[mtnman]

The horizon is always at eye level with the observer, even on an airplane.

You would be hard pressed to find a less scientific and measurable statement. Have you tested this with any instrumentation or device with any level of accuracy?

Saw a reference to a theodolite app for the iPhone. Looks interesting. I'll ask Tom in advance of getting it, would measuring horizon angles with something like that be accepted by you as accurate? Would you expect it to always show the horizon at zero degrees elevation or something else?

[Tom Bishop]

The horizon is always at eye level with the observer, even on an airplane.

You would be hard pressed to find a less scientific and measurable statement. Have you tested this with any instrumentation or device with any level of accuracy?

Saw a reference to a theodolite app for the iPhone. Looks interesting. I'll ask Tom in advance of getting it, would measuring horizon angles with something like that be accepted by you as accurate? Would you expect it to always show the horizon at zero degrees elevation or something else?

On the topic of those theodolite apps read this metabunk thread.

[Curious Squirrel]

The horizon is always at eye level with the observer, even on an airplane.

You would be hard pressed to find a less scientific and measurable statement. Have you tested this with any instrumentation or device with any level of accuracy?

Saw a reference to a theodolite app for the iPhone. Looks interesting. I'll ask Tom in advance of getting it, would measuring horizon angles with something like that be accepted by you as accurate? Would you expect it to always show the horizon at zero degrees elevation or something else?

On the topic of those theodolite apps read this metabunk thread.

I'm not sure what you want us to look at here. The prevailing conclusion appears to be "the horizon does not rise to the level as stated by FE" with a fair bit of data to back it up.

[Tom Bishop]

I'm not sure what you want us to look at here. The prevailing conclusion appears to be "the horizon does not rise to the level as stated by FE" with a fair bit of data to back it up.

A theodolite app is tested for accuracy and is found to be inaccurate.

[inquisitive]

The horizon is always at eye level with the observer, even on an airplane.

You would be hard pressed to find a less scientific and measurable statement. Have you tested this with any instrumentation or device with any level of accuracy?

Saw a reference to a theodolite app for the iPhone. Looks interesting. I'll ask Tom in advance of getting it, would measuring horizon angles with something like that be accepted by you as accurate? Would you expect it to always show the horizon at zero degrees elevation or something else?

On the topic of those theodolite apps read this metabunk thread.

How do you define eyelevel, what angle?

Please provide a link to accuracy of professional surveying equipment, until you do your claim is not valid.

[Curious Squirrel]

I'm not sure what you want us to look at here. The prevailing conclusion appears to be "the horizon does not rise to the level as stated by FE" with a fair bit of data to back it up.

A theodolite app is tested for accuracy and is found to be inaccurate.

So you just ignored the guy using an actual theodolite, and the fact that even with the issues his conclusion was that the horizon does not rise to eye level? Instead you simply walk away with "oh it was inaccurate" and ignore everything else? Fascinating.

[mtnman]

The horizon is always at eye level with the observer, even on an airplane.

You would be hard pressed to find a less scientific and measurable statement. Have you tested this with any instrumentation or device with any level of accuracy?

Saw a reference to a theodolite app for the iPhone. Looks interesting. I'll ask Tom in advance of getting it, would measuring horizon angles with something like that be accepted by you as accurate? Would you expect it to always show the horizon at zero degrees elevation or something else?

On the topic of those theodolite apps read this metabunk thread.

I will have a read through this thread, but don't have time right now. Before I do, it looks like a general discussion about the "horizon rising to eye level" concept, that contains some reference to the apps like I mentioned (maybe the same app).

If you are offering this web page as reference, I assume you are prepared to accept all their conclusions. Is that correct?

[Tom Bishop]

I'm not sure what you want us to look at here. The prevailing conclusion appears to be "the horizon does not rise to the level as stated by FE" with a fair bit of data to back it up.

A theodolite app is tested for accuracy and is found to be inaccurate.

So you just ignored the guy using an actual theodolite, and the fact that even with the issues his conclusion was that the horizon does not rise to eye level? Instead you simply walk away with "oh it was inaccurate" and ignore everything else? Fascinating.

We just discussed the issues with "actual theodolites" on the previous page of this thread. You can refer back to that and read the appropriate Earth Not a Globe section for discussion of that device and look up Snell's Law.

Next we received a query about using a theodolite app for this task and I have provided a source showing that those are inaccurate as well.

If you are offering this web page as reference, I assume you are prepared to accept all their conclusions. Is that correct?

