gee whizz, let's just convert it to feet: multiply by two - 12800 - and divide by three - 4270ish and...

How high are the mountains again?

The one on the left's about 4600 feet. The one on the right's 5100 feet.

And how high are we?

About 600 feet.

So with a drop of 4300ish, the peaks of those mountains should be right at our eye level, if the earth's a globe, and massively above it - like 80-90% of them - if the earth is flat.

Whaddya know: it can be quite useful. :)

I can't figure out how you faked that. The bottles are so big that the surface tension, while visible around the edge, is easily ruled out.
The water in the bottles obviously are level with eachother, and parallel with the horizon.
If you'd pinched off the tube between the bottles to lock a level then raise one up, it would have shown because the water in the two bottles wouldn't be level compared to each other. Same if you'd put salt in one bottle, while it would make one higher, it wouldn't tip the water in them.

How did you fake that?

I'm going to have to try that one when the weather warms up and the snow clears from some of the roads. I'll figure out what you did there one way or another  ;D
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 14, 2019, 05:40:21 AM
How did you fake that?

In this case, the simplest answer is also the correct one: I didn't. :)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on February 14, 2019, 05:36:18 PM
How did you fake that?

In this case, the simplest answer is also the correct one: I didn't. :)

Fair enough, but we'll see if I get a chance to try that when the snow clears  ;D ;D
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on February 24, 2019, 03:57:07 AM
How did you fake that?

In this case, the simplest answer is also the correct one: I didn't. :)

The snow is starting to diminish some, and I went to walmart today and purchased food coloring so I can be in style when I prove that the horizon rises to the eyelevel of the observer!
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on February 24, 2019, 10:39:45 AM
Good luck!

Are you near the coast? Can you find some elevation?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on March 31, 2019, 01:39:37 AM
Good luck!

Are you near the coast? Can you find some elevation?

Well my friend, you were right.

I did a water level test at 50ft elevation, and at around 2240ft elevation.
Even at 50ft the horizon appeared a little below the horizon.
At 2250 ft elevation, entire snow-capped mountain ranges were below the horizon.
I had to tredge through melting snow and mud to get up to the 2250 ft high site, but I took my water level tube, a theodolite, and a tripod. Oh and a DSLR camera.

I've seen it with my own eyes.

Maybe the real horizon was at eyelevel but obscured by the fog.
I guess I need to find a place where I can see the sun set so I know if it's the horizon I'm seeing or just a fading limit of vision.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 31, 2019, 01:48:53 AM
Try using a control to determine if the water levels actually line up.

https://youtu.be/yH0L69zzK8A

A three container water level device was created, and surprise surprise, the water levels did not align and the device was unable to be calibrated.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on March 31, 2019, 04:11:31 AM
Try using a control to determine if the water levels actually line up.

https://youtu.be/yH0L69zzK8A

A three container water level device was created, and surprise surprise, the water levels did not align and the device was unable to be calibrated.

That's very interesting, Thanks! I'll have to try that!

So water doesn't seek it's own level?

Or perhaps the center one was slightly warmer? Or maybe it was surface tension? or clinging to the side of the tube?
I did notice the center one was the higher one, maybe the earth is curved.

I also noticed a strong relatively steady breeze creating turbulence around the microphone. Perhaps the tops of the tubes were at different angles and the center one had less pressure due to the wind?

I think I'll have to make mine to have large diameter chambers so as to reduce the affect of surface tension/sticking/capillary and have the tops all connected together so the water is free to seek level but the wind can't influence it.

Perhaps it was perspective that caused the center one to look higher.

I did have to chuckle - the guy asks people to leave comments at the end of the video - but then he has comments disabled.

I would love to see what his 3 pronger would do at let's say 100ft AMSL -- and see how the error compared to the horizon dip.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on March 31, 2019, 05:43:13 AM
The guy above was perhaps the first one to pioneer the use of these tubes - he's a flat earther, but usually only posts videos from sea level, so they don't really show anything. He has done it at least once from elevation though, and observed the dip of the horizon - but, for some reason, he doesn't talk about that. ;)

Here's a shot I took from 1500 feet:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/sunset-beneath-water-level-png.36582/)

The mountains there are between 3500 and 5000 feet, around 70-80 miles away. So as we see, not only is the horizon below eye level, but much higher mountains, and the sun itself, which is supposed to be several thousand miles high.

It's an excellent and elegantly simple proof of the curve of the earth for those who are able to understand and see it. :)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on March 31, 2019, 05:47:23 AM
The guy above was perhaps the first one to pioneer the use of these tubes - he's a flat earther, but usually only posts videos from sea level, so they don't really show anything. He has done it at least once from elevation though, and observed the dip of the horizon - but, for some reason, he doesn't talk about that. ;)

Here's a shot I took from 1500 feet:

...

The mountains there are between 3500 and 5000 feet, around 70-80 miles away. So as we see, not only is the horizon below eye level, but much higher mountains, and the sun itself, which is supposed to be several thousand miles high.

It's an excellent and elegantly simple proof of the curve of the earth for those who are able to understand and see it. :)

Super nice Max.

But what do you think about the guy's center column being higher than the other two?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on March 31, 2019, 06:33:49 AM
Kinda weird: I guess that's for him to figure out why. I once hooked three bottles up together and it wasn't a problem.

Here's a cool infographic for those who maybe struggle to get their heads around it (there are some, I know):

(https://i.imgur.com/HxtULmf.jpg)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on March 31, 2019, 08:52:54 AM
It’s interesting how these experiments show consistent results. If the issue was with configuration then surely we’d sometimes see a horizon above eye level, but we never do.
It’s also interesting that the loudest critic of these experiments refuses to do any himself...
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on March 31, 2019, 06:54:37 PM
Indeed. Nor do we ever see it at eye level. I've done this so many times now. The results are always the same.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 31, 2019, 09:34:51 PM
The way the meniscus is shaped makes it easy for the meniscus to always be too high.

(https://d2jmvrsizmvf4x.cloudfront.net/dAFoDfwMRAEPxtD62yWt_meniscus.gif)

You are looking at the underside of the curve and trying to align something that is not level.

For an experiment like this we need some way to calibrate the tool, to ensure that it is actually accurate and valid.

