The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Morgenstund on April 06, 2018, 11:15:54 PM

Title: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 06, 2018, 11:15:54 PM
A common argument against a GE is 'the horizon doesn't curve'. But why would we expect it to curve? Where would the highest point on the curve be. The fact is that the horizon would not curve on a GE:
All points on the horizon are at the same level and the same distance from the observer in all directions, thus forming a straight line. Yes, it is that simple.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tontogary on April 07, 2018, 07:13:30 AM
I agree, pretty easy to replicate as well.

Get a ball, gym ball, etc, and put your eye level near the inflation valve. Now look in one direction where the horizon of the ball is, and make a note of what the “horizon” lines up with in the background. Now spin the ball with the axis  through the valve below your eye level(same effect as turning in a circle 360 degrees looking at the horizon) the “horizon will not curve, dip away or rise up.

If you find it hard to keep your eye still then mount a camera on a steady surface in the same location, spin the ball while recording a video or series of stills. Very easy and costs nothing to repeat the experiment.

This is what you see as on observer on the round earth. You are in effect on top of the world, with the world curving away in all directions from you. In relation the world you are on the very top.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Parallax on April 07, 2018, 01:24:59 PM
Observations have already been made as to how the earth does not dip. If it was curved, then the Nile should dip but it falls only a foot. This is proof earth is not a globe.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 07, 2018, 01:32:12 PM
Observations have already been made as to how the earth does not dip. If it was curved, then the Nile should dip but it falls only a foot. This is proof earth is not a globe.

So you say... Back to the topic. Do you accept my conclusion that a straight horizon does not disprove a GE? That it is in fact what we must expect?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: inquisitive on April 07, 2018, 02:35:55 PM
Observations have already been made as to how the earth does not dip. If it was curved, then the Nile should dip but it falls only a foot. This is proof earth is not a globe.
The path of the sun proves the shape of the earth.  Plus measured distances.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Curious Squirrel on April 07, 2018, 03:34:41 PM
Observations have already been made as to how the earth does not dip. If it was curved, then the Nile should dip but it falls only a foot. This is proof earth is not a globe.
This is just a bald faced lie. But I've come to expect little better out of you.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tumeni on April 07, 2018, 04:03:36 PM
...  the Nile should dip but it falls only a foot. This is proof earth is not a globe.

Various sources I've looked suggest the elevation at its headwaters and tributaries is over 1000 metres (above sea level)

What's the source for "only a foot" ?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 07, 2018, 04:22:27 PM
...  the Nile should dip but it falls only a foot. This is proof earth is not a globe.

Various sources I've looked suggest the elevation at its headwaters and tributaries is over 1000 metres (above sea level)

What's the source for "only a foot" ?
I've seen this "only a foot" thing too. Seems to be a flat our lie so I don't know why it keeps getting repeated:

(https://image.ibb.co/fzRjbc/nile.jpg)

Source:
http://www.warrencountyschools.org/userfiles/3338/Classes/91227/Ch.%2019%20readings.doc

Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Curious Squirrel on April 07, 2018, 04:35:24 PM
...  the Nile should dip but it falls only a foot. This is proof earth is not a globe.

Various sources I've looked suggest the elevation at its headwaters and tributaries is over 1000 metres (above sea level)

What's the source for "only a foot" ?
I've seen this "only a foot" thing too. Seems to be a flat our lie so I don't know why it keeps getting repeated:

(https://image.ibb.co/fzRjbc/nile.jpg)

Source:
http://www.warrencountyschools.org/userfiles/3338/Classes/91227/Ch.%2019%20readings.doc
It's from "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe" (https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe) of which half or more are untrue on the face of things. This one happens to be #4 in that list:

Quote
There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.

I'm not sure where it might have come from before this, but this is the most likely source for anyone repeating it in defense of the flat Earth idea. I suspect it was likely a misconception/myth at the time, but I don't have proof for that.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 07, 2018, 04:45:18 PM
I see Tom was peddling this lie ten years ago

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25083.0

Weird.

Anyway...original post. Had to think about this but I think that's correct. If we were on a globe (  :D ) then although, as we have shown recently, the horizon dips you are, from your perspective, "on top" of the ball so it should dip equally in all directions and thus the horizon would be a circle. By coincidence this is what is observed when you're out at sea.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Parallax on April 07, 2018, 05:42:06 PM
...  the Nile should dip but it falls only a foot. This is proof earth is not a globe.

Various sources I've looked suggest the elevation at its headwaters and tributaries is over 1000 metres (above sea level)

What's the source for "only a foot" ?
Dr Rowbotham mentioned it, as did WM Carpenter.

It falls a foot, no crappy diagram is going to change that.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 07, 2018, 06:07:55 PM

Dr Rowbotham mentioned it, as did WM Carpenter.

It falls a foot, no crappy diagram is going to change that.

What do you mean by 'it falls a foot'? Could you produce a diagram, crappy or otherwise, that illustrates what it is you mean, and maybe explain why it is a problem for GE?

And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Curious Squirrel on April 07, 2018, 07:20:21 PM
...  the Nile should dip but it falls only a foot. This is proof earth is not a globe.

Various sources I've looked suggest the elevation at its headwaters and tributaries is over 1000 metres (above sea level)

What's the source for "only a foot" ?
Dr Rowbotham mentioned it, as did WM Carpenter.

It falls a foot, no crappy diagram is going to change that.
Neither of whom got any closer than England to the Nile river. How would they have any idea?

As for the horizon, in particular at sea, I can't come up with a reason we would expect to visibly see a curve in some manner.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Parallax on April 07, 2018, 08:39:58 PM
What sort of comment is that? So they didn't go, have you? They researched what had been recorded, just like you do now.


Dr Rowbotham mentioned it, as did WM Carpenter.

It falls a foot, no crappy diagram is going to change that.

What do you mean by 'it falls a foot'? Could you produce a diagram, crappy or otherwise, that illustrates what it is you mean, and maybe explain why it is a problem for GE?

And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?
The Nile only drops in height a foot. It does not drop any further. This is proof of a flat earth.

As for the original comment, the horizon should curve on a globe earth. If earth is a globe  then the horizon would curve, instead it does not. Proof is the fact the horizon always rises to eye level, only on a flat earth would this happen.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 07, 2018, 08:59:00 PM
The Nile only drops in height a foot. It does not drop any further. This is proof of a flat earth.
Fun fact: repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

Quote
As for the original comment, the horizon should curve on a globe earth. If earth is a globe  then the horizon would curve, instead it does not.
Why would the horizon curve on a globe earth? At ground level the horizon would be the same distance from you in every direction so the horizon would be a horizontal circle which is exactly what you can observe when out at sea.

Quote
Proof is the fact the horizon always rises to eye level, only on a flat earth would this happen.
Fun fact: repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: inquisitive on April 07, 2018, 09:00:49 PM
What sort of comment is that? So they didn't go, have you? They researched what had been recorded, just like you do now.


Dr Rowbotham mentioned it, as did WM Carpenter.

It falls a foot, no crappy diagram is going to change that.

What do you mean by 'it falls a foot'? Could you produce a diagram, crappy or otherwise, that illustrates what it is you mean, and maybe explain why it is a problem for GE?

And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?
The Nile only drops in height a foot. It does not drop any further. This is proof of a flat earth.

As for the original comment, the horizon should curve on a globe earth. If earth is a globe  then the horizon would curve, instead it does not. Proof is the fact the horizon always rises to eye level, only on a flat earth would this happen.
Rises to eye level, please explain. Modern measurements do not agree.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: douglips on April 07, 2018, 09:16:53 PM
What sort of comment is that? So they didn't go, have you? They researched what had been recorded, just like you do now.


Dr Rowbotham mentioned it, as did WM Carpenter.

It falls a foot, no crappy diagram is going to change that.

What do you mean by 'it falls a foot'? Could you produce a diagram, crappy or otherwise, that illustrates what it is you mean, and maybe explain why it is a problem for GE?

And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?
The Nile only drops in height a foot. It does not drop any further. This is proof of a flat earth.


Given that airports exist and their elevation is well documented for purposes of having airplanes not crash, you have a serious problem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_International_Airport

Luxor airport is at 294 feet.

The Nile does not flow through a 300 foot deep gorge at Luxor and yet drains to the Mediterranean at 0 elevation. Please explain.

Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 07, 2018, 09:30:35 PM
The silliest thing about this Nile claim - aside from the fact it is demonstrably untrue - is it doesn't make any sense on a flat earth either.
What would cause the water to flow on a flat earth if the gradient was really that shallow?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: HorstFue on April 07, 2018, 11:48:42 PM
A common argument against a GE is 'the horizon doesn't curve'. But why would we expect it to curve? Where would the highest point on the curve be. The fact is that the horizon would not curve on a GE:
All points on the horizon are at the same level and the same distance from the observer in all directions, thus forming a straight line. Yes, it is that simple.

mathematically: The projection of a circle is a line, only if the observer is at the same level/same plane of the circle. If the observer is above the center of the circle, he would see part of an ellipse.
Theoretically, but this circle, the horizon, compared to the hight of the observer, is huge. So in practice it's not distinguishable if you see a line or part of an ellipse.

An example: You know a Soccer field? There's a big circle in the center of the field. If you stay in the middle of this circle, you can see, that this is a circle around you - All points on the horizon this circle are at the same level and the same distance from the observer in all directions.

But the distance to the horizon is huge compared to this center circle of the soccer field with 10 yards radius.
E.g. the dip for an observers hight of 2 meters, which gives 3 nautical miles distance to horizon, is about 1 arc minute, which is max. resolution, you could see with naked eye.
And increasing hight of the observer does not help much, as the horizon will also be farther away. E.g. a dip of one degree is found for about 900 meters hight and 60 nautical miles distance to the horizon.
But this is already far beyond, what normal viewing conditions would allow you to see. The horizon would be blurred, so that no precise observation could be made.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Parallax on April 08, 2018, 12:01:55 AM
What sort of comment is that? So they didn't go, have you? They researched what had been recorded, just like you do now.


Dr Rowbotham mentioned it, as did WM Carpenter.

It falls a foot, no crappy diagram is going to change that.

What do you mean by 'it falls a foot'? Could you produce a diagram, crappy or otherwise, that illustrates what it is you mean, and maybe explain why it is a problem for GE?

And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?
The Nile only drops in height a foot. It does not drop any further. This is proof of a flat earth.


Given that airports exist and their elevation is well documented for purposes of having airplanes not crash, you have a serious problem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_International_Airport

Luxor airport is at 294 feet.

The Nile does not flow through a 300 foot deep gorge at Luxor and yet drains to the Mediterranean at 0 elevation. Please explain.
They probably just built Luxor airport a bit higher up.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: douglips on April 08, 2018, 12:47:18 AM
Looks pretty flat to me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55uWYGtPk_Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf0UntX25y0


It's not that hard to say "I was wrong." Or, "Here's where I saw that information." Instead, you are just in denial mode.

You can't just say "This is true" when all evidence contradicts it.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 08, 2018, 01:19:57 AM
What sort of comment is that? So they didn't go, have you? They researched what had been recorded, just like you do now.


Dr Rowbotham mentioned it, as did WM Carpenter.

It falls a foot, no crappy diagram is going to change that.

What do you mean by 'it falls a foot'? Could you produce a diagram, crappy or otherwise, that illustrates what it is you mean, and maybe explain why it is a problem for GE?

And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?
The Nile only drops in height a foot. It does not drop any further. This is proof of a flat earth.

The curvature of the Earth is not what causes the drop. You're talking about a difference in elevation. I refuse to believe that there is only 1 foot drop from Lake Victoria to the Mediterranean. What is the prime source?

As for the original comment, the horizon should curve on a globe earth. If earth is a globe  then the horizon would curve, instead it does not.

Why should it curve? I explained why it should be a straight line. You either show why I am wrong, or you explain why you're right. You can't just repeat the assertion.
If the horizon should curve, as you say, where would the top of the curve be?

Proof is the fact the horizon always rises to eye level, only on a flat earth would this happen.

