[inquisitive]

Quite incorrect and undemonstrated. The Britannica article says that the surface tension is not level and there are several examples of the water level experiment giving inconsistent results or being inaccurate. These experiments are jokes, and they give large and differing results.

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

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

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

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

If you want to conduct an experiment you need to really prove the matter and the validity of the tools used.

What professional equipment would you propose using?

re 'Professional surveyors admit that the science is always in error.'  The amount of the error is important.  And the statement does not mention 'science'.

[Tom Bishop]

Rowbotham studied the matter and the surveying tools: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za16.htm

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

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

If you are going to do an experiment then you really need to prove the methods. These water level experiments are amateur rubbish.

[inquisitive]

Rowbotham studied the matter and the surveying tools: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za16.htm

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

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

If you are going to do an experiment then you really need to prove the methods. These water level experiments are amateur rubbish.

What have you proved recently with the latest equipment available?

[Max_Almond]

It's clear that Tom disapproves of water levels because observations using them contradict the flat earth notion.

Maybe he can tell us, then, what he does approve of for measuring where eye level is?

[Tom Bishop]

If the water level tools and other methods showed a consistent distance above the horizon, it would be undeniable.

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

Also, find a calculator showing what the drop would be under RET. It is nowhere close to the 1 degree+ that these horizon drop experiments show. Show that your theory matches the results. It is deceptive to show us a random drop that may or may not match your theory. Be honest.

[inquisitive]

If the water level tools and other methods showed a consistent distance above the horizon, it would be undeniable.

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

Also, find a calculator showing what the drop would be under RET. It is nowhere close to the 1 degree+ that these horizon drop experiments show. Show that your theory matches the results. It is deceptive to show us a random drop that may or may not match your theory. Be honest.

Why can you not show what the drop is?  You know the numbers.

[Tom Bishop]

What are you talking about? These are your experiments. You have calculators available to you online. Show that the water level tools give consistent results, and that those results match your theory.

[Max_Almond]

The tests match the predicted drop amount very well, Tom. Here's a photo from a theodolite app calibrated at sea level, taken from a hill of 1500 feet elevation. Predicted drop at that height is -0.635°.



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

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

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

Cheers.

[Tom Bishop]

These devices are not "accurate for the purpose". They need to give consistent results, and those results need to match RET.

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

[stack]

If the water level tools and other methods showed a consistent distance above the horizon, it would be undeniable.

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

I think I found one in the link you provided:

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

A few things about this:

1) Not surprising that the naked eye and a block of wood may result in a different result than anything with magnification. Kind of like saying you can't see the detail of the moon's surface with the naked eye as well as with a telescope. Go figure.
2) I don't think water levels are any less accurate than staring across the plane of a block of wood. I would think more so, actually.
2) Lot's of pretty impressive structures are built around the world these days requiring hyper accurate telescopic surveying readings/measurements. Maybe these surveying instruments weren't super great back 150 years ago. Maybe they were. Point is, if the argument is that surveying gear gives a different result than a block of wood and your eyeball, I think engineering relies more on the surveying gear.

[stack]

These devices are not "accurate for the purpose". They need to give consistent results, and those results need to match RET.

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

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

[inquisitive]

These devices are not "accurate for the purpose". They need to give consistent results, and those results need to match RET.

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

Which devices would you use today from the world of surveying to measure the earth we all live on?

[AATW]

If the water level tools and other methods showed a consistent distance above the horizon, it would be undeniable.

It's things like this which make me struggle to believe you are sincere in what you say you believe.
You yourself have posted videos which show the horizon rising and falling over the course of a day.
So you do understand that there are atmospheric effects which can change the observable horizon, now you are demanding consistent results and claiming that if that can't be achieved then it discredits all these experiments.

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

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

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

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



I've seen you grumble on here about "appeals to authority" but this is all you're doing here - your authority is Rowbotham and so anything done which contradicts his findings is dismissed somehow. If you dispute the findings of all these experiments then perform your own tests and post the results for review.

[Max_Almond]

These devices are not "accurate for the purpose". They need to give consistent results, and those results need to match RET.

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

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

Also, you still haven't put forward what you think is the best tool for the job.

[Tom Bishop]

I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe for the proper experiments.

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



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

[stack]

I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe for the proper experiments.

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



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

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

And for anyone doing the experiment and documenting it, make sure to include the full frame of the image so that someone like a Phuket can't come along and make up his own eye level.

[Max_Almond]

I haven't seen much of Nick Davies's videos (Phuket Word) but, yes, as pointed out above, even after many hundreds have people have told him otherwise, he still thinks 'the centre of the frame' signifies something. It's hard to understand why a thinking person would believe this. He could test it and see that he's wrong about that in seconds.

Please pinpoint 'the proper experiments' Tom.

[robinofloxley]

If the water level tools and other methods showed a consistent distance above the horizon, it would be undeniable.

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

I think I found one in the link you provided:

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

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

If anyone is going to dismiss this evidence because of a lens in the camera then that's game over because no photographic evidence can ever be acceptable.

[stack]

I haven't seen much of Nick Davies's videos (Phuket Word) but, yes, as pointed out above, even after many hundreds have people have told him otherwise, he still thinks 'the centre of the frame' signifies something. It's hard to understand why a thinking person would believe this. He could test it and see that he's wrong about that in seconds.

Please pinpoint 'the proper experiments' Tom.

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

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

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

When questioned, went on to say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annotated:

[Max_Almond]

I suppose if there were a problem with these levels, there would be occasions when the horizon does appear to be at eye level (from elevation). Yet it never, ever does.

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

Cheers.