The fact that a three container version of the device is unable to be calibrated tells us everything we need to know. There is nothing thing saying that the device is accurate or reliable for this purpose. That needs to be demonstrated.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on April 01, 2019, 05:19:48 AM
The way the meniscus is shaped makes it easy for the meniscus to always be too high.

(https://d2jmvrsizmvf4x.cloudfront.net/dAFoDfwMRAEPxtD62yWt_meniscus.gif)

You are looking at the underside of the curve and trying to align something that is not level.

For an experiment like this we need some way to calibrate the tool, to ensure that it is actually accurate and valid.

The fact that a three container version of the device is unable to be calibrated tells us everything we need to know. There is nothing thing saying that the device is accurate or reliable for this purpose. That needs to be demonstrated.

Thanks Tom, are you suggesting that  the guy's variation in reading was due to viewing the different meniscii at different angles due to perspective?

Would it be better to have the sight glass part to be much larger in diameter to reduce the effects of the internal cohesion?

Or would it be better to use a liquid metal like mercury or Galinstan?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on April 01, 2019, 12:25:11 PM
The ones I used, of course didn't suffer any such meniscus problems, given the size of the bottles. :-)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: ChrisTP on April 01, 2019, 12:47:37 PM
Yes it is safe to say you can ignore Tom when he brings up Meniscus as a reason because it's such a tiny difference from within bottles. If you were using test tubes that were thin then you might have a problem. That being said I still think it's a pointless experiment to dtermin the shape of the earth either way.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 01, 2019, 04:38:58 PM
I still think it's a pointless experiment to dtermin the shape of the earth either way.
Agree with this. And the reason for that is because the horizon would dip on a flat earth too.

You can only see a finite distance so on a flat earth the horizon would be the limit of your visibility. But it would be a point (we’ll, a circle really) on the flat earth. So if you’re at altitude then you would be looking down at it:

(https://image.ibb.co/fxUSB7/horizon.jpg)

And the amount you’re looking down at it would increase with altitude assuming that visibility doesn’t increase with altitude, and why would it? The Wiki does try to deal with the fact that the horizon is further away at altitude but the explanation is a bit word salad. In the real world this happens because you can see further over the curve of the earth, on a flat earth you wouldn’t be able to see any further by ascending. Actually I don’t think you would get a sharp horizon on a flat earth, it would be more of a fading out like on a foggy day. Why would there be a sharp line?

These tests clearly show that the horizon dips and the amount of dip increases with altitude. Tom can post as much flimflam as he likes, if this result was because of inaccuracies then you’d get a variety of results - his own diagram with the miniscus shows that you can get an error either way. But that’s not what is observed, the result of horizon dip and increasing dip with altitude is shown consistently using this method and with other methods. So that result is not in dispute apart from by Tom but until he can devise and perform an experiment to show anything to the contrary then no one is taking him seriously.

But I’d expect that result on a flat earth.
What I wouldn’t expect is a sharp horizon line or the distance to the horizon to increase with altitude.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: QED on April 01, 2019, 10:14:58 PM
I still think it's a pointless experiment to dtermin the shape of the earth either way.
Agree with this. And the reason for that is because the horizon would dip on a flat earth too.

You can only see a finite distance so on a flat earth the horizon would be the limit of your visibility. But it would be a point (we’ll, a circle really) on the flat earth. So if you’re at altitude then you would be looking down at it:

(https://image.ibb.co/fxUSB7/horizon.jpg)

And the amount you’re looking down at it would increase with altitude assuming that visibility doesn’t increase with altitude, and why would it? The Wiki does try to deal with the fact that the horizon is further away at altitude but the explanation is a bit word salad. In the real world this happens because you can see further over the curve of the earth, on a flat earth you wouldn’t be able to see any further by ascending. Actually I don’t think you would get a sharp horizon on a flat earth, it would be more of a fading out like on a foggy day. Why would there be a sharp line?

These tests clearly show that the horizon dips and the amount of dip increases with altitude. Tom can post as much flimflam as he likes, if this result was because of inaccuracies then you’d get a variety of results - his own diagram with the miniscus shows that you can get an error either way. But that’s not what is observed, the result of horizon dip and increasing dip with altitude is shown consistently using this method and with other methods. So that result is not in dispute apart from by Tom but until he can devise and perform an experiment to show anything to the contrary then no one is taking him seriously.

But I’d expect that result on a flat earth.
What I wouldn’t expect is a sharp horizon line or the distance to the horizon to increase with altitude.

Actually, wouldn’t the horizon DECREASE with altitude on a FE?

If vanishing perspective theory posits that there is a maximum distance one can see — and that limit defines the horizon, then if your altitude increases, the horizon should close in on you.

As you rise, the distance to a given point on the ground increases by Pythagorean’s theorem. So one should not be able to see as far as someone can on the ground.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on April 02, 2019, 03:09:25 AM
I still think it's a pointless experiment to dtermin the shape of the earth either way.
Agree with this. And the reason for that is because the horizon would dip on a flat earth too.

I agree that on a flat earth, the apparent horizon should be anything but a distinct line, because you're not really looking at the horizon (i.e. the edge) but you're just looking out into so much air you can't see anything farther unless it's really bright like the sun and the moon, then you can see it 10,000 miles away. Which is odd that you can see both the sun and the moon the same distance away even though one's 400,000 times brighter.  On a day where the sun is visible for 12 hours, the moon should be visible for a much shorter period.

But I digress.

Anyway, I suppose we should mention the difference between horizon and apparent horizon.

The classical definition of horizon goes along the lines of "the line that divides all visible directions into two categories: those that intersect the Earth's surface, and those that do not..."

It's obviously a spherical-centric term.

Because on a flat earth, since we (usually) cannot see the real traditional horizon (i.e. the edge) since it may be thousands of miles away, all we see is a gradual gradient transition between the water's surface and the haze. There's no particular line that is the horizon, it is just a point where we can't really see the texture of the water, even though we're looking right at it.

And naturally, the distance (and hence dip) of this line varies drastically based on the clarity of the air that day.

The difficulty comes in when we look out to sea and we see a hard sharp horizon line.

Now as mentioned, on a flat earth, the true physical horizon (i.e the edge) if we could see it would dip increasingly with observer elevation. But very very small, depending on how far you were from the edge.
If you were near the equator, and about 6000 miles from the edge, even a rise of 100,000 feet would only be under 20 miles up, and compared to the 6000 miles distance to the horizon, it would still only be a 0.2 degree dip.
At levels like 35,000 feet, it would be only 0.065 degrees.