I bet it doesn't even make sense to you. It's a sound bite you parrot without realizing it's gibberish.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 08, 2018, 01:31:29 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55uWYGtPk_Q

This image illustrates what I point out in another post. On a FE there would be no horizon like we see it in the real world. Because the image is taken from a high altitude, the horizon has 'moved' further back, beyond our range of vision which is limited due to the diffraction caused by the atmosphere. The horizon becomes fuzzy. On a flat earth the 'edge' would always be out of sight, so to speak. Strictly speaking there would be no edge (i.e. horizon) at all, since it is the result of the surface curving away from the observer.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 08, 2018, 01:55:08 AM
A common argument against a GE is 'the horizon doesn't curve'. But why would we expect it to curve? Where would the highest point on the curve be. The fact is that the horizon would not curve on a GE:
All points on the horizon are at the same level and the same distance from the observer in all directions, thus forming a straight line. Yes, it is that simple.

mathematically: The projection of a circle is a line, only if the observer is at the same level/same plane of the circle. If the observer is above the center of the circle, he would see part of an ellipse.
Theoretically, but this circle, the horizon, compared to the hight of the observer, is huge. So in practice it's not distinguishable if you see a line or part of an ellipse.

An example: You know a Soccer field? There's a big circle in the center of the field. If you stay in the middle of this circle, you can see, that this is a circle around you - All points on the horizon this circle are at the same level and the same distance from the observer in all directions.

The points on the circle are all on the same horizontal plane. Standing up I can see the ellipse, yes, but that is not a curvature of the plane on which the circle is. It is the same elipse one would see standing close to the edge on a FE. It is also what we see in images of the Earth taken from space. We see the Earth is round, but because it is so far away it's reduced to the 2 dimensional shape of a circle, and we can't determine, from still images, that we're looking at a globe. From the Moon the Earth might as well be a flat disk ;)
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: robinofloxley on April 09, 2018, 01:58:14 PM
A common argument against a GE is 'the horizon doesn't curve'. But why would we expect it to curve? Where would the highest point on the curve be. The fact is that the horizon would not curve on a GE:
All points on the horizon are at the same level and the same distance from the observer in all directions, thus forming a straight line. Yes, it is that simple.

mathematically: The projection of a circle is a line, only if the observer is at the same level/same plane of the circle. If the observer is above the center of the circle, he would see part of an ellipse.
Theoretically, but this circle, the horizon, compared to the hight of the observer, is huge. So in practice it's not distinguishable if you see a line or part of an ellipse.

An example: You know a Soccer field? There's a big circle in the center of the field. If you stay in the middle of this circle, you can see, that this is a circle around you - All points on the horizon this circle are at the same level and the same distance from the observer in all directions.

The points on the circle are all on the same horizontal plane. Standing up I can see the ellipse, yes, but that is not a curvature of the plane on which the circle is. It is the same elipse one would see standing close to the edge on a FE. It is also what we see in images of the Earth taken from space. We see the Earth is round, but because it is so far away it's reduced to the 2 dimensional shape of a circle, and we can't determine, from still images, that we're looking at a globe. From the Moon the Earth might as well be a flat disk ;)

I've been following this thread with interest, so decided to register and join the party so to speak, to add a few observations of my own.

It just so happens that I spent a very pleasant couple of hours at a cafe by the seaside yesterday. A very clear day with a clearly defined horizon and calm sea. Based on the few boats I could see at various distances, I'd estimate the horizon at about 3-5 miles (let's say 5) distant and I was about 15-20 feet above sea level. If I looked directly ahead, I could see the horizon, it looked flat and perpendicular to my line of sight, however I had a very clear field of view of the sea approximately 180 degrees from left to right and no matter where I looked, I saw the horizon the same apparent distance away, perpendicular to my line of sight. So if I can turn my head through 180 degrees and see a horizon line at about 5 miles everywhere I look, then logically I'm looking at a semi-circle with a 10 mile diameter and me dead centre.

My eyes tell me I'm looking at a straight line, no curve, but I turn my head around and my brain tells me I'm clearly looking at a semi-circle. Lesson learned, I simply can't trust my own eyes to detect a curve on this scale from this viewing position.

Past experience also tells me that I could have moved to pretty much anywhere along the coast and I'd still find myself at the centre of a circle (or rather semi-circle). Also if I were to choose a higher vantage point, I'd see further - the circle would grow. As a pure exercise in geometry, ignoring any other factors, if I ask myself what kind of geometric object am I likely to be looking at if I find myself at the centre of a circle, no matter where I move to or look, but at the same time the size of circle grows when I increase my altitude, then the simplest explanation is that I'm in close proximity to a reasonably large sphere. It perfectly explains everything I see. Of course I'm ignoring all other factors such as refraction here, I'm just looking for the simplest geometrical explanation for what I saw. I'm not trying to go beyond that and speculate how or why the sea would curve away from me, just using my eyes and brain.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Edgar Alan Hoe on April 11, 2018, 03:26:21 PM
What sort of comment is that? So they didn't go, have you? They researched what had been recorded, just like you do now.


Dr Rowbotham mentioned it, as did WM Carpenter.

It falls a foot, no crappy diagram is going to change that.

What do you mean by 'it falls a foot'? Could you produce a diagram, crappy or otherwise, that illustrates what it is you mean, and maybe explain why it is a problem for GE?

And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?
The Nile only drops in height a foot. It does not drop any further. This is proof of a flat earth.

As for the original comment, the horizon should curve on a globe earth. If earth is a globe  then the horizon would curve, instead it does not. Proof is the fact the horizon always rises to eye level, only on a flat earth would this happen.

WTF is this nonsense? The source of the Nile is at least 1000 feat above sea level, probably more (I'll look it up to double check).

Why on earth would you say this 1 feet crap?

You MUST be trolling.


>> Just checked, the source of the Nile is over 3000 feet above see level. Please stop flippantly spreading BS.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tontogary on April 12, 2018, 01:54:19 AM
What sort of comment is that? So they didn't go, have you? They researched what had been recorded, just like you do now.


Dr Rowbotham mentioned it, as did WM Carpenter.

It falls a foot, no crappy diagram is going to change that.

What do you mean by 'it falls a foot'? Could you produce a diagram, crappy or otherwise, that illustrates what it is you mean, and maybe explain why it is a problem for GE?

And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?
The Nile only drops in height a foot. It does not drop any further. This is proof of a flat earth.


Given that airports exist and their elevation is well documented for purposes of having airplanes not crash, you have a serious problem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_International_Airport

Luxor airport is at 294 feet.

The Nile does not flow through a 300 foot deep gorge at Luxor and yet drains to the Mediterranean at 0 elevation. Please explain.
They probably just built Luxor airport a bit higher up.

Ah well, true denial mode! Nothing new there, and not really contributing to the discussion. I really am surprised he doesn’t get warned more often!

How does one explain the Aswan dam if it falls a foot from source to the sea?

The dam is 111 meters high, so lets be charitable and say it contains 100M depth at the dam when full.
If water always stays level (EnaG old bedford experiments are accepted as TRUTH by FEers that this is so) how does 100m depth of water build up behind the dam?

The dam base on the downstream side still flows to the sea, so the foot of the dam MUST be above sea level. On the upstream side the dam creates a lake, which is level with the water hieght at the artificial lakes entrance, so the entrance to the lake MUST be 100 metres higher, than the water level at the foot of the dam, Water flows into the lake from further upstream, therefore MUST be higher again. (Observation, experience all good empirical evidence)

Unless FE theory has water flowing uphill???

Ok back to the OP.
The distance to the horizon is the same all round.
I have on a few occasions happened to find myself in a lattitude the same as the suns declination (NOTE EnaG does not dispute suns declination)
Using a sextant i have measured the arc from the suns lower limb to the horizon at midday, and found that there was no angular difference around the entire horizon, therefore by observation, and experience, i have empirical evidence that the horizon does not curve.
If the horizon curved away to either side of me i would surely see an altitude change when taking the suns altitude from south, through west to north then east?

Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: hexagon on April 12, 2018, 10:43:57 AM
Of course the horizon could curve on a globe. This follows directly from the full rotational symmetry of a sphere. If I turn around by 360° while staying perpendicular to the surface any line at a fixed distance describes a circle centered around me with its normal parallel to my rotation axis. So I'm looking down onto a circle with my in the center.
 
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 12, 2018, 05:19:07 PM
Of course the horizon could curve on a globe. This follows directly from the full rotational symmetry of a sphere. If I turn around by 360° while staying perpendicular to the surface any line at a fixed distance describes a circle centered around me with its normal parallel to my rotation axis. So I'm looking down onto a circle with my in the center.
I agree. When I wrote my first post I actually deleted a paragraph where I wrote 'When seen from above the points on the horizon would form a circle with the observer at the center', but I felt I didn't need to state the obvious. So, of course the line would curve, but as I have said elsewhere, the plane on which all the points on the horizon lie is horizontal (duh!) and does not curve. It's flat. And it's the last bit that FEs claim should be the case and should be observed on a spherical Earth. They're dead wrong.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Parallax on April 12, 2018, 09:08:29 PM
What sort of comment is that? So they didn't go, have you? They researched what had been recorded, just like you do now.


Dr Rowbotham mentioned it, as did WM Carpenter.

It falls a foot, no crappy diagram is going to change that.

What do you mean by 'it falls a foot'? Could you produce a diagram, crappy or otherwise, that illustrates what it is you mean, and maybe explain why it is a problem for GE?

And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?
The Nile only drops in height a foot. It does not drop any further. This is proof of a flat earth.


Given that airports exist and their elevation is well documented for purposes of having airplanes not crash, you have a serious problem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxor_International_Airport

Luxor airport is at 294 feet.

The Nile does not flow through a 300 foot deep gorge at Luxor and yet drains to the Mediterranean at 0 elevation. Please explain.
They probably just built Luxor airport a bit higher up.

Ah well, true denial mode! Nothing new there, and not really contributing to the discussion. I really am surprised he doesn’t get warned more often!

How does one explain the Aswan dam if it falls a foot from source to the sea?

The dam is 111 meters high, so lets be charitable and say it contains 100M depth at the dam when full.
If water always stays level (EnaG old bedford experiments are accepted as TRUTH by FEers that this is so) how does 100m depth of water build up behind the dam?

The dam base on the downstream side still flows to the sea, so the foot of the dam MUST be above sea level. On the upstream side the dam creates a lake, which is level with the water hieght at the artificial lakes entrance, so the entrance to the lake MUST be 100 metres higher, than the water level at the foot of the dam, Water flows into the lake from further upstream, therefore MUST be higher again. (Observation, experience all good empirical evidence)

Unless FE theory has water flowing uphill???

Ok back to the OP.
The distance to the horizon is the same all round.
I have on a few occasions happened to find myself in a lattitude the same as the suns declination (NOTE EnaG does not dispute suns declination)
Using a sextant i have measured the arc from the suns lower limb to the horizon at midday, and found that there was no angular difference around the entire horizon, therefore by observation, and experience, i have empirical evidence that the horizon does not curve.
If the horizon curved away to either side of me i would surely see an altitude change when taking the suns altitude from south, through west to north then east?
Not sure how it's not contributing. All I was asked is why Luxor airport is higher in elevation. Logic would dictate it was built on higher land.

As for the dam, that's basic stuff. A dam builds water up behind it. It stops the water being level the whole way because the 20th century man made structures are now preventing it.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 12, 2018, 09:13:31 PM
Not sure how it's not contributing. All I was asked is why Luxor airport is higher in elevation. Logic would dictate it was built on higher land.
Well yeah. That's the point. And the Nile flows nearby and isn't in a massive ditch. So clearly the Nile doesn't just drop 1 foot along its whole length.
Glad we've finally agreed that.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Parallax on April 12, 2018, 09:54:28 PM
Not sure how it's not contributing. All I was asked is why Luxor airport is higher in elevation. Logic would dictate it was built on higher land.
Well yeah. That's the point. And the Nile flows nearby and isn't in a massive ditch. So clearly the Nile doesn't just drop 1 foot along its whole length.
Glad we've finally agreed that.
Confused here. Are you saying the Nile flows through Luxor airport?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 12, 2018, 10:23:58 PM
Not sure how it's not contributing. All I was asked is why Luxor airport is higher in elevation. Logic would dictate it was built on higher land.
Well yeah. That's the point. And the Nile flows nearby and isn't in a massive ditch. So clearly the Nile doesn't just drop 1 foot along its whole length.
Glad we've finally agreed that.
Confused here. Are you saying the Nile flows through Luxor airport?

Within a couple of miles.

(https://image.ibb.co/jVa7p7/Nile_Luxor.jpg)

Are you claiming that the airport is 700 feet above the Nile a couple of miles away? Where is your evidence if so?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Parallax on April 13, 2018, 03:57:36 AM
Now I understand what you are saying.

Yes, the airport is built on higher land a couple of miles away. The Nile only falls a foot.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Curious Squirrel on April 13, 2018, 05:16:33 AM
Now I understand what you are saying.

Yes, the airport is built on higher land a couple of miles away. The Nile only falls a foot.
I suspect it to be futile, but have you any evidence of your claim? A man saying so in a book is not evidence.

Dam quite conclusively proves otherwise, regardless of the state of the airport. Denial only shows you for either a troll or not understanding how a dam works. Personally still going with choice number 1.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Edgar Alan Hoe on April 13, 2018, 07:17:40 AM
Now I understand what you are saying.

Yes, the airport is built on higher land a couple of miles away. The Nile only falls a foot.

See, like Tom you have made your trolling too obvious and spoilt the fun we all have debating with an 'idiot'.

Tone it down a little so we can all carry on pretending this is a real debate.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Parallax on April 13, 2018, 07:18:47 AM
Now I understand what you are saying.

Yes, the airport is built on higher land a couple of miles away. The Nile only falls a foot.
I suspect it to be futile, but have you any evidence of your claim? A man saying so in a book is not evidence.

Dam quite conclusively proves otherwise, regardless of the state of the airport. Denial only shows you for either a troll or not understanding how a dam works. Personally still going with choice number 1.
Funny, cos man saying so on a forum isn't evidence.

Dr Rowbotham was astute in his experiments. The Nile drops only a foot.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Macarios on April 13, 2018, 07:21:49 AM
Now I understand what you are saying.

Yes, the airport is built on higher land a couple of miles away. The Nile only falls a foot.
I suspect it to be futile, but have you any evidence of your claim? A man saying so in a book is not evidence.

Dam quite conclusively proves otherwise, regardless of the state of the airport. Denial only shows you for either a troll or not understanding how a dam works. Personally still going with choice number 1.
Funny, cos man saying so on a forum isn't evidence.

Dr Rowbotham was astute in his experiments. The Nile drops only a foot.

Nile itself already disagree with "Dr" Rowbotham. :)
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Edgar Alan Hoe on April 13, 2018, 07:47:28 AM
Now I understand what you are saying.

Yes, the airport is built on higher land a couple of miles away. The Nile only falls a foot.
I suspect it to be futile, but have you any evidence of your claim? A man saying so in a book is not evidence.

Dam quite conclusively proves otherwise, regardless of the state of the airport. Denial only shows you for either a troll or not understanding how a dam works. Personally still going with choice number 1.
Funny, cos man saying so on a forum isn't evidence.

Dr Rowbotham was astute in his experiments. The Nile drops only a foot.

Funny, cos man saying so in a book isn't evidence either.

What is the actual evidence for the Nile dropping only 1 foot? What 'astute' experiment did Rowbotham carry out to establish this?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 13, 2018, 09:58:05 AM
Now I understand what you are saying.

Yes, the airport is built on higher land a couple of miles away. The Nile only falls a foot.
Nope.

http://en-gb.topographic-map.com/places/Luxor-8089754/

Just to be clear. What you're claiming is that for the entire length of the Nile, which Google reckons is 6,853km, the elevation only changes by 1 foot.
So nowhere the Nile flows through can be higher than that, unless the Nile is in a trench or canyon.
I'd be interested to know how you think water would flow at all were that the case.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Parallax on April 13, 2018, 03:46:33 PM
Oh well if Google says so it must be true.

Dr Rowbotham already said it drops only a foot. That's it. End of.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 13, 2018, 05:04:31 PM
Oh well if Google says so it must be true.
Nope, I figured it out all by myself, and you could too if you had the guts.

Dr Rowbotham already said it drops only a foot. That's it. End of.

Called it! Here is what I wrote earlier: "And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?"
In another post you wrote that Rowbotham should be honored and respected and that he was a visionary scientist ahead of his time and so on. That's how I spell 'guru'.

This 'FE movement' bears all the hallmarks of a cult. The old, visionary leader, the 2-3 bumper sticker slogans and the unwillingness to even consider the counter arguments presented... This has nothing whatsoever to do with the shape of the Earth, it's all about being in a community, where the faithful believers are special and argue contrary to what 99.9999999% of the rational beings on Earth know is true. You are the chosen ones, the few who see the real truth, you fight oppression and ridicule, but together you stand strong, and nothing, nothing at all, will ever be allowed to convince you that you are wrong.

PS: Rowbotham was not a doctor by any stretch of the imagination. If you disagree, please tell me where he got his degree.

I know... 'The Nile drops one foot and Professor Doctor Rowbotham, PhD spake the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. Amen!!!'
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Parallax on April 13, 2018, 05:24:47 PM
Oh well if Google says so it must be true.
Nope, I figured it out all by myself, and you could too if you had the guts.

Dr Rowbotham already said it drops only a foot. That's it. End of.

Called it! Here is what I wrote earlier: "And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?"
In another post you wrote that Rowbotham should be honored and respected and that he was a visionary scientist ahead of his time and so on. That's how I spell 'guru'.

This 'FE movement' bears all the hallmarks of a cult. The old, visionary leader, the 2-3 bumper sticker slogans and the unwillingness to even consider the counter arguments presented... This has nothing whatsoever to do with the shape of the Earth, it's all about being in a community, where the faithful believers are special and argue contrary to what 99.9999999% of the rational beings on Earth know is true. You are the chosen ones, the few who see the real truth, you fight oppression and ridicule, but together you stand strong, and nothing, nothing at all, will ever be allowed to convince you that you are wrong.

PS: Rowbotham was not a doctor by any stretch of the imagination. If you disagree, please tell me where he got his degree.

I know... 'The Nile drops one foot and Professor Doctor Rowbotham, PhD spake the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. Amen!!!'
Figured it out by using Google? I have the guts, I just don't need to 'figure' anything out, Dr Rowbotham has already done it.

I don't know where you got the idea flat earth movement is a cult. All we do is accept that earth isn't a globe. Yes, Dr Rowbotham was the founder of the zetetic movement, but its not a cult. We don't worship him in any way whatsoever.

And no, its on you to prove he wasn't a doctor. I referred to him as one, you stated it as an absolute fact he wasn't. I didn't say to you that he absolutely was. So it's on you to prove he wasn't.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Edgar Alan Hoe on April 13, 2018, 05:29:44 PM
Oh well if Google says so it must be true.

Dr Rowbotham already said it drops only a foot. That's it. End of.

And what evidence did he give for the Nile dropping by only 1 foot along its entire length? Why do you choose to take his word?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: StinkyOne on April 13, 2018, 05:51:11 PM
Figured it out by using Google? I have the guts, I just don't need to 'figure' anything out, Dr Rowbotham has already done it.

I don't know where you got the idea flat earth movement is a cult. All we do is accept that earth isn't a globe. Yes, Dr Rowbotham was the founder of the zetetic movement, but its not a cult. We don't worship him in any way whatsoever.

And no, its on you to prove he wasn't a doctor. I referred to him as one, you stated it as an absolute fact he wasn't. I didn't say to you that he absolutely was. So it's on you to prove he wasn't.

Rowbotham didn't figure out the Nile drops 1 foot in 1 thousand miles any more than you did. He never went to the Nile to measure anything. Your troll game is showing cracks. No one would blindly follow a quack from 150 years ago.

As for that Dr thing, call him what you want. You know, I know, everyone paying attention knows he did nothing to earn the title of Dr. If I run around calling myself a Dr and have it put on my headstone, does that mean anything at all? All it means is I was delusional or a liar. I'll let you decide which it was for Rowbotham.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 13, 2018, 07:14:54 PM
Figured it out by using Google? I have the guts, I just don't need to 'figure' anything out, Dr Rowbotham has already done it.

I don't know where you got the idea flat earth movement is a cult. All we do is accept that earth isn't a globe. Yes, Dr Rowbotham was the founder of the zetetic movement, but its not a cult. We don't worship him in any way whatsoever.

And no, its on you to prove he wasn't a doctor. I referred to him as one, you stated it as an absolute fact he wasn't. I didn't say to you that he absolutely was. So it's on you to prove he wasn't.

Rowbotham didn't figure out the Nile drops 1 foot in 1 thousand miles any more than you did. He never went to the Nile to measure anything. Your troll game is showing cracks. No one would blindly follow a quack from 150 years ago.

Can you quote Rowbotham where he said anything about the drop of Nile?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tumeni on April 13, 2018, 07:17:15 PM
Can you quote Rowbotham where he said anything about the drop of Nile?

Dr Rowbotham already said it drops only a foot. That's it. End of.

Tom, ask Parallax where he found the quote.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: HorstFue on April 13, 2018, 08:29:45 PM
Can you quote Rowbotham where he said anything about the drop of Nile?
Tom is right, it's not Robotham.

The "Author" is William Carpenter in
A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe (1885)
it's in the wiki: https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe
Quote from: William Carpenter
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Parallax on April 13, 2018, 08:44:49 PM
Can you quote Rowbotham where he said anything about the drop of Nile?

Dr Rowbotham already said it drops only a foot. That's it. End of.

Tom, ask Parallax where he found the quote.
Apologies, I made a mistake and got Dr Rowbotham mixed up with William Carpenter. I hold my hands up to that one.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: xenotolerance on April 13, 2018, 10:26:42 PM
Do you then concede the point, having accepted that Rowbotham did not make the claim?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 14, 2018, 12:52:17 AM
Oh well if Google says so it must be true.
Nope, I figured it out all by myself, and you could too if you had the guts.

Dr Rowbotham already said it drops only a foot. That's it. End of.

Called it! Here is what I wrote earlier: "And am I right when I assume that you have no intention whatsoever of addressing my original topic, the expected straight horizon? Am I right when I assume that you have dug in, and it's going to be 'the Nile drops one foot' from here on out?"
In another post you wrote that Rowbotham should be honored and respected and that he was a visionary scientist ahead of his time and so on. That's how I spell 'guru'.

This 'FE movement' bears all the hallmarks of a cult. The old, visionary leader, the 2-3 bumper sticker slogans and the unwillingness to even consider the counter arguments presented... This has nothing whatsoever to do with the shape of the Earth, it's all about being in a community, where the faithful believers are special and argue contrary to what 99.9999999% of the rational beings on Earth know is true. You are the chosen ones, the few who see the real truth, you fight oppression and ridicule, but together you stand strong, and nothing, nothing at all, will ever be allowed to convince you that you are wrong.

PS: Rowbotham was not a doctor by any stretch of the imagination. If you disagree, please tell me where he got his degree.

I know... 'The Nile drops one foot and Professor Doctor Rowbotham, PhD spake the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth. Amen!!!'

Figured it out by using Google?

I learned the definition of a circle long before there were PCs.
'A closed plane curve every point of which is equidistant from a fixed point within the curve'
It's basic geometry, and I simply applied it.

I have the guts, I just don't need to 'figure' anything out, Dr Rowbotham has already done it.

'The Wise One has done all my thinking for me.'

I don't know where you got the idea flat earth movement is a cult.
Oh, the irony. You call yourself "Disciple of Dr Rowbotham". You use his nym, for crying out loud.

All we do is accept that earth isn't a globe. Yes, Dr Rowbotham was the founder of the zetetic movement, but its not a cult. We don't worship him in any way whatsoever.
"We"... You're his "disciple" and He has done all the figuring out, so you don't need to.

And no, its on you to prove he wasn't a doctor. I referred to him as one, you stated it as an absolute fact he wasn't. I didn't say to you that he absolutely was. So it's on you to prove he wasn't.