So the difficulty comes in when we realize that the horizon does show a hard sharp line, even at distances of a few miles if you're down near sea level, and that the horizon dips much much more drastically than a flat earth allows as the observer goes up in elevation.

In fact, if we make our water level 57.3 inches long then each degree will be one inch, so you can use an inch ruler to measure degrees above or below eye level. (At least for the first few degrees.)

For the metric folks, just make your water level 57.3cm long and use a cm ruler to measure degrees.

(Obviously if you wanted it accurate for more than a few degrees from eyelevel, you'd want to use a curved ruler, which was curved around the radious of 57.3.)

The horizon moves away very drastically with even small increases in elevation; specifically, it goes from around 3 miles standing on the beach to 8 miles at 50 ft elevation and 12 miles at 100ft elevation, to 39 miles at 1000ft elevation.

And all on the same day. How can going from observer eyelevel 6ft to observer eyelevel 50ft more than double the distance to the horizon?

Furthermore, things are often visible beyond the horizon, if they stick up enough. If the atmosphere only allows the water to be visible to 8 miles when I'm standing on the beach, then how is it possible for me to literally be seeing mountains 100 miles beyond that?


Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on April 02, 2019, 08:24:18 AM
At the basic level, what this shows is that the old flat earth saying "the horizon always rises to eye level" is wrong, and that everyone who repeated it was also wrong.

It would be hard to find a sensible person who would disagree with that.

At the next level, what we find if we measure the dip angle is that it matches a sphere with a radius of 3959 miles.

Even if there was a horizon on a flat earth - and there's no reason to think there would be - the angles would be much, much smaller.

Observations of the relationship between the horizon and eye level, therefore, are another in a long line of simple flat earth disproofs.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 02, 2019, 09:39:27 AM
Actually, wouldn’t the horizon DECREASE with altitude on a FE?

If vanishing perspective theory posits that there is a maximum distance one can see — and that limit defines the horizon, then if your altitude increases, the horizon should close in on you.

As you rise, the distance to a given point on the ground increases by Pythagorean’s theorem. So one should not be able to see as far as someone can on the ground.
Interesting. Yes, I think you're right.

The Wiki does have some explanation of viewing distance increasing with altitude, it's complete word salad and contradicts other parts of the same Wiki page but I think this is a different thread:

Quote
When you increase your altitude you are changing your perspective lines in relation to the earth, pushing back your vanishing point. The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see. If you increase your height you are changing your perspective lines and thus can see further before all sight is lost to the vanishing point

If the earth were flat then the horizon would fade out, as it does in the real world on a foggy day. If the distance to the horizon is further than visibility then you don't get a sharp horizon line:

(https://i.ibb.co/PtqkCv3/foggy.jpg)

That's why the horizon as seen from a plane is often not a sharp line.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: ChrisTP on April 02, 2019, 11:08:48 AM
Couple a non foggy day on a flat earth with a vanishing point you will see what looks like a harsh line horizon with the naked eye, just like you'd see on the actual round earth. A flat disk the size it needs to be for earth would look the same as a globe earth. Even on the top of a mountain. Of course attempting to visually measure a curve is also a mute point since flat earthers will just say the data is skewed from mirages. No flat earther will ever truly believe the data from attempts at measuring the horizon if said data favours a round earth, but the second that data shows anything possibly flat earth related(again, would look the same) they'll jump on it. As AATW says regularly, the confirmation bias is extremely apparent with flat earthers in this case.

It's a pointless experiment because it won't prove anything in favour of flat earth and can be denied all the same as the data is so varied.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 02, 2019, 12:00:09 PM
Couple a non foggy day on a flat earth with a vanishing point you will see what looks like a harsh line horizon with the naked eye, just like you'd see on the actual round earth. A flat disk the size it needs to be for earth would look the same as a globe earth.

I don't agree with this. I mean, there's no such thing as a vanishing point in real life, is there?
I guess there is a point at which you can't see anything because of the limits of your vision, at that point you could use optical zoom to restore it to sight.
But if you're looking out to sea then that's a massive expanse of water, if it were flat then surely it would just get less clear and fade out like in a fog, I don't see why there would be a sharp line.
And surely you'd be able to use optical zoom to see further and push the horizon back.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2019, 06:57:26 PM
Regardless of whether the horizon is at eye level or not in all circumstances, the experiments used are not even methods that surveyors use. The people doing this experiment are basically just making up surveying science as they go along.

The tool needs to be calibrated. The experiment needs a control. Assuming that it is level or that it is an accurate method is not enough.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 02, 2019, 07:38:46 PM
The tool needs to be calibrated. The experiment needs a control. Assuming that it is level or that it is an accurate method is not enough.
This is quite funny when "water finds its level" is one of the FE catchphrases.
Stop squirming. Multiple methods have shown this result. This water level one shows a consistent result. If it was only because of inaccuracies or poor calibration then you wouldn't get consistent results like this.
If you want to devise your own experiment to test this claim then please do.

One reason there's no coherent FE theory and there's no progress in making one is your refusal to accept any result which doesn't match Rowbotham's ideas no matter how often or conclusively they are shown to be wrong. And you refuse to do any tests yourself.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2019, 08:11:44 PM
The only valid experiment in this thread was the one which had a control -- the three container version. The three water levels did not line up, which means that we could not trust the alignment of either the front two or back two containers in that device. The third container acts as a necessary litmus test for the hypothesis.

You should look into the subject of scientific integrity.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: QED on April 02, 2019, 08:15:04 PM
The only valid experiment in this thread was the one which had a control -- the three container version. The three water levels did not line up, which means that we could not trust the alignment of either the front two or back two containers.

You should look into the subject of scientific integrity.

A “control” in this instance would be a container hidden from the viewer (in a box, say). The control would serve to quantify the effect of the meniscus on horizontal readings.

What one would find is that the scale of water tension’s effect on the meniscus is too small to noticeably affect the reading. This is because water tension has relevant effects only in the small wavelength limit. In an experiment where the scale of measurment is much greater than the size scale of the container, water tension can safely be informed.

Learning about what I have detailed above, and explaining this to the experimenters — with the objective of propelling science forward — is indicative of scientific integrity.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2019, 08:50:52 PM
A second set of experiments in a "hidden box" may be helpful, in the case that the experiment always gives random results. But what if they always give the same wrong results?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

Quote
"A scientific control is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable."