Whoa! That's not how it works. You made the initial positive claim, calling him a Doctor, so the burden of proof is of course yours.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 14, 2018, 10:41:14 PM
Rowbotham was called a doctor by his contemporaries and enemies and sources cite him as running a legitimate medical practice.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Edgar Alan Hoe on April 14, 2018, 11:08:07 PM
Rowbotham was called a doctor by his contemporaries and enemies and sources cite him as running a legitimate medical practice.

According to what sources?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Edgar Alan Hoe on April 14, 2018, 11:11:25 PM
Farty McFartwhistle was considered by both his followers and detractors alike as being the fartiest of all whistles.



See, anyone can just type stuff...
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 14, 2018, 11:39:11 PM
Rowbotham was called a doctor by his contemporaries and enemies and sources cite him as running a legitimate medical practice.
I have no problem with being corrected, and would be happy to take a look at those sources.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 15, 2018, 12:01:59 AM
Rowbotham was called a doctor by his contemporaries and enemies and sources cite him as running a legitimate medical practice.
I have no problem with being corrected, and would be happy to take a look at those sources.

Refer to the conversation in this thread:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61409.msg1607688#msg1607688

Quote from: Ski
I'm not sure why you are so disparaging about his title. As stated, even if he did not graduate from Edinburgh, it was not uncommon for people to study at university's without documentation, nor is it impossible that he graduated elsewhere before or after studying at Edinburgh, nor that that he was licensed through one of the many licensing bodies that existed at the time.

In addition, you are ignoring that not a single instance has been presented in contemporary accounts wherein he was called anything but doctor by anyone -- including his adversaries. To take the stance that he was not a doctor would also mean that you believed the Bookseller editor to be in on the conspiracy in 1885, naming him a doctor with a flourishing and legitimate practice, or that the AAAS in publishing one of the most respected scientific journals calls anyone and their brother doctor without regard for their actual career or qualifications.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 15, 2018, 01:23:37 AM
Also, see this thread in which we discover references to the school where Rowbotham studied, and where we uncover Rowbotham's creation of the phosphate soda industry with his Dr. Birley's drink and the subsequent intellectual theft by Dr. Pepper:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51185.0
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Ardi on April 15, 2018, 01:36:18 AM
Hi flaterthers
Apologies
Interested subject but i only wanted a way to post a new and thrilling subject proofing flatearth and reason behind GE theory
Thank you
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Edgar Alan Hoe on April 15, 2018, 08:25:58 AM
Also, see this thread in which we discover references to the school where Rowbotham studied, and where we uncover Rowbotham's creation of the phosphate soda industry with his Dr. Birley's drink and the subsequent intellectual theft by Dr. Pepper:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=51185.0

So your proof is a thread where people are talking about it?

If that qualifies as proof to you I can see your problem.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Edgar Alan Hoe on April 15, 2018, 09:17:58 AM
Funny, I can't appear to find any reference to him online as Dr Samuel Rowbotham.

Are you sure about this?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: JohnAdams1145 on April 15, 2018, 10:02:08 AM
I suppose it's really hard to visualize this, but on a globe Earth the horizon should definitely curve, and the curve becomes more apparent the higher you go up. If you imagine the Earth as a basketball and hold it out in front of you, you can see that the basketball is clearly curved (duh!). But what are you really simulating here? An extremely high-altitude photograph of the sphere. To say that it wouldn't be curved at different altitudes is special pleading.

As for what this got derailed to: even if Parallax were right and a given river "dropped" in altitude by only x meters, it wouldn't support FE or RE, since we define "up" as the direction opposite the pull of gravity, and when you measure altitudes on a sphere, you'll notice that up is different for every point on its surface. The point is moot. But the other posters make a very good point in that the Nile cannot just drop one foot, because its source has been carefully verified to be much higher than that. Asserting that it isn't is delusional.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 15, 2018, 10:53:04 AM
I suppose it's really hard to visualize this, but on a globe Earth the horizon should definitely curve, and the curve becomes more apparent the higher you go up. If you imagine the Earth as a basketball and hold it out in front of you, you can see that the basketball is clearly curved (duh!). But what are you really simulating here? An extremely high-altitude photograph of the sphere. To say that it wouldn't be curved at different altitudes is special pleading.

It is not difficult to visualize at all. I'm fully aware that when seen from above all the points on the horizon form a circle. But, as I have stated a few times now, that is not the kind of curvature the FEs claim we should observe if Earth were a sphere. They claim that the horizon, when observed at ground level should curve. I've seen videos where a random FE believer stands on the beach and points to the horizon saying 'See... it's a staight line. No curvature!!!' Of course there is no curvature. All the points on the horizon lie on the same plane level. It's like holding a hoola hoop horizontally and placing your head in the center. You don't see the curvature of the ring, you see a straight line.

And when you see images of Earth from space you see only a circular shape. It has become a 2D object. It could be a flat disk, it could be the end of a cylinder or a half-sphere for all we know. The circular shape does not necessarily indicate a sphere. If we had videos of the Earth rotating below us, now that would prove a globe Earth. Aren't we lucky:



I'm fully aware that the true believer in a Flat Earth will dismiss the video as photoshopped NASA/Illuminati/They (R) trickery, a part of the conspiracy, but the rest of us can enjoy it none the less.

Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 15, 2018, 11:11:16 AM
Rowbotham was called a doctor by his contemporaries and enemies and sources cite him as running a legitimate medical practice.
I have no problem with being corrected, and would be happy to take a look at those sources.

Refer to the conversation in this thread:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61409.msg1607688#msg1607688

Quote from: Ski
I'm not sure why you are so disparaging about his title. As stated, even if he did not graduate from Edinburgh, it was not uncommon for people to study at university's without documentation, nor is it impossible that he graduated elsewhere before or after studying at Edinburgh, nor that that he was licensed through one of the many licensing bodies that existed at the time.

In addition, you are ignoring that not a single instance has been presented in contemporary accounts wherein he was called anything but doctor by anyone -- including his adversaries. To take the stance that he was not a doctor would also mean that you believed the Bookseller editor to be in on the conspiracy in 1885, naming him a doctor with a flourishing and legitimate practice, or that the AAAS in publishing one of the most respected scientific journals calls anyone and their brother doctor without regard for their actual career or qualifications.

IOW there are no historical records that can confirm that Rowbotham earned a legitimate doctor's titel from a genuine university or college. But even if he had obtained such a title it wouldn't give his conclusions any validity. 'Appeal to authority' is a logical fallacy, as we all know. The flaws in his arguments are obvious and the old Victorian show man did not prove a damned thing.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: HorstFue on April 15, 2018, 02:25:41 PM
Of course there is no curvature. All the points on the horizon lie on the same plane level. It's like holding a hoola hoop horizontally and placing your head in the center. You don't see the curvature of the ring, you see a straight line.

Sorry, again as stated earlier, the horizon curves, but so faint, that's impossible to see it without additional references.
Your example:
Placing the hoola hoop exactly at your eye level, so that the observer is exactly at center of the circle, yes, what you see is a straight line. If you lower the hoola hoop, you see part of an ellipse!
And yes, the horizon is a circle, mathematically what you get if you intersect a cone (or easier a plane) with a sphere.
On a sphere the observer cannot be at the center of the circle of the horizon, he would have to dig a hole, but then could not see anything. The center of the horizon circle is below the observer.

The normal field of view of human eyes is about 110° (about 120°, 2*60°, cos(60°)=0.5).
The dip angle in arc minutes (1°/60) of the central point is about 2.1*sqrt(h) (h=observers hight in meters).
The formula is for nautical miles, which makes it easy, as 1 nm = 1 arc minute.
Not changing your view, the sides at the limits of you field of view are about cos(60°)*h lower. So the additional dip angle is about half of the dip angle at the center.

some examples
h=2m, distance to horizon 3 nm, dip 3 arc minutes, additional dip 1.5 arc minutes, almost imperceptible.
h=10m, distance to horizon 6.6 nm, dip 6.6 arc minutes, additional dip 3.3 arc minutes, even with a reference line hard to see.
h=90m, distance to horizon 20nm, dip 20 arc minutes 0.33°, additional dip 0.16°, could be seen with a reference line.
Larger distances would blur the horizon, so it cannot be measured precisely any more, due to atmospheric diffraction.

So to do the experiment right, you would need.
Excellent viewing conditions (20nm)
clear view of the horizon over the complete field of your vision.
a slight sea, no waves
moderate hight of observer
reference line - Try to align a water spirit level with the horizon line.

The observable dip and so the curvature, measured as viewing angle is only fractions of one degree, and conditions to see it are rare.

Mr. Rowbotham did a similar experiment in EnaG http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za12.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za12.htm)
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig17.jpg)
but he didn't apply the necessary accuracy.
And overestimated the curve by far. The other figures he gives are ridiculous.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 15, 2018, 04:02:51 PM
Of course there is no curvature. All the points on the horizon lie on the same plane level. It's like holding a hoola hoop horizontally and placing your head in the center. You don't see the curvature of the ring, you see a straight line.

Sorry, again as stated earlier, the horizon curves, but so faint, that's impossible to see it without additional references.
Your example:
Placing the hoola hoop exactly at your eye level, so that the observer is exactly at center of the circle, yes, what you see is a straight line. If you lower the hoola hoop, you see part of an ellipse!
And yes, the horizon is a circle, mathematically what you get if you intersect a cone (or easier a plane) with a sphere.
On a sphere the observer cannot be at the center of the circle of the horizon, he would have to dig a hole, but then could not see anything. The center of the horizon circle is below the observer.
Of course. We're observing the horizon from above the center. I haven't done the calculations but I'd quess not much more than 1 or 2 % of the radius above the plane. I regarded it negligible. Turns out it isn't:

The normal field of view of human eyes is about 110° (about 120°, 2*60°, cos(60°)=0.5).
The dip angle in arc minutes (1°/60) of the central point is about 2.1*sqrt(h) (h=observers hight in meters).
The formula is for nautical miles, which makes it easy, as 1 nm = 1 arc minute.
Not changing your view, the sides at the limits of you field of view are about cos(60°)*h lower. So the additional dip angle is about half of the dip angle at the center.

some examples
h=2m, distance to horizon 3 nm, dip 3 arc minutes, additional dip 1.5 arc minutes, almost imperceptible.
h=10m, distance to horizon 6.6 nm, dip 6.6 arc minutes, additional dip 3.3 arc minutes, even with a reference line hard to see.
h=90m, distance to horizon 20nm, dip 20 arc minutes 0.33°, additional dip 0.16°, could be seen with a reference line.
Larger distances would blur the horizon, so it cannot be measured precisely any more, due to atmospheric diffraction.

So to do the experiment right, you would need.
Excellent viewing conditions (20nm)
clear view of the horizon over the complete field of your vision.
a slight sea, no waves
moderate hight of observer
reference line - Try to align a water spirit level with the horizon line.

The observable dip and so the curvature, measured as viewing angle is only fractions of one degree, and conditions to see it are rare.

Mr. Rowbotham did a similar experiment in EnaG http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za12.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za12.htm)
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig17.jpg)
but he didn't apply the necessary accuracy.
And overestimated the curve by far. The other figures he gives are ridiculous.

Good Sir, I see that you have spent far more time studying these matters than I have. I appreciate your explanations. I'm still not convinced, though, that the curvature we both agree should be observed under optimal conditions, is the curvature FEs say is absent and thus proof of a flat Earth. Could you at least give me that one ;)
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Stagiri on April 15, 2018, 04:34:33 PM
On a sphere the observer cannot be at the center of the circle of the horizon, he would have to dig a hole, but then could not see anything.