It seems difficult doubt that the third container in the three container version of this experiment serves the purpose of the above -- to minimize the effects of variables which may affect the device and act as testament to the underlying hypothesis.

Maybe the curved meniscus always makes the level seem too high. Perhaps the water isn't really level in such devices. It could be that the refraction from going between air and water always affects the results.

In any case, the experiment should be calibrated and controlled for validity.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 02, 2019, 09:02:26 PM
In any case, the experiment should be calibrated and controlled for validity.
Everyone on here who has ever seen you post knows that if these experiments showed a horizon at eye level you would accept them unquestioningly.

Only because this result does not match your confirmation bias are you flailing around trying to dispute the result - a result which confirms several other methods which people on here have shown and give the same result.

But I look forward to seeing the results of your calibrated and controlled experiments.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: inquisitive on April 02, 2019, 09:02:53 PM
A second set of experiments in a "hidden box" may be helpful, in the case that the experiment always gives random results. But what if they always give the same wrong or high results?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

Quote
"A scientific control is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable."

It seems difficult doubt that the third container in the three container version of this experiment serves the purpose of the above -- to minimize the effects of variables which may affect the device and act as testament to the underlying hypothesis.

Maybe the curved meniscus always makes the level seem too high. Perhaps the water isn't really level in such devices. It could be that the refraction from going between air and water always affects the results.

In any case, the experiment should be calibrated and controlled for validity.
You could use something like a Leica NA332 which has 1.8mm standard deviation over 1km and comes with a calibration certificate.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2019, 09:15:41 PM
In any case, the experiment should be calibrated and controlled for validity.
Everyone on here who has ever seen you post knows that if these experiments showed a horizon at eye level you would accept them unquestioningly.

Only because this result does not match your confirmation bias are you flailing around trying to dispute the result - a result which confirms several other methods which people on here have shown and give the same result.

But I look forward to seeing the results of your calibrated and controlled experiments.

A version of the experiment was already performed with a third calibration chamber. The device was unable to be calibrated, suggesting that it is invalid in premise.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: stack on April 02, 2019, 10:02:18 PM
In any case, the experiment should be calibrated and controlled for validity.
Everyone on here who has ever seen you post knows that if these experiments showed a horizon at eye level you would accept them unquestioningly.

Only because this result does not match your confirmation bias are you flailing around trying to dispute the result - a result which confirms several other methods which people on here have shown and give the same result.

But I look forward to seeing the results of your calibrated and controlled experiments.

A version of the experiment was already performed with a third calibration chamber. The device was unable to be calibrated, suggesting that it is invalid in premise.

Bobby has a pretty well "calibrated" version and the eye-level to horizon difference seems quite significant:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvLu5vLyQaU
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2019, 10:10:30 PM
Doesn't look lined up to me.

(https://i.imgur.com/cOaJp0A.png)

It appears to be another piece of evidence that these devices are unable to be calibrated.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: inquisitive on April 02, 2019, 10:19:55 PM
Doesn't look lined up to me.

(https://i.imgur.com/cOaJp0A.png)

It appears to be another piece of evidence that these devices are unable to be calibrated.
The accuracy is well within that needed to show the horizon is below the level of the instrument.  Do you have an alternative design?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2019, 10:20:46 PM
What accuracy? The device needs to be able to be calibrated before one can say how accurate or close the method is.

The device and underlying theory may be totally off in application. It's making a lot of assumptions about perspective, water tension, refraction, etc. The fact that it can't be calibrated shows the issue. We need a way to gauge how accurate it is.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: stack on April 02, 2019, 10:27:30 PM
The device may be totally off. The fact that it can't be calibrated shows the issue.

Or maybe spot on.

One guy has a problem "calibrating" his device, perhaps for the any of the myriad reasons already mentioned, and you claim that it's a fact that these devices can't be calibrated? All it takes for Zetetics is one guy, one experiment? If so, good to know that's how you science.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2019, 10:28:42 PM
This experiment has not been proven to be valid or accurate, or have any bearing on anything at all. It is not used in surveying or for any purpose. The principles need to be demonstrated.

Yes, it does take only one experiment to discredit the device.

The third chamber acted as a control. Which means that all other experiments of that nature were uncontrolled.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: inquisitive on April 02, 2019, 10:31:43 PM
A second set of experiments in a "hidden box" may be helpful, in the case that the experiment always gives random results. But what if they always give the same wrong or high results?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

Quote
"A scientific control is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable."

It seems difficult doubt that the third container in the three container version of this experiment serves the purpose of the above -- to minimize the effects of variables which may affect the device and act as testament to the underlying hypothesis.

Maybe the curved meniscus always makes the level seem too high. Perhaps the water isn't really level in such devices. It could be that the refraction from going between air and water always affects the results.

In any case, the experiment should be calibrated and controlled for validity.
You could use something like a Leica NA332 which has 1.8mm standard deviation over 1km and comes with a calibration certificate.
Tom, use this.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: stack on April 02, 2019, 11:00:49 PM
This experiment has not been proven to be valid or accurate, or have any bearing on anything at all. It is not used in surveying or for any purpose. The principles need to be demonstrated.

Sure it's used for surveying purposes and the principles have been demonstrated since the greeks.

"A water level; Greek: Aλφαδολάστιχο or (υδροστάθμη) [Alfadolasticho] is a device used for matching elevations of locations that are too far apart for a spirit level to span."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_level_(device)

Some good old time agricultural surveying use:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLzUNRsWU_c

Yes, it does take only one experiment to discredit the device.

Interesting.

The third chamber acted as a control. Which means that all other experiments of that nature were uncontrolled.

Bobby's had a third chamber.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2019, 11:14:17 PM
The video you posted isn't the same experiment at all. Where do they attempt to align the water levels with something in the distance?

Bobby's water levels did not line up. According to your hypothesis they should line up. Therefore the hypothesis or application is incorrect.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: stack on April 02, 2019, 11:32:08 PM
The video you posted isn't the same experiment at all. Where do they attempt to align the water levels with something in the distance?

You obviously didn't watch the video. They align them by getting each tube to the same mark as they are measuring the slope of the hill. Same concept.

Bobby's water levels did not line up. According to your hypothesis they should line up. Therefore the hypothesis or application is incorrect.

Sorry, he used 4, there's one on the camera too. And here's that Bobby experiment with no water tubes, if you like that method better.

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/xfck06.jpg)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 02, 2019, 11:39:16 PM
Unfortunately all of the water levels in Bobby's experiment were not level.

(https://i.imgur.com/mDgLU70.jpg)

This viewer suggested that a control was needed verify that all sighting devices were level and in-line. Since they did not match up, they must not be.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: stack on April 02, 2019, 11:49:27 PM
Unfortunately all of the water levels in Bobby's experiment were not level.

(https://i.imgur.com/mDgLU70.jpg)

This viewer suggested that a control was needed verify that all sighting devices were level and in-line. Since they did not match up, they must not be.

Great, so you're anti water level. No water level in the string box. Seems to show the same disparity between eye-level and horizon as the water level experiment does.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: QED on April 03, 2019, 02:41:37 AM
A second set of experiments in a "hidden box" may be helpful, in the case that the experiment always gives random results. But what if they always give the same wrong results?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

Quote
"A scientific control is an experiment or observation designed to minimize the effects of variables other than the independent variable."

It seems difficult doubt that the third container in the three container version of this experiment serves the purpose of the above -- to minimize the effects of variables which may affect the device and act as testament to the underlying hypothesis.

Maybe the curved meniscus always makes the level seem too high. Perhaps the water isn't really level in such devices. It could be that the refraction from going between air and water always affects the results.

In any case, the experiment should be calibrated and controlled for validity.

“To minimize the effects of variables which may affect the device and act as testament to the underlying hypothesis.”

No this would be leading the data. A control isolates a variable from the measurement.

But yes, perhaps the water isn’t really level in those devices, etc etc, and perhaps you just are fabricating complaints because you do not like the outcome.

You see, when an experiment is performed, and another believes there to be a confounding variable. Then that person inherits a burden of proof: to demonstrate that variable is really confounding. THAT is the scientific method.

One does not get to pull variables out of his ass and insist that the experimenters atone for them before the results are believed. No. You must demonstrate it. And showing a picture with crudely drawn sight lines does not meet any scientific standard I have ever seen. It is something children do.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2019, 03:21:32 AM
The matter has already been impeached. The inability to calibrate the three chamber version of the device is direct evidence that the water is not level.

https://youtu.be/yH0L69zzK8A

Last year a caged water device was built by a member of our forums, which showed that the alignment of the liquid in the device is susceptible to error. It was seen that the liquid did not align and that water did not find its level.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9492.280

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/5/5b/Water_level_error.jpg)

The water levels did not line up to each other in relation to the plumb line.

The burden to show these devices as valid is absolutely on those who champion it.

A small error in the foreground can cause a very large error many miles away.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/70/Level-misaligned.png)

Again, if you are championing these devices then it is your responsibility to show that they are accurate. Ignoring direct evidence is not acceptable.

Surveying is not an accurate science by its very nature. The idea that someone can create surveying tools without the need to calibrate it or test it for accuracy is quite rediculous.

http://whistleralley.com/surveying/theoerror/

Quote
As any surveyor should understand, all measurements are in error. We try to minimize error and calculate reasonable tolerances, but error will always be there. Not occasionally; not frequently; always. In the interest of more accurate measurements, we look for better instruments and better procedures.
—Paul Kunkel

Are you a surveyor? Do you know better than the surveyors who tell us that surveying is always in error? Are we to believe that amateurs created superior surveying equipment that can accurately test the horizon, the furthest thing that can be tested in surveying?

No, that is absurd. Once again, the burden is entirely on those who champion the device to demonstrate its validity.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: stack on April 03, 2019, 04:21:19 AM
Wow, six pages in and we've landed on asking if someone is a surveyor coming from someone who I assume is not a surveyor. Fetching retort.

So the question in the OP, actually the title of the OP is, "What's the best tool for measuring eye level?"

So to FE, the society perhaps, what is the best tool for measuring eye level? Sounds like according to you, nothing is. Am I correct or could you actually answer the OP?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2019, 04:25:35 AM
Samuel Birley Rowbotham studied that very topic in his work Earth Not a Globe. Take a look at his eye level and horizon experiments in Chapter 2, as well as his theodolite experiments.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: inquisitive on April 03, 2019, 04:41:22 AM
Samuel Birley Rowbotham studied that very topic in his work Earth Not a Globe. Take a look at his eye level and horizon experiments in Chapter 2, as well as his theodolite experiments.
Interesting that you choose to ignore details of professional surveying equipment.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2019, 04:46:20 AM
Sorry, he used 4, there's one on the camera too. And here's that Bobby experiment with no water tubes, if you like that method better.

(http://oi66.tinypic.com/xfck06.jpg)

I missed this one  This experiment is addressed by Rowbotham:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

Quote
The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point. Whereas it is demonstrable that lines most distant from an eye-line must of necessity converge less rapidly, and must be carried further over the eye-line before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the vanishing point.

...

The theory which affirms that all parallel lines converge to one and the same point on the eye-line, is an error. It is true only of lines equi-distant from the eye-line; lines more or less apart meet the eye-line at different distances, and the point at which they meet is that only where each forms the angle of one minute of a degree, or such other angular measure as may be decided upon as the vanishing point. This is the true law of perspective as shown by nature herself; any idea to the contrary is fallacious, and will deceive whoever may hold and apply it to practice.

Notice that some of the line overlays seem forced in Bobby's picture. They don't all point to the same place, but slightly different places.

Also possibly related to the water leveling issues.

Rowbotham has a few correct ways to determine eye  level, which he describes in Earth Not a Globe
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: stack on April 03, 2019, 05:15:07 AM
Sorry, he used 4, there's one on the camera too. And here's that Bobby experiment with no water tubes, if you like that method better.

I missed this one  This experiment is addressed by Rowbotham:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

Quote
The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point. Whereas it is demonstrable that lines most distant from an eye-line must of necessity converge less rapidly, and must be carried further over the eye-line before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the vanishing point.

...

The theory which affirms that all parallel lines converge to one and the same point on the eye-line, is an error. It is true only of lines equi-distant from the eye-line; lines more or less apart meet the eye-line at different distances, and the point at which they meet is that only where each forms the angle of one minute of a degree, or such other angular measure as may be decided upon as the vanishing point. This is the true law of perspective as shown by nature herself; any idea to the contrary is fallacious, and will deceive whoever may hold and apply it to practice.