For whatever reason, I immediately pictured that situation in my mind and it made me laugh. Thank you, good sir, for making my day  :)
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: HorstFue on April 15, 2018, 05:41:35 PM
Of course. We're observing the horizon from above the center. I haven't done the calculations but I'd quess not much more than 1 or 2 % of the radius above the plane. I regarded it negligible. Turns out it isn't:

1 or 2%? 1% would be at observers hight about 1000m and distance of horizon 66nm = 122854m

Good Sir, I see that you have spent far more time studying these matters than I have. I appreciate your explanations. I'm still not convinced, though, that the curvature we both agree should be observed under optimal conditions, is the curvature FEs say is absent and thus proof of a flat Earth. Could you at least give me that one ;)
Yes, the curve is so faint, that a casual observer will never notice it. Even at an adequate hight, you could not be sure if lens distortions - camera or eye! - will be the cause of this.
And getting even higher does not make it better, as then the horizon is blurred by atmospheric diffraction.
You explicitly have to do the proposed experiment, with high accuracy.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 15, 2018, 06:23:06 PM
Of course. We're observing the horizon from above the center. I haven't done the calculations but I'd quess not much more than 1 or 2 % of the radius above the plane. I regarded it negligible. Turns out it isn't:

1 or 2%? 1% would be at observers hight about 1000m and distance of horizon 66nm = 122854m
Hmm... I used the '8' per mile sqr' and really messed up the conversion to metric (and probably used 8 ft instead of 8 inches).
Instead I've found an 'Earth curvature calculator'
http://earthcurvature.com/
and with a radius of 5 km the 'drop' is calculated to be 1.96 m. Add another 3 m which puts the observer 5 m above the horizon. That's 0,1% of the radius. I was off by a factor of 10 (I was out dancing last night!).

Good Sir, I see that you have spent far more time studying these matters than I have. I appreciate your explanations. I'm still not convinced, though, that the curvature we both agree should be observed under optimal conditions, is the curvature FEs say is absent and thus proof of a flat Earth. Could you at least give me that one ;)
Yes, the curve is so faint, that a casual observer will never notice it. Even at an adequate hight, you could not be sure if lens distortions - camera or eye! - will be the cause of this.
And getting even higher does not make it better, as then the horizon is blurred by atmospheric diffraction.
You explicitly have to do the proposed experiment, with high accuracy.
You mention the blurred horizon caused by atmospheric diffraction. Do you agree that on a flat Earth there would be no crisp and clear horizon as the one we can actually observe?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: HorstFue on April 15, 2018, 09:57:44 PM
You mention the blurred horizon caused by atmospheric diffraction. Do you agree that on a flat Earth there would be no crisp and clear horizon as the one we can actually observe?
For me the crisp and clear horizon out at sea is a clear evidence for the curvature on a sphere. I guess on a flat earth there would be no such crisp line. I didn't make a claim from it, as I found no bullet proof evidence, lacking an example ;)
some hints
e.g. out at sea sometimes you cannot find the horizon line, due to haze, when too much vapor in the air don't let you see so far, or atmospheric refraction will blur the scene with mirage effects or similar.
e.g. FE themselves claim with the "law of perspective", that horizon is there, where eye resolution "ends". So what else than a blur would result. Btw. I still cannot understand, why with "law of perspective" the distance to the horizon depends on observers hight. Ok for all objects smaller than observers hight, but what for objects larger than observers hight, or high contrast objects, like the bright light of a lighthouse or even better the stars at night. Now where's the horizon?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 15, 2018, 11:30:40 PM
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: nickrulercreator on April 16, 2018, 12:04:21 AM
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.

No, ENAG is wrong about perspective. If it was correct, I should be able to zoom back in on objects like the sun, or buildings, or even some boats that are far enough out, and "restore" them from being hidden by "perspective." But I can't.

It also doesn't explain why objects disappear bottom up. If it was because of "perspective," should the objects not entirely disappear at the same time?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: xenotolerance on April 16, 2018, 02:35:42 AM
Specifically, Rowbotham explicitly predicts that everything should disappear by its smallest regions first.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 16, 2018, 04:10:23 AM
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.

No, ENAG is wrong about perspective. If it was correct, I should be able to zoom back in on objects like the sun, or buildings, or even some boats that are far enough out, and "restore" them from being hidden by "perspective." But I can't.

It also doesn't explain why objects disappear bottom up. If it was because of "perspective," should the objects not entirely disappear at the same time?

The explanation predicts that waves and other imperfections on earth will intersect the true horizon at eye level, hence why the sun cannot be restored.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Edgar Alan Hoe on April 16, 2018, 07:41:37 AM
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.

No, ENAG is wrong about perspective. If it was correct, I should be able to zoom back in on objects like the sun, or buildings, or even some boats that are far enough out, and "restore" them from being hidden by "perspective." But I can't.

It also doesn't explain why objects disappear bottom up. If it was because of "perspective," should the objects not entirely disappear at the same time?

The explanation predicts that waves and other imperfections on earth will intersect the true horizon at eye level, hence why the sun cannot be restored.

😂

Are you able to cite any sources that aren't written by a fake doctor with no qualifications in an era when they thought it was a good idea to put heroin in cough medicine?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 16, 2018, 08:00:23 AM
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.

No, ENAG is wrong about perspective. If it was correct, I should be able to zoom back in on objects like the sun, or buildings, or even some boats that are far enough out, and "restore" them from being hidden by "perspective." But I can't.

It also doesn't explain why objects disappear bottom up. If it was because of "perspective," should the objects not entirely disappear at the same time?

The explanation predicts that waves and other imperfections on earth will intersect the true horizon at eye level, hence why the sun cannot be restored.

😂

Are you able to cite any sources that aren't written by a fake doctor with no qualifications in an era when they thought it was a good idea to put heroin in cough medicine?

Rowbotham was a doctor. Please stop disparaging his name. Earth Not a Globe was peer reviewed by a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review. You can look into that.

Also, heroin in cough medicine did work and was studied to be safe. Do you think that the medical system of the 1800's didn't study the safety of drugs before giving them to people?

Most of the "lol, doctors used to do this" crap is based on personal ignorance.

The opium poppy, from which Herioin is extracted, has been cultivated for more than five thousand years for a variety of medicinal uses. Heroin is still  today for legal medical purposes. Doctors often prefer to give patients heroin over morphine because it is fat soluble.

Just because some people abused Heroin and it was decided to stop making it easily accessible to the public over the counter, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a legitimate medical purpose. You can take your dumb anecdotes and personal ignorance elsewhere.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Edgar Alan Hoe on April 16, 2018, 08:12:44 AM
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.

No, ENAG is wrong about perspective. If it was correct, I should be able to zoom back in on objects like the sun, or buildings, or even some boats that are far enough out, and "restore" them from being hidden by "perspective." But I can't.

It also doesn't explain why objects disappear bottom up. If it was because of "perspective," should the objects not entirely disappear at the same time?

The explanation predicts that waves and other imperfections on earth will intersect the true horizon at eye level, hence why the sun cannot be restored.

😂

Are you able to cite any sources that aren't written by a fake doctor with no qualifications in an era when they thought it was a good idea to put heroin in cough medicine?

Rowbotham was a doctor. Please stop disparaging his name. Earth Not a Globe was peer reviewed by a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review. You can look into that.

Also, heroin in cough medicine did work and was studied to be safe. Do you think that the medical system of the 1800's didn't study the safety of drugs before giving them to people?

Most of the "lol, doctors used to do this" crap is based on personal ignorance.

The opium poppy, from which Herioin is extracted, has been cultivated for more than five thousand years for a variety of medicinal uses. Heroin is still  today for legal medical purposes. Doctors often prefer to give patients heroin over morphine because it is fat soluble.

Just because some people abused Heroin and it was decided to stop making it easily accessible to the public over the counter, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a legitimate medical purpose.

No Tom, heroin is a highly addictive substance that should never have been handed out to people for the treatment of coughs and colds.

It was created and distributed under the mistaken notion that it was less addictive than morphine.

And Rowbotham was not a doctor and made stuff up under the pretense of science and so deserves to be disparaged.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 16, 2018, 08:21:04 AM
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.

No, ENAG is wrong about perspective. If it was correct, I should be able to zoom back in on objects like the sun, or buildings, or even some boats that are far enough out, and "restore" them from being hidden by "perspective." But I can't.

It also doesn't explain why objects disappear bottom up. If it was because of "perspective," should the objects not entirely disappear at the same time?

The explanation predicts that waves and other imperfections on earth will intersect the true horizon at eye level, hence why the sun cannot be restored.
And I have shown in this thread - which you cleverly deflected into a debate about whether the horizon was at eye level - that the explanation of waves is horseshit

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9338.msg145931#msg145931

If your eye height is above wave height then the waves cannot obscure the sun, so sunset would not occur if you're at any altitude.
It does.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 16, 2018, 08:25:05 AM
Rowbotham was a doctor.
Cool. So next time I want to learn more about physics or astronomy I'll talk to my local doctor next time I have an appointment. None of this "trained scientist" nonsense, what do they know?

Quote
Earth Not a Globe was peer reviewed by a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review. You can look into that.
They sound like independent experts.
In unrelated news I had my "There are Faeries at the Bottom of my Garden" thesis peer reviewed by the "Faeries are Real" society. They agreed I was right.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Edgar Alan Hoe on April 16, 2018, 10:17:19 AM
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.

No, ENAG is wrong about perspective. If it was correct, I should be able to zoom back in on objects like the sun, or buildings, or even some boats that are far enough out, and "restore" them from being hidden by "perspective." But I can't.

It also doesn't explain why objects disappear bottom up. If it was because of "perspective," should the objects not entirely disappear at the same time?

The explanation predicts that waves and other imperfections on earth will intersect the true horizon at eye level, hence why the sun cannot be restored.

😂

Are you able to cite any sources that aren't written by a fake doctor with no qualifications in an era when they thought it was a good idea to put heroin in cough medicine?

Rowbotham was a doctor. Please stop disparaging his name. Earth Not a Globe was peer reviewed by a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review. You can look into that.

Also, heroin in cough medicine did work and was studied to be safe. Do you think that the medical system of the 1800's didn't study the safety of drugs before giving them to people?

Most of the "lol, doctors used to do this" crap is based on personal ignorance.

The opium poppy, from which Herioin is extracted, has been cultivated for more than five thousand years for a variety of medicinal uses. Heroin is still  today for legal medical purposes. Doctors often prefer to give patients heroin over morphine because it is fat soluble.

Just because some people abused Heroin and it was decided to stop making it easily accessible to the public over the counter, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have a legitimate medical purpose. You can take your dumb anecdotes and personal ignorance elsewhere.

Anyway, to sum up, no, you can't name any other sources for this idea you have picked up as to how perspective works.

So Rowbotham is the only source for this? No one else has indipendantly arrived at this idea, but have just taken Rowbothams word for it?

I think at best using this info in debates holds as much water as stating 'it's true 'cause my mate said so'...
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: junker on April 16, 2018, 05:14:41 PM
Farty McFartwhistle was considered by both his followers and detractors alike as being the fartiest of all whistles.



See, anyone can just type stuff...

Refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.

Also, this is your 3rd warning within a month or so. Next one is a 3-day ban to review the rules.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 16, 2018, 05:29:11 PM
You mention the blurred horizon caused by atmospheric diffraction. Do you agree that on a flat Earth there would be no crisp and clear horizon as the one we can actually observe?
For me the crisp and clear horizon out at sea is a clear evidence for the curvature on a sphere. I guess on a flat earth there would be no such crisp line. I didn't make a claim from it, as I found no bullet proof evidence, lacking an example ;)
some hints
e.g. out at sea sometimes you cannot find the horizon line, due to haze, when too much vapor in the air don't let you see so far, or atmospheric refraction will blur the scene with mirage effects or similar.
e.g. FE themselves claim with the "law of perspective", that horizon is there, where eye resolution "ends". So what else than a blur would result. Btw. I still cannot understand, why with "law of perspective" the distance to the horizon depends on observers hight. Ok for all objects smaller than observers hight, but what for objects larger than observers hight, or high contrast objects, like the bright light of a lighthouse or even better the stars at night. Now where's the horizon?

I started another thread where I asserted that there would be no horizon on a flat Earth, using all the arguments you do. Once your range of vision is shorter than the distance to the horizon it is obvious that you can't see the horizon, and no amount of 'it's all about the perspective' mumbo jumbo will ever explain anything.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 16, 2018, 05:53:48 PM
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.
Not a chance. The ramblings from a Victorian Showboatman are not going to be relevant... ever. No, you explain, in your own words, what the 'horizon' is on a flat Earth.