Notice that some of the line overlays seem forced in Bobby's picture. They don't all point to the same place, but slightly different places.

Also possibly related to the water leveling issues.

Rowbotham has a few correct ways to determine eye  level, which he describes in Earth Not a Globe

Nope, this is from CHAPTER XIV, WHY A SHIP'S HULL DISAPPEARS BEFORE THE MAST-HEAD

We're not talking about vanishing points like looking down a railroad track. This is looking across the horizon and how it dips with elevation and does not meet the eye line.

There are no water leveling issues, they are strings. If you're talking about the spirit level inside the cage are you saying spirit levels have no control and should not be used?

If Rowbotham had a few ways to determine eye level, cite them and cite the chapter and verse so I don't have to keyword search through ENAG for the thousandth time only to find a completely irrelevant quote provided by you.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on April 03, 2019, 05:46:24 AM
Regardless of whether the horizon is at eye level or not in all circumstances, the experiments used are not even methods that surveyors use. The people doing this experiment are basically just making up surveying science as they go along.

The tool needs to be calibrated. The experiment needs a control. Assuming that it is level or that it is an accurate method is not enough.
Well Dr. Bishop I am so glad to hear you say that. Yes. A method that surveyors use. I like the way you are thinking.
I recently purchased off of ebay a Pentax ETH-20F Digital Theodolite. I'm not talking about a silly cell phone app, I'm talking about a real surveyor's digital theodolite.
I've been learning how to use it off you tube, I calibrated it, and everything. It has a built in calibration routine. It has a resolution of 20 arcseconds.

Is that the kind of equipment you're thinking of?

I can measure all sorts of things with this, not only the dip of the horizon, but the dip of ships and mountains too! Ya?

I never mentioned too much about it because well I figured since you don't even think water seeks it's own level (even though you know how a water level works) I figured that you probably would inherently question my gizmo since you may not understand it's internal workings quite as well as you do a water level.

In any case, the experiment should be calibrated and controlled for validity.

How do you calibrate a water level, there Doc?
Just honestly curious as to how you might calibrate a water level if it wasn't reading level. Maybe add water to one end?


The device and underlying theory may be totally off in application. It's making a lot of assumptions about perspective, water tension, refraction, etc. The fact that it can't be calibrated shows the issue. We need a way to gauge how accurate it is.

Oh that's right. It's Dr. "450PPM is too much error to consider the reading valid." Even though the water level showed an internal error of less than a percent of the height of the horizon even at 100ft elevation, it can't be trusted because it's not exactly accurate to zero parts in thirty trillion.

Do you *really* think the water was an inch higher in one end as compared to the center?

This experiment has not been proven to be valid or accurate, or have any bearing on anything at all. It is not used in surveying or for any purpose. The principles need to be demonstrated.
Which experiment has not been proven valid? Oh, that water seeks it's own level? and the fact that water seeks its own level has no bearing on anything at all?
Oh, and I think it is used in primitive surveying, but someone already posted the video so I didn't.

Last year a caged water device was built by a member of our forums, which showed that the alignment of the liquid in the device is susceptible to error. It was seen that the liquid did not align and that water did not find its level.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/5/5b/Water_level_error.jpg)
The water levels did not line up to each other in relation to the plumb line.

Hmm. Looking closely, I see that the pictures were taken at a close distance with a wide angle lens. Notice how the left tube in some of the pictures appears so much thicker?
The camera lens quite likely distorted the picture and the cage may not have been level and the camera may have been adjusted to line up with the cage.

Rowbotham has a few correct ways to determine eye  level, which he describes in Earth Not a Globe
Excellent! Have you tried one of them? which one? Or which would you recommend as the best tool for measuring eye-level?

EDIT: Meant to include this one too:
Don't play the video, just look at the thumbnail: Methinks the open ended clear tubes are cut at different angles and catch the wind differently, creating pressure differences.
OK Fine play the video and hear the wind shearing turbulence across the mic. Sounds like it was a pretty constant steady wind.

The matter has already been impeached. The inability to calibrate the three chamber version of the device is direct evidence that the water is not level.
https://youtu.be/yH0L69zzK8A
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 03, 2019, 10:15:16 AM
Samuel Birley Rowbotham studied that very topic in his work Earth Not a Globe. Take a look at his eye level and horizon experiments in Chapter 2, as well as his theodolite experiments.
Are those the experiments where he said that at very low altitude - I think he used a pier and hotel (with about 6 stories) - the horizon is at eye level. Which it more or less is.
And then when he got a result of horizon dip at altitude he started blaming the equipment. Laughable.

It always amuses me that your Wiki page on this matter only contains one account of an observation at altitude eye level which doesn't say any measuring devices were used and says the horizon was "practically" at eye level. And your example is a 3D game. Are you expecting any of this to be taken seriously?!  ;D

I still you're still squirming despite multiple methods showing the same result. And you're still refusing to do your own tests. We all know why...
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: QED on April 03, 2019, 12:28:02 PM
The matter has already been impeached. The inability to calibrate the three chamber version of the device is direct evidence that the water is not level.

https://youtu.be/yH0L69zzK8A

Last year a caged water device was built by a member of our forums, which showed that the alignment of the liquid in the device is susceptible to error. It was seen that the liquid did not align and that water did not find its level.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9492.280

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/5/5b/Water_level_error.jpg)

The water levels did not line up to each other in relation to the plumb line.

The burden to show these devices as valid is absolutely on those who champion it.

A small error in the foreground can cause a very large error many miles away.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/70/Level-misaligned.png)

Again, if you are championing these devices then it is your responsibility to show that they are accurate. Ignoring direct evidence is not acceptable.

Surveying is not an accurate science by its very nature. The idea that someone can create surveying tools without the need to calibrate it or test it for accuracy is quite rediculous.

http://whistleralley.com/surveying/theoerror/

Quote
As any surveyor should understand, all measurements are in error. We try to minimize error and calculate reasonable tolerances, but error will always be there. Not occasionally; not frequently; always. In the interest of more accurate measurements, we look for better instruments and better procedures.
—Paul Kunkel

Are you a surveyor? Do you know better than the surveyors who tell us that surveying is always in error? Are we to believe that amateurs created superior surveying equipment that can accurately test the horizon, the furthest thing that can be tested in surveying?

No, that is absurd. Once again, the burden is entirely on those who champion the device to demonstrate its validity.

The matter is not impeached simply because you can reference a YouTube video, or can find a alternate device which was faulty, or can provide a quotation about surveying from an obviously biased source.

I am beginning to become concerned about the negative influence you present for the FE community. Here we have a group of individuals with a common focus, with many of them potentially in a position to contribute positively towards that focus’ goal.

You do not appear to be steering them in a positive fashion. Your address of evidence is inconsistent, and the standards you apply to claims made by Rowbotham are entirely different than those made by others.

This inconsistency of standard and failure to champion a honest scientific inquiry is detrimental to FE efforts. Through your example, FE efforts are marginalized and hampered.

Perhaps the FE community would benefit from a new figure to guide them into the arena of legitimate scientific research. Someone who understands the scientific method, and can unbiasely apply standards of evidence. Someone who does not make amateur errors in mathematics, and does not lack knowledge of the fundamental structures which exist in competing theories.

I seriously question whether you can fill this need.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2019, 05:13:34 PM
Quote
The matter is not impeached simply because you can reference a YouTube video, or can find a alternate device which was faulty, or can provide a quotation about surveying from an obviously biased source.

Actually, it is. These people put their devices under a little scrutiny, and found that they were imperfect. Why should we assume that the people who did not put their devices under scrutiny are perfect? If some devices were found to be imperfect, then anyone doing this experiment should scrutinize their tools as well.

Obviously biased? Is the surveyor quoted a flat earther?

We must always ensure that our tools are accurate for the job. The fact that anyone could think that we do not need to ensure accuracy says volumes. I find your argument that testing for accuracy is not needed to be totally invalid.

It may be that the horizon does drop at higher altitudes for various reasons, but this tool may be unreliable to show us exactly where eye level is.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 03, 2019, 05:36:24 PM
Fairly reasonable point.
The issue is you don’t put experiments which confirm your world view under any scrutiny at all.
Only experiments which contradict your beliefs (which are mostly based on your high priest Rowbotham’s) are scrutinised to death.
It’s confirmation bias writ large.

And all the while you refuse to do any tests yourself.

Again, if the issues with these experiments were ones of configuration you’d get a variety of results. Your own diagram about the meniscus showed that - the error could be in either direction. That isn’t what is observed. Every test shows consistent results:
Horizon dips below eye level.
The amount of dip increases with altitude.

This is consistent with several other methods to test this which also show these results.

It’s notable that your objections keep changing. In other threads you flailed around questioning all kinds of things, desperately trying to cast some doubt on the results. Anything other than change your views. These are not the actions of someone seriously seeking truth, it’s more like religious fanaticism.

If you think these experiments are all in error and all in error in the same way the feel free to devise and conduct your own tests and publish the results. Try it. You might learn something. If you want to...
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2019, 08:29:45 PM
The experiment is subject to a number of possible systematic issues. For one thing, the experimenters are using colored water, which makes it difficult to see if the surface is level or not. The full upper surface is seen when the eye is above the water column, but when the column is above the eye one can't easily see through the colored water to see if it's level or not. This makes it more likely to be too high than too low.

(https://i.imgur.com/WTjDxK5.png)

Another issue is that they are aligning the upper surface, which is not level. From Encyclopedia Brittanica (https://books.google.com/books?id=LCRKAQAAMAAJ&lpg=PA264&ots=WUcn-_iBIK&pg=PA264#v=onepage&q&f=false):

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/7/7d/Surface_tension_effects.png)

From p.4:

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/screenshot-83-png.35945/)

(https://i.imgur.com/0xEHjcE.jpg)

If we were to tilt the device, lowering down the bottom lip of the background container to match the bottom lip of the foreground device, we can clearly see that it would be a different result.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: stack on April 03, 2019, 08:54:06 PM
The experiment is subject to a number of possible systematic issues. For one thing, the experimenters are using colored water, which makes it difficult to see if the surface is level or not. The full upper surface is seen when the eye is above the water column, but when the column is above the eye one can't easily see through the colored water to see if it's level or not. This makes it more likely to be too high than too low.

(https://i.imgur.com/WTjDxK5.png)

Or this:

(https://i.imgur.com/2me7zc0.jpg)

If we were to tilt the device, lifting the bottom lip of the water level in the foreground device up to match the bottom lip of the background device, it would be a different result.

Then don't go randomly tilting it. Use a spirit level as a control.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 03, 2019, 08:59:16 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/EIaS5u9.png)

In the case of the above device, it is questionable whether the front container is even level. There is a lip of lightness at the top, like we are looking down at it. In the case of the colored water, the upper surface might be entirely black, missing cues like this.

The thick meniscus in these devices cause the same issues as the colored water does. Questionable calibration and alignment. Steps to ensure accuracy are desired.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: QED on April 04, 2019, 12:20:43 AM
Quote
The matter is not impeached simply because you can reference a YouTube video, or can find a alternate device which was faulty, or can provide a quotation about surveying from an obviously biased source.

Actually, it is. These people put their devices under a little scrutiny, and found that they were imperfect. Why should we assume that the people who did not put their devices under scrutiny are perfect? If some devices were found to be imperfect, then anyone doing this experiment should scrutinize their tools as well.

Obviously biased? Is the surveyor quoted a flat earther?

We must always ensure that our tools are accurate for the job. The fact that anyone could think that we do not need to ensure accuracy says volumes. I find your argument that testing for accuracy is not needed to be totally invalid.

It may be that the horizon does drop at higher altitudes for various reasons, but this tool may be unreliable to show us exactly where eye level is.

Scrutiny which lacks rigorous application returns unscientific results. The proposed method of failure cannot possibly influence the measurement due to the difference in scale between its effect and the measurement.

It is certainly possible that these experiments are inaccurate. Nevertheless, your present method of inquiry will not tell you so. This is because that method is fallacious reasoning, YouTube videos, and cartoon drawings, which you have somehow confused with science.
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: stack on April 04, 2019, 04:44:58 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/EIaS5u9.png)

In the case of the above device, it is questionable whether the front container is even level. There is a lip of lightness at the top, like we are looking down at it. In the case of the colored water, the upper surface might be entirely black, missing cues like this.

The thick meniscus in these devices cause the same issues as the colored water does. Questionable calibration and alignment. Steps to ensure accuracy are desired.