Let me use this simple image again:
(https://image.ibb.co/cuLRVx/Horizon.jpg)

The top image shows how the horizon is 'created' on a spherical Earth. Sky above the red line, ground below it. Everything is honky dory.
The bottom is the flat Earth model. Let's say Stickman's range of vision is where the red line touches the ground. You claim that that's where the horizon forms. But if you follow his line of sight above the red line, the ground is still in his field of vision. What if I placed a giant, 100km*100km*100km, black cube right behind the point where you claim the horizon appears. Would that black cube be invisible and I would see only blue sky and clouds? Of course not.

Your turn: 
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 16, 2018, 06:28:19 PM
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.
Not a chance. The ramblings from a Victorian Showboatman are not going to be relevant... ever. No, you explain, in your own words, what the 'horizon' is on a flat Earth.

Let me use this simple image again:
(https://image.ibb.co/cuLRVx/Horizon.jpg)

The top image shows how the horizon is 'created' on a spherical Earth. Sky above the red line, ground below it. Everything is honky dory.
The bottom is the flat Earth model. Let's say Stickman's range of vision is where the red line touches the ground. You claim that that's where the horizon forms. But if you follow his line of sight above the red line, the ground is still in his field of vision. What if I placed a giant, 100km*100km*100km, black cube right behind the point where you claim the horizon appears. Would that black cube be invisible and I would see only blue sky and clouds? Of course not.

Your turn:

The explanation for why we don't see to infinity and why the horizon doesn't fade out is in Earth Not a Globe. I think you should probably read it and then get back to us about what you found wrong.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: xenotolerance on April 16, 2018, 06:42:57 PM
just about everything (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong) is wrong with Rowbotham's explanation of the horizon

not a one of his observations is accurate, his math is garbage, his reasoning is built all but entirely of leaps and fallacies...

that's why, I imagine, he's asking you to explain it in your own words. Rowbotham is too broad and too wrong to easily identify a single point of debate.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Morgenstund on April 16, 2018, 07:06:35 PM
Read Earth Not a Globe on how perspective limits the distance seen.
Not a chance. The ramblings from a Victorian Showboatman are not going to be relevant... ever. No, you explain, in your own words, what the 'horizon' is on a flat Earth.

Let me use this simple image again:
(https://image.ibb.co/cuLRVx/Horizon.jpg)

The top image shows how the horizon is 'created' on a spherical Earth. Sky above the red line, ground below it. Everything is honky dory.
The bottom is the flat Earth model. Let's say Stickman's range of vision is where the red line touches the ground. You claim that that's where the horizon forms. But if you follow his line of sight above the red line, the ground is still in his field of vision. What if I placed a giant, 100km*100km*100km, black cube right behind the point where you claim the horizon appears. Would that black cube be invisible and I would see only blue sky and clouds? Of course not.

Your turn:

The explanation for why we don't see to infinity and why the horizon doesn't fade out is in Earth Not a Globe. I think you should probably read it and then get back to us about what you found wrong.

Are you saying that you're not able to explain it in your own words? You need to understand that I am not going to read that Bib... book you all refer to all the time. Others, who have a far greater understaning of all this than I do, apparently have read it, and their verdict is clear. I will not waste my time reading out of date material. Just like I wouldn't read 'On the origins of species' if I wanted to learn about evolution.

So again, I want to hear the explanations from you. And if you can't explain it, then either you don't understand it, or it doesn't make sense. Or maybe both...
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: HorstFue on April 16, 2018, 08:06:11 PM
The explanation for why we don't see to infinity and why the horizon doesn't fade out is in Earth Not a Globe. I think you should probably read it and then get back to us about what you found wrong.

Are you saying that you're not able to explain it in your own words? You need to understand that I am not going to read that Bib... book you all refer to all the time. Others, who have a far greater understaning of all this than I do, apparently have read it, and their verdict is clear. I will not waste my time reading out of date material. Just like I wouldn't read 'On the origins of species' if I wanted to learn about evolution.

So again, I want to hear the explanations from you. And if you can't explain it, then either you don't understand it, or it doesn't make sense. Or maybe both...

"you don't understand, may implicate "it doesn't make sense".
Meanwhile I have a suspicion that even Rowbotham did not fully understand it, because he is inconsistent in his description.

Quote from: Rowbotham, chap. 16 in EnaG
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm)
Let A, B, and C, D, represent two lines parallel but not equidistant from the eye-line E, H. To an observer at E, the vanishing point of C, D, would be at H, because the lines C, D, and E, H, would come together at H, at an angle of one minute of a degree. But it is evident from a single glance at the diagram that H cannot be the vanishing point of A, B, because the distance E, A, being greater than E, C, the angle A, H, E, is also greater than C, H, E--is, in fact, considerably more than one minute of a degree. Therefore the line A, B, cannot possibly have its vanishing point on the line E, H, unless it is carried forward towards W.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig76.jpg) or (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig75.jpg)
Watch point W!

Quote from: Rowbotham, chap. 9 in EnaG
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za27.htm)
Let A, B, represent the altitude throughout of a long row of lamps, standing on the horizontal ground E, D; and C, H, the line of sight of an observer at C. The ordinary principles of perspective will cause an apparent rising of the ground E, D, to the eye-line C, H, meeting it at H; and an apparent descent of each subsequent lamp, from A, to H, towards the same eye-line, also meeting at H. The point H, is the horizon, or the true "vanishing point," at which the last visible lamp, although it has really the altitude D, B, will disappear.(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig63.jpg)
Now there's no point W.

Else - with the first diagram - he could not tell us this story about a sun cruising 700 miles above the surface:
Quote from: Rowbotham, chap. 9 in EnaG
Bearing in mind the above phenomena it will easily be seen how the sun, although always above and parallel to the earth's surface, must appear to ascend from the morning horizon to the noonday or meridian position; and thence to descend to the evening horizon.
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig64.jpg)
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tumeni on April 17, 2018, 10:46:15 AM
The list of 'experiments' in ENaG all appear to consist only of a line drawing, and a commentary.

Is this all that's required to prove the experiment was carried out as described?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 17, 2018, 05:17:15 PM
Are you saying that you're not able to explain it in your own words? You need to understand that I am not going to read that Bib... book you all refer to all the time. Others, who have a far greater understaning of all this than I do, apparently have read it, and their verdict is clear. I will not waste my time reading out of date material. Just like I wouldn't read 'On the origins of species' if I wanted to learn about evolution.

So again, I want to hear the explanations from you. And if you can't explain it, then either you don't understand it, or it doesn't make sense. Or maybe both...

You need to read the material and base your arguments off of that, not your own personal idea of what FET is. If you are not willing to read the studies that the society has written for you, then there isn't going to be any progress.

The list of 'experiments' in ENaG all appear to consist only of a line drawing, and a commentary.

Is this all that's required to prove the experiment was carried out as described?

Are you assuming that everything posted about this subject is a lie? Why are you here trying to engage us then?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Curious Squirrel on April 17, 2018, 05:31:30 PM
The list of 'experiments' in ENaG all appear to consist only of a line drawing, and a commentary.

Is this all that's required to prove the experiment was carried out as described?

Are you assuming that everything posted about this subject is a lie? Why are you here trying to engage us then?
Any number of reasons to engage, even if one believes the other side isn't presenting good evidence. But I think he's more wondering why EnaG is practically treated as gospel on the site, and doesn't really come close to the level of evidence demanded of a fair bit of information presented by RE. Doubly so when anyone doing similar (documenting observations) and presenting it is all but ignored in many cases. You yourself have stated that "My friends and I have done X and observed Y" isn't a good enough argument for you, when that's all EnaG is.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 17, 2018, 06:39:18 PM
The list of 'experiments' in ENaG all appear to consist only of a line drawing, and a commentary.

Is this all that's required to prove the experiment was carried out as described?

Are you assuming that everything posted about this subject is a lie? Why are you here trying to engage us then?
Any number of reasons to engage, even if one believes the other side isn't presenting good evidence. But I think he's more wondering why EnaG is practically treated as gospel on the site, and doesn't really come close to the level of evidence demanded of a fair bit of information presented by RE. Doubly so when anyone doing similar (documenting observations) and presenting it is all but ignored in many cases. You yourself have stated that "My friends and I have done X and observed Y" isn't a good enough argument for you, when that's all EnaG is.

We are telling you to read it because you are walking into a movie theater that is playing a sequel to a movie and you keep turning to ask us what happened in the first one.

You don't have to treat it as gospel, or even believe it. But it is the study this theory is based on. If you want to understand the basics then we highly recommend that you read the book. Otherwise you will be arguing on basis of your own idea of what Flat Earth Theory is. ENAG is basically required reading if you want to engage in any productive debate with us. It has enough to cover the basics.

There were additional and significant Flat Earth works published after ENAG from the Zetetic society that continued on after Rowbotham, with covered more advanced topics. These may come into play at times in some discussions, but I wouldn't say that those works are required reading, or that one should even start with those. Those works assume that you have read Earth Not a Globe as well.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Curious Squirrel on April 17, 2018, 07:16:44 PM
The list of 'experiments' in ENaG all appear to consist only of a line drawing, and a commentary.

Is this all that's required to prove the experiment was carried out as described?

Are you assuming that everything posted about this subject is a lie? Why are you here trying to engage us then?
Any number of reasons to engage, even if one believes the other side isn't presenting good evidence. But I think he's more wondering why EnaG is practically treated as gospel on the site, and doesn't really come close to the level of evidence demanded of a fair bit of information presented by RE. Doubly so when anyone doing similar (documenting observations) and presenting it is all but ignored in many cases. You yourself have stated that "My friends and I have done X and observed Y" isn't a good enough argument for you, when that's all EnaG is.

We are telling you to read it because you are walking into a movie theater that is playing a sequel to a movie and you keep turning to ask us what happened in the first one.

You don't have to treat it as gospel, or even believe it. But it is the study this theory is based on. If you want to understand the basics then we highly recommend that you read the book. Otherwise you will be arguing on basis of your own idea of what Flat Earth Theory is. ENAG is basically required reading if you want to engage in any productive debate with us. It has enough to cover the basics.

There were additional and significant Flat Earth works published after ENAG from the Zetetic society that continued on after Rowbotham, with covered more advanced topics. These may come into play at times in some discussions, but I wouldn't say that those works are required reading, or that one should even start with those. Those works assume that you have read Earth Not a Globe as well.
You seem to fail to understand that most of us that have been here for a while HAVE read it. The reason many bring 'ask what happened in the first one' is because the information is generally poorly documented (if at all) comes to conclusions that are simply rationalizations in many cases, and often people can be curious just why you believe the book, or how your thoughts differ. Because the DO differ, each of you cherry picks from his book in some way, other than Parallax whom I'm 90% is simply a troll.

But none of that has relevance on the question of, why do you put so much stock in Rowbotham, when his 'experiments' are no better documented or given better proof than 'this is what I saw' followed by rationalizing how it works with a flat Earth, when 90% of the time you won't accept that from others?

He asked you what proof you require to know an experiment was carried out as described. Why a line drawing and some commentary are enough to convince you it's 100% accurate, when you often won't accept anything of the sort from an experiment that doesn't show what you expect (see the water tubes). Which you still have not answered, and none of which have any bearing on whether we've read the book, as if we're discussing what's in it's pages it should be clear they have.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tumeni on April 17, 2018, 08:23:35 PM
He (Tumeni) asked you what proof you require to know an experiment was carried out as described. Why a line drawing and some commentary are enough to convince you it's 100% accurate, when you often won't accept anything of the sort from an experiment that doesn't show what you expect (see the water tubes).

That's exactly what I'm asking.

Tom, you took someone to task elsewhere (back in a couple of minutes with the exact thread (EDIT in topic Re: Using airline flight data. Reply #422 Today at 07:53:28 AM, Tom said "There are no experiments in that link.")) for not providing evidence of any experiment at a link they provided, but the only evidence in ENaG is line drawings and the author's commentary. If this is sufficient evidence to satisfy you of both the experiment and the result in all cases (for RE as well as FE experiments), please say so.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 17, 2018, 11:49:22 PM
He (Tumeni) asked you what proof you require to know an experiment was carried out as described. Why a line drawing and some commentary are enough to convince you it's 100% accurate, when you often won't accept anything of the sort from an experiment that doesn't show what you expect (see the water tubes).