Rowbotham’s ENAG Experiment 11

"Another proof will be found in the following experiment. Select any promontory, pier, lighthouse gallery, or small island, and, at a considerable altitude, place a smooth block of wood or stone of any magnitude; let this be "levelled." If, then, the observer will place his eye close to the block, and look along its surface towards the sea, he will find that the line of sight will touch the distant horizon. Now let any number of spirit levels or theodolites be properly placed, and accurately adjusted; and it will be found that, in every one of them, the same sea horizon will appear in the field of view considerably below the cross-hair; thus, proving that telescopic instrumental readings are not the same as those of the naked eye.”

So this is essentially the kind of control, alignment, and calibrated rigor you’re looking for: placing one’s eye close to the block? Then comparing that to the accuracy of a locked down leveled and stationary theodolite? And then coming to the insanely obvious conclusion that "telescopic instrumental readings are not the same as those of the naked eye”? This is the type of solid experimentation you demand? Nose to a block of wood? Certainly no questionable calibration and alignment there...Seriously?

So I guess we’ll forget tubes/bottles of water and string cages, we’ll just move to eyeballing it with planks of wood. Is that acceptable?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: TomFoolery on April 04, 2019, 06:20:43 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/EIaS5u9.png)

In the case of the above device, it is questionable whether the front container is even level. There is a lip of lightness at the top, like we are looking down at it. In the case of the colored water, the upper surface might be entirely black, missing cues like this.

The thick meniscus in these devices cause the same issues as the colored water does. Questionable calibration and alignment. Steps to ensure accuracy are desired.

So, Mr. Bishop, what technique would you use to check whether the horizon rises to eyelevel of the observer?

Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: inquisitive on April 04, 2019, 07:01:07 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/EIaS5u9.png)

In the case of the above device, it is questionable whether the front container is even level. There is a lip of lightness at the top, like we are looking down at it. In the case of the colored water, the upper surface might be entirely black, missing cues like this.

The thick meniscus in these devices cause the same issues as the colored water does. Questionable calibration and alignment. Steps to ensure accuracy are desired.
You have ignored details of a device with specified accuuracy and calibation that I provided.  Why?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Max_Almond on April 04, 2019, 07:22:58 AM
Lol @ this thread. We feed the troll, the troll grows bigger.

What do those blue lines even mean? They have to be at the level of the water, Tom can't just draw them arbitrarily wherever he feels like.

Boys, our minds are like pearls, our intellects holy - and we all know what the good Lord JC said not to do with holy things and pearls, right?

Though I can't say I haven't been guilty of it myself.

He knew a thing or two, that JC. ;)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 04, 2019, 09:24:29 AM
Indeed. I don't think this is worthy of further debate until Tom does his own tests and publishes the results and his method for review.
Until then it's just him windmilling his arms and shouting "doesn't, doesn't, doesn't" when shown the horizon dip result which is not a very productive discussion.

The fact he refuses to do any tests himself is telling...
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Bikini Polaris on April 14, 2019, 07:17:43 PM
Indeed. I don't think this is worthy of further debate until Tom does his own tests and publishes the results and his method for review.

Apparently it's pointless to ask such questions as "what is the best tool for..." or ask for results, because the "zetetic method" denies trust to peers and force their followers to personally reproduce their experiments. It's up to a zeteticist to trust or not its own experiment and live on his own conclusions. On the other side the scientific method, that is quite misunderstood by Tom Bishop, is ultimately based on giving the best possible answer with the best possible tool and reducing the chance to be wrong, but that probability cannot, and never will, be zero. Actually, the study of measurement error you'll always have in any device is the very first step in any science course. Any scientist knows that any conclusion he'll take is true up to his measurement error. And this is good, because it creates a community where everyone will accept as truer the measurements taken with the best instruments! I cannot see bacteria with my own eyes, but someone with a microscope did and that becomes the leading hp!
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Macarios on April 15, 2019, 07:44:19 PM
I love how some posts in this thread go against one of the Rowbotham's cornerstones: "water is always level".

In every pipe you have capillary effect next to the walls. But the middle of wide enough pipes are always horizontal.
Decide how narrow a pipe should be to have capillary effect dominant?
Then for making water level use much wider pipes and solve the problem.
Ofcourse, use the pipes of equal diameter and have the capillary action balanced in both.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(http://i63.tinypic.com/14talgp.png)

Examples: for a 0.2 m (0.66 ft) radius glass tube in lab conditions given above, the water would rise an unnoticeable 0.07 mm (0.0028 in).
For a 2 cm (0.79 in) radius tube, the water would rise 0.7 mm (0.028 in).
For a 2 mm (0.079 in) radius tube, the water would rise 7 mm (0.28 in).

So, say, use two equal pipes with radius of 3 cm and you will have meniscus height of 0.49 mm equal in both.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EDIT:

By the way, perspective is also doing this, but Rowbotham skips that part:

(http://i67.tinypic.com/1zdz13p.png)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: flachland on April 16, 2019, 02:45:58 AM
To get roughly near, some cameras have a level display. For example Sony A7, A7r etc. Very useful when you take landscape images.

(http://www.stayfocusedpress.com/blog/images/equip/a55/IMG_0171.jpg)
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: Macarios on April 17, 2019, 08:06:40 AM
The matter has already been impeached. The inability to calibrate the three chamber version of the device is direct evidence that the water is not level.

https://youtu.be/yH0L69zzK8A

Last year a caged water device was built by a member of our forums, which showed that the alignment of the liquid in the device is susceptible to error. It was seen that the liquid did not align and that water did not find its level.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9492.280


Two days ago this video was commented with something like
Quote
I tried this at home and the only way that I could achieve this was to block the middle chamber
and pour as much water as it would mismatch ending chambers for just a bit.
I encourage everyone to try this on their own and see the truth.

Today, after the encouragement, the comments are disabled/deleted. LOL

1. If the video is true, then the Rowbotham's "water is always level" is disproven.
2. If the video is false, then it shows the lack of real proof and need to fabricate some.

So, which will it be: 1. or 2. ?

TRY THIS AT HOME AND SEE FOR YOURSELF

I repeat: try this at home. Question everything and do your own investigations is the basics of Zetetism, isn't it?
Title: Re: What's the best tool for measuring eye level?
Post by: inquisitive on April 25, 2019, 05:46:06 PM
Details provided of a calibrated device 2 pages back, what's the problem with that?