That's exactly what I'm asking.

Tom, you took someone to task elsewhere (back in a couple of minutes with the exact thread (EDIT in topic Re: Using airline flight data. Reply #422 Today at 07:53:28 AM, Tom said "There are no experiments in that link.")) for not providing evidence of any experiment at a link they provided, but the only evidence in ENaG is line drawings and the author's commentary. If this is sufficient evidence to satisfy you of both the experiment and the result in all cases (for RE as well as FE experiments), please say so.

ENAG contains numerous experiments, whether right or wrong. Referencing ENAG is a whole different level than merely stating that "studies have been done."

That is all I am asking for: To see the research behind your claims. Saying "there is evidence" is not good enough. Show the evidence. Whether it is right or wrong, you need to show the evidence. If you can't show evidence for your claim, then your claim isn't very strong.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Curious Squirrel on April 18, 2018, 12:01:04 AM
He (Tumeni) asked you what proof you require to know an experiment was carried out as described. Why a line drawing and some commentary are enough to convince you it's 100% accurate, when you often won't accept anything of the sort from an experiment that doesn't show what you expect (see the water tubes).

That's exactly what I'm asking.

Tom, you took someone to task elsewhere (back in a couple of minutes with the exact thread (EDIT in topic Re: Using airline flight data. Reply #422 Today at 07:53:28 AM, Tom said "There are no experiments in that link.")) for not providing evidence of any experiment at a link they provided, but the only evidence in ENaG is line drawings and the author's commentary. If this is sufficient evidence to satisfy you of both the experiment and the result in all cases (for RE as well as FE experiments), please say so.

ENAG contains numerous experiments, whether right or wrong. Referencing ENAG is a whole different level than merely stating that "studies have been done."

That is all I am asking for: To see the research behind your claims. Saying "there is evidence" is not good enough. Show the evidence. Whether it is right or wrong, you need to show the evidence. If you can't show evidence for your claim, then your claim isn't very strong.
It contains a claim of an experiment done, and rationalization for how it works on a flat Earth. When offered things such as observations to corroborate something (accuracy of timeanddate, you essentially said giving observations done by myself and a group of friends and family were irrelevant) or when shown an experiment whose parameters are self consistent to show what it sets out to show (water in a circular pipe finding it's own level to show 'eye level' as you ascend) and other scenarios you demand a much higher standard of evidence than contained within EnaG. Why do you trust EnaG when it presents a much lower standard, than you appear to demand of anyone offering a RE supporting idea? Or is a brief description of what was done, and maybe some sketches enough evidence? Give us a standard of evidence Tom. This has been a question you've avoided since day 1 of me being here. What is your standard of evidence that needs to be met. Lay it out clearly for once.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2018, 03:29:42 AM
It contains a claim of an experiment done, and rationalization for how it works on a flat Earth. When offered things such as observations to corroborate something (accuracy of timeanddate, you essentially said giving observations done by myself and a group of friends and family were irrelevant) or when shown an experiment whose parameters are self consistent to show what it sets out to show (water in a circular pipe finding it's own level to show 'eye level' as you ascend) and other scenarios you demand a much higher standard of evidence than contained within EnaG. Why do you trust EnaG when it presents a much lower standard, than you appear to demand of anyone offering a RE supporting idea? Or is a brief description of what was done, and maybe some sketches enough evidence? Give us a standard of evidence Tom. This has been a question you've avoided since day 1 of me being here. What is your standard of evidence that needs to be met. Lay it out clearly for once.

The experiments in ENAG were peer reviewed by journal The Earth Not a Globe Review. They were also peer reviewed on numerous occasions by the Flat Earth movement that followed Rowbotham. Its not just spurious claims in a book. Today can also see similar convexity experiments on YouTube.

The Round Earth Theory is said to have "mountains" of evidence behind it. What is the problem with me asking to see a similar level of evidence for the claims posted to this forum?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Stagiri on April 18, 2018, 04:08:20 AM
It contains a claim of an experiment done, and rationalization for how it works on a flat Earth. When offered things such as observations to corroborate something (accuracy of timeanddate, you essentially said giving observations done by myself and a group of friends and family were irrelevant) or when shown an experiment whose parameters are self consistent to show what it sets out to show (water in a circular pipe finding it's own level to show 'eye level' as you ascend) and other scenarios you demand a much higher standard of evidence than contained within EnaG. Why do you trust EnaG when it presents a much lower standard, than you appear to demand of anyone offering a RE supporting idea? Or is a brief description of what was done, and maybe some sketches enough evidence? Give us a standard of evidence Tom. This has been a question you've avoided since day 1 of me being here. What is your standard of evidence that needs to be met. Lay it out clearly for once.

The experiments in ENAG were peer reviewed by journal The Earth Not a Globe Review. They were also peer reviewed on numerous occasions by the Flat Earth movement that followed Rowbotham. Its not just spurious claims in a book. Today can also see similar convexity experiments on YouTube.
(...)
(...)
The fact that NASA is involved in the air traffic control systems in Australia creates distrust with the accuracy of Australian flight data.

You distrust Airservices Australia just because they've collaborated with NASA yet don't get suspicious when Rowbotham's work is reviewed by journal The Earth Not a Globe Review?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: hexagon on April 18, 2018, 07:26:48 AM
May I asked what "round earth theory" is? Even after doing science for over 20 year now, I never met someone studying "round earth theory", never been at a university or institute offering this as a course, lecture or seminar, not even seen a book about this...
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 18, 2018, 07:29:55 AM
The Round Earth Theory is said to have "mountains" of evidence behind it. What is the problem with me asking to see a similar level of evidence for the claims posted to this forum?
That is fairly reasonable. The problem is every time you're shown that evidence and shown experiments which PROVE you to be wrong you dismiss them or call them fake without basis. Your reasoning is based on this Wiki page.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Place_of_the_Conspiracy_in_FET

You declare a flat earth an "obvious truth" (you give no basis for claiming it as such) so then just say
"If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated".

Which means you're not actually interested in experiments which show you to be wrong, because you can't personally verify them you're declaring them fake.
It's just denial.
And when you are shown simple experiments you could reproduce yourself at little or no cost you refuse to do so.

Quote
The experiments in ENAG were peer reviewed by journal The Earth Not a Globe Review. They were also peer reviewed on numerous occasions by the Flat Earth movement that followed Rowbotham.

In other news, the idea that The Spice Girls are the greatest musical act of all time was ratified by the Spice Girls Monthly magazine.
Do you not see how silly this sounds? You spent two pages in the thread about that laser misunderstanding the experiment and claiming that they just claimed the results that they expected from a round earth calculator - a claim which if you actually understand the experiment you'll realise are spurious.
Now you're saying that a load of people who thought the earth was flat agreed with Rowbotham's claims that the earth is flat. Case closed!
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tumeni on April 18, 2018, 08:30:59 AM
The experiments in ENAG were peer reviewed by journal The Earth Not a Globe Review. They were also peer reviewed on numerous occasions by the Flat Earth movement that followed Rowbotham. Its not just spurious claims in a book. Today can also see similar convexity experiments on YouTube.

So all the peer reviews were conducted by folks who agreed with the overall premise before conducting the peer review?

The Round Earth Theory is said to have "mountains" of evidence behind it. What is the problem with me asking to see a similar level of evidence for the claims posted to this forum?

The problem is that I/we are reluctant to present stuff which you will hand-wave away, even though you seem happy to accept a line drawing with single paragraph of commentary as gospel from ENaG, and now claim above that unspecified individuals have proof-read and repeated its content at some unspecified time.

Will you state here and now that you will, in future, engage in meaningful discussion of the specifics of any proof presented here or in other threads for a Globe Earth, without reference to ENaG, and without hand-waving it away?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Curious Squirrel on April 18, 2018, 12:41:59 PM
It contains a claim of an experiment done, and rationalization for how it works on a flat Earth. When offered things such as observations to corroborate something (accuracy of timeanddate, you essentially said giving observations done by myself and a group of friends and family were irrelevant) or when shown an experiment whose parameters are self consistent to show what it sets out to show (water in a circular pipe finding it's own level to show 'eye level' as you ascend) and other scenarios you demand a much higher standard of evidence than contained within EnaG. Why do you trust EnaG when it presents a much lower standard, than you appear to demand of anyone offering a RE supporting idea? Or is a brief description of what was done, and maybe some sketches enough evidence? Give us a standard of evidence Tom. This has been a question you've avoided since day 1 of me being here. What is your standard of evidence that needs to be met. Lay it out clearly for once.

The experiments in ENAG were peer reviewed by journal The Earth Not a Globe Review. They were also peer reviewed on numerous occasions by the Flat Earth movement that followed Rowbotham. Its not just spurious claims in a book. Today can also see similar convexity experiments on YouTube.
I've only read the first issue of the Review, and I'm already calling bollocks on these guys being trustworthy in any manner. Even presuming they print them repeating any of Rowbotham's experiments, it would be a 'peer review' in name only. The Review appears to believe the Earth is flat because the bible says so. They would be going into these experiments, not only already knowing what result they expect, but knowing what result they want, I would almost say need to see for their beliefs. This is NOT a peer review group. These are sycophants at best. So no, EnaG has never been peer reviewed if that's the best you have to offer, and it is indeed simply spurious claims in a book.

On a small side note, why is the Review not in your wiki/library? Amazon has it for sale for $0.99 at worst, but it wasn't hard to track down a free PDF. It's referenced briefly in a few wiki pages, but that's about it.

Quote
The Round Earth Theory is said to have "mountains" of evidence behind it. What is the problem with me asking to see a similar level of evidence for the claims posted to this forum?
Similar to what? Claims in a book with some sketches? Because we can do that all day. First hand accounts of things? I believe we've a licensed sailor(seaman?) posting on the forums right now about what he is seeing in regards to some claims. So what are your standards of evidence Tom?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: hexagon on April 18, 2018, 03:23:27 PM
The core problem in EnaG regarding everything related to perspective, vanishing point, horizon and so on, is that the author did not understood the problem of optical resolution. He describes at some point in the book the effect, that he could no longer see the black boots of some soldiers in the distance, but he could recover them by using a telescope. Form him this is the key to the sinking ship effect. But in reality he suffered from the limited optical resolution of his eyes, at a certain distance he could simply not distinguish the boots from the dark street, while the brighter clothes of the soldiers were still visible. And of course a telescope increases the optical resolution and recovered the boots. 

From the distance between the soldiers to him and his eye height he calculated an angle, which, no wonder, is roughly the angle of optical resolution. But he uses this angle now to calculate the distance to the vanishing point. And from this false conclusion everything else followed. The restoring effect of the telescope, the shift of the vanishing point depending on the height of the observer, the behavior of the so-called perspective lines, the increasing horizon and so on...

All explanations are twisted to fit to this false initial conclusion of a very simple observation.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: HorstFue on April 18, 2018, 09:30:25 PM
The core problem in EnaG regarding everything related to perspective, vanishing point, horizon and so on, is that the author did not understood the problem of optical resolution.

For me it's more like, he did not understand perspective. Especially the issue, that parallel lines from real world, would not only intersect at the vanishing point, no, they terminate in the vanishing point. Infinity from real world is in the vanishing point.
As he could not understand the reason for, that infinite long lines (real world) would terminate (in projection) at the vanishing point, he mixed in "optical resolution", to solve his problem.

Mathematically spoken, the vanishing point is a singularity, the point of a function, where you cannot give a reasonable result. In this case it's: f=1/atan(a), there's no value for a=0;
An observer looking over a flat plane would have a line of sight - the line which hits the horizon/vanishing point, that is parallel to the surface. Now building the projection of a line on the surface (easiest, that line that goes through the feet of the observer), the projection lines will hit the surface at an distance given by f=1/atan(a) (hyperbolic), where 'a' is the angle between the line of sight of the observer and the projection line. 'a' corresponds with the distances on the projected line.
As 'a' gets smaller, you find that the nearer you get to the line of sight/horizon line, the larger the distances get, that are covered by a small change of 'a' (delta a). Which ends with a huge distance of real world surface squeezed into the last little section of the projected line near the vanishing point. (s. Att.)

So there's no reason to apply eye resolution to have a vanishing point. Also the issue, when the observer is placed higher, there's no need to move the vanishing point, it's already the projection of "infinity". The angles of the perspective lines are widened and thus the distances on the projected line.
The eye resolution issue, is an independent one, does not change the vanishing point.
You could explain part of this effect, where hulls of ships are vanishing due to eye resolution, with eye resolution alone...
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Macarios on April 18, 2018, 10:35:49 PM
He describes at some point in the book the effect, that he could no longer see the black boots of some soldiers in the distance, but he could recover them by using a telescope. Form him this is the key to the sinking ship effect.

He "hides under the carpet" the fact that at the same distance he also wouldn't distinguish the hat of the same soldier, and especially his gloves.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: HorstFue on April 18, 2018, 11:14:28 PM
He describes at some point in the book the effect, that he could no longer see the black boots of some soldiers in the distance, but he could recover them by using a telescope. Form him this is the key to the sinking ship effect.
He "hides under the carpet" the fact that at the same distance he also wouldn't distinguish the hat of the same soldier, and especially his gloves.
Depends, size is not the only thing that matters. There's also contrast. High contrast objects could be "noticed", even if the viewing angle is below max. resolution. Else we would not see stars in the night sky or far away lighthouses.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: hexagon on April 19, 2018, 08:06:46 AM
Resolution without contrast is not possible. The image of a single point is given by the so-called point spread function of the optical system, which is basically a 2D Bessel function. The central peak of the Bessel function defines the size of the Airy disc.

Two points of equal brightness and color can be resolved if the centers of their Airy discs are about one diameter of the Airy disc apart. Which means there is a dip in intensity in between the centers of the Airy discs of about 50%.

Without this contrast you can't resolve anything. Of course, you also need a certain amount of intensity. That's the reason why a light source on a black background can be seen from further away than a black point on a bright background. 

The consequences of this effect on the human perception are more or less described in a correct way in EnaG, but the author draws the completely wrong conclusions out of this regarding perspective and vanishing point. As mentioned above, everything else is just a consequence of this false interpretation.

It seems that at some point the author went to the see and observed that the reconstruction of an object with a telescope as it worked on the street did not work for a ship at the sea much further away and to save his false interpretation he introduced the effect of waves, which he vastly exaggerated.

In the end it is quit easy to understand EnaG and the ideas presented in that book. The bare observations are more or less correct, but because of a lack of background knowledge he draws completely wrong conclusions.       
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on April 19, 2018, 08:38:01 AM
For me it's more like, he did not understand perspective. Especially the issue, that parallel lines from real world, would not only intersect at the vanishing point, no, they terminate in the vanishing point. Infinity from real world is in the vanishing point.
As he could not understand the reason for, that infinite long lines (real world) would terminate (in projection) at the vanishing point, he mixed in "optical resolution", to solve his problem.
I don't know if it's that he didn't understand it or that he started with the premise of a flat earth and constructed a version of perspective that would work with that premise. It doesn't actually work of course. The idea that "waves" and "vanishing point" explains perspective is very silly. If you were at any altitude you'd be able to see over any waves so there's no way the sun could be sinking behind them. I might start a thread about sunset at altitude to see if there is any flat earth explanation.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: hexagon on April 19, 2018, 10:58:47 AM
Hm, it's not that simple. Take for example the vanishing point. Of course, if you take the geometric definition this point is at infinity. But it this also always a practical definition? If you want to do a landscape painting or a CGI graphics where would you put the vanishing point? You would put it at a finite distance. The same if you take a photograph, let's say of a long and narrow street. Parallel lines would meet at one point at finite distance at the horizon, which is at your eye height. And so on...

The observations in EnaG are not that wrong and the models proposed are valid to describe this observations up to a certain degree. The question is more where is the limit? And from which point on you have to introduce more and more assumptions that are in contradiction to other aspects of your model.

To explain the sinking ship effect, he introduced the effect of waves. And yes, a tiny boat in a stormy sea can vanish behind waves. So far, this observation is not wrong. And of course, how strong this effect is, has something to do with distances and perspective. But it has it's limitations. You can not explain that a huge ship on calm sea is sinking behind the horizon, that simply does not work. Therefor, waves don't give you a consistent explanation for all observations in all situations. That's a problem.

And if you want to explain sunset/sunrise, you have to make even more assumptions like discontinuities in Euclidean geometry and so on.   

You have to be aware of the limits of your model, if you want to be taken serious. But if you stay inside this limitations any model is fine.   
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Ballboy on April 20, 2018, 05:45:47 AM
I’m new. I just heard about this flat earth stuff and was curious.

Am I being thick? Surely if you’re standing on a small island looking at the horizon all around you, you cannot tell whether you are standing on a ball or a plate. The horizon forms a sharply-defined circle all around you, 5 miles away. Because it’s 5 miles away it looks like a horizontal edge, whether it’s a large ball or a large plate.

The one way to find out whether it’s a ball or a plate is to step onto on a chair or go up a hill. If the plate stays the same size then you are on a 10 mile diameter plate.

But if the horizon recedes with elevation, what other conclusion can there be but that this plate must be domed or ball-shaped?

I must be lacking in my logical facilities not to be able to conceive of any other explanation - can someone help me understand how that can point to the earth being flat?

Oh and I read earlier someone saying the horizon rises to eye level. What does this mean? That the earth is actually concave? Or that when you look directly down at the horizon from a height then, well, you are looking directly at it so it meets your eye level? Or that it physically moves? Surely anything you look at meets your eye level, whether you have to look up at it or down at it? I just can’t grasp these concepts.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: hexagon on April 20, 2018, 07:27:37 AM
Our visual perception is the result of a one-point projection of a 3D environment onto a 2D plane. In the same way as photography works.

If you look on a picture with lots of virtual lines going straight away from parallel to the optical axis of the camera, you will notice that all this line below the optical axis (which is at the center of your image) will point upwards, all lines below will point downwards, all lines left will point right and all lines right will point left.

And all lines close to the optical axis will finally seem to meet at one point, the so-called vanishing point. Mathematically this point lies in infinite distance from the observer, but that's not what you observe. Lines too far away from the optical axis will not meet at the vanishing point. But all of this lines and their symmetric counterparts below and above the optical axis will meet on one horizontal line. That's the horizon of your image.

If you are sea level this image horizon and the horizon of the earth with the sky are practically identical. You can't resolve the difference. If you climb up, your perception will be more or less the same. Both, the horizon of your image and the real horizon will seem to go up with you. But, with the help of some reference tools or carefully analyzing your picture, you will notice that the real horizon is falling more and more below the image horizon (which is defined by your eye level). And it will become more apparent the higher you climb up.

The real horizon would only stay at eye level if it would be located at infinity, but it's not. And all horizontal in a one-point projection stay below optical axis. But nevertheless, horizontal lines further away appear higher than horizontal lines close to you in a picture. And because the real horizon is already quite far away from you, he appears quite close to the image horizon. And if you climb up the real horizon is even pushed away from you, so in the projection the real horizon also seems to go up. But not as fast as the image horizon.       
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Tumeni on April 20, 2018, 08:46:45 AM
Surely if you’re standing on a small island looking at the horizon all around you, you cannot tell whether you are standing on a ball or a plate. The horizon forms a sharply-defined circle all around you, 5 miles away. Because it’s 5 miles away it looks like a horizontal edge, whether it’s a large ball or a large plate.

The one way to find out whether it’s a ball or a plate is to step onto on a chair or go up a hill. If the plate stays the same size then you are on a 10 mile diameter plate.

To aid visualisation of this, I would add that this 'plate' is, in geometric terminology, a Spherical Cap;
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Spherical_cap_diagram.tiff/lossless-page1-220px-Spherical_cap_diagram.tiff.png)

The observer is at the top of height line h, or above it, on a continuation of that line. The higher you go above height line h, the larger the cap will be.  Simple trig tells us how much can be seen from a given height.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: robinofloxley on April 20, 2018, 01:52:57 PM
I’m new. I just heard about this flat earth stuff and was curious.

Am I being thick? Surely if you’re standing on a small island looking at the horizon all around you, you cannot tell whether you are standing on a ball or a plate. The horizon forms a sharply-defined circle all around you, 5 miles away. Because it’s 5 miles away it looks like a horizontal edge, whether it’s a large ball or a large plate.

The one way to find out whether it’s a ball or a plate is to step onto on a chair or go up a hill. If the plate stays the same size then you are on a 10 mile diameter plate.

But if the horizon recedes with elevation, what other conclusion can there be but that this plate must be domed or ball-shaped?

I must be lacking in my logical facilities not to be able to conceive of any other explanation - can someone help me understand how that can point to the earth being flat?

Oh and I read earlier someone saying the horizon rises to eye level. What does this mean? That the earth is actually concave? Or that when you look directly down at the horizon from a height then, well, you are looking directly at it so it meets your eye level? Or that it physically moves? Surely anything you look at meets your eye level, whether you have to look up at it or down at it? I just can’t grasp these concepts.

Agree with all of that. I'd also add that since you are standing in the exact centre of a 5 mile radius circle, if you decided to move a mile or so away, the circle would apparently move with you. A bit like one of those old Victorian era dresses that move around the floor with you. That rules out the simple plate idea, but is precisely what you'd expect to see on a sphere. A very simple explanation for what you see. You don't need to complicate this explanation with atmospheric effects, refraction, perspective, lens distortions. As an explanation it works just fine on its own.
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: Ballboy on April 20, 2018, 05:28:26 PM
Exactly. I mean it’s odd that those old seafaring dudes thought the earth was flat for so long; after all they used crows’ nests to see further, they must have seen the masts of other ships over the horizon, they must have chased the edge only to see it recede as they approached, they must have seen the tops of mountains lit up by the low sun as it rose or set. At some point all the evidence mounted up and they changed their world view. The earth was a ball, the sun was at the centre, etc.

Why are some people keen on going back to the time before that was made clear?
Title: Re: On a globe Earth the horizon should not curve
Post by: HorstFue on April 20, 2018, 07:46:59 PM
And all lines close to the optical axis will finally seem to meet at one point, the so-called vanishing point. Mathematically this point lies in infinite distance from the observer, but that's not what you observe. Lines too far away from the optical axis will not meet at the vanishing point. But all of this lines and their symmetric counterparts below and above the optical axis will meet on one horizontal line. That's the horizon of your image.
All parallel lines (unless parallel to the image plane) will meet in one vanishing point, if these lines are long enough. Remember: Infinity is in the vanishing point.
The horizon in your image is the projection of the "optical plane", that goes though observers eye or camera and is parallel to the surface. At "infinity" this plane and the surface converge as described for the lines above. The result is the (projective!) horizon line.

If you are sea level this image horizon and the horizon of the earth with the sky are practically identical. You can't resolve the difference. If you climb up, your perception will be more or less the same. Both, the horizon of your image and the real horizon will seem to go up with you. But, with the help of some reference tools or carefully analyzing your picture, you will notice that the real horizon is falling more and more below the image horizon (which is defined by your eye level). And it will become more apparent the higher you climb up.

The real horizon would only stay at eye level if it would be located at infinity, but it's not. And all horizontal in a one-point projection stay below optical axis. But nevertheless, horizontal lines further away appear higher than horizontal lines close to you in a picture. And because the real horizon is already quite far away from you, he appears quite close to the image horizon. And if you climb up the real horizon is even pushed away from you, so in the projection the real horizon also seems to go up. But not as fast as the image horizon.       
Yes, I agree.
Trying to describe it a bit different: Assuming an infinite plane or surface, this surface will meet the "optical plane" as described above at the projective horizon. By definition, the "optical plane" includes the observers point, eye or camera, so this horizon is always at "eye level".
But on a sphere, the surface of the sphere will "bend" away/down from the assumed infinite plane and define a new real horizon due to the curvature, at a finite distance, below the assumed infinite plane. So projective horizon and horizon built by curvature are not identical. But - I agree again - these two horizon lines are close together, so that without a reference and a precise measure no one would notice it.