I believe I sent you there to look at their investigation of a theodolite phone app:

On the topic of those theodolite apps read this metabunk thread.

[inquisitive]

I'm not sure what you want us to look at here. The prevailing conclusion appears to be "the horizon does not rise to the level as stated by FE" with a fair bit of data to back it up.

A theodolite app is tested for accuracy and is found to be inaccurate.

So you just ignored the guy using an actual theodolite, and the fact that even with the issues his conclusion was that the horizon does not rise to eye level? Instead you simply walk away with "oh it was inaccurate" and ignore everything else? Fascinating.

We just discussed the issues with "actual theodolites" on the previous page of this thread. You can refer back to that and read the appropriate Earth Not a Globe section for discussion of that device and look up Snell's Law.

Next we received a query about using a theodolite app for this task and I have provided a source showing that those are inaccurate as well.

If you are offering this web page as reference, I assume you are prepared to accept all their conclusions. Is that correct?

I believe I sent you there to look at their investigation of a theodolite phone app:

On the topic of those theodolite apps read this metabunk thread.

Again, please provide details of how professional surveying theodolites are inaccurate.  A cheap phone app is not relevant to this discussion.

No mention of theodolites in that computer video.

[Tom Bishop]

Again, please provide details of how professional surveying theodolites are inaccurate.

Details have been long provided. Look up the theodolite sections in Earth Not a Globe.

A cheap phone app is not relevant to this discussion.

Why are you telling me? You guys are the ones who brought it up.

[inquisitive]

Again, please provide details of how professional surveying theodolites are inaccurate.

Details have been long provided. Look up the theodolite sections in Earth Not a Globe.

A cheap phone app is not relevant to this discussion.

Why are you telling me? You guys are the one who brought it up.

I am asking about professional equipment available today, please provide proof.  Something written many years ago is not relevant today with advances in technology.

[Tom Bishop]

Again, please provide details of how professional surveying theodolites are inaccurate.

Details have been long provided. Look up the theodolite sections in Earth Not a Globe.

A cheap phone app is not relevant to this discussion.

Why are you telling me? You guys are the one who brought it up.

I am asking about professional equipment available today, please provide proof.  Something written many years ago is not relevant today with advances in technology.

Why? It's a simple device. Does Snell's Law not exist anymore?

[Curious Squirrel]

Again, please provide details of how professional surveying theodolites are inaccurate.

Details have been long provided. Look up the theodolite sections in Earth Not a Globe.

A cheap phone app is not relevant to this discussion.

Why are you telling me? You guys are the one who brought it up.

I am asking about professional equipment available today, please provide proof.  Something written many years ago is not relevant today with advances in technology.

Why? It's a simple device. Does Snell's Law not exist anymore?

What is your evidence that has anything to do with a theodolite? You have one statement written by someone with a bias, claiming the theodolite doesn't do the exact job it was made to do, and continues to do to this day. Where is your experimental evidence that your statement about the theodolite is correct?

[Tom Bishop]

What is your evidence that has anything to do with a theodolite? You have one statement written by someone with a bias, claiming the theodolite doesn't do the exact job it was made to do, and continues to do to this day. Where is your experimental evidence that your statement about the theodolite is correct?

The experimental evidence on that subject is there in Earth Not a Globe.

[inquisitive]

What is your evidence that has anything to do with a theodolite? You have one statement written by someone with a bias, claiming the theodolite doesn't do the exact job it was made to do, and continues to do to this day. Where is your experimental evidence that your statement about the theodolite is correct?

The experimental evidence on that subject is there in Earth Not a Globe.

Please provide evidence of an experiment that has been carried out in the last 5 years to prove a theodolite is inaccurate.

2 second accuracy of a theodolite:

http://www.engineersupply.com/CST-berger-digital-theodolite-56-dgt2.aspx

[Curious Squirrel]

What is your evidence that has anything to do with a theodolite? You have one statement written by someone with a bias, claiming the theodolite doesn't do the exact job it was made to do, and continues to do to this day. Where is your experimental evidence that your statement about the theodolite is correct?

The experimental evidence on that subject is there in Earth Not a Globe.

No it's not. There is an assumption presented by Rowbotham based on one observation. That is not experimental evidence. If there's actually more than that a link would be appreciated, but I recall nothing more than that.

[Tom Bishop]

What is your evidence that has anything to do with a theodolite? You have one statement written by someone with a bias, claiming the theodolite doesn't do the exact job it was made to do, and continues to do to this day. Where is your experimental evidence that your statement about the theodolite is correct?

The experimental evidence on that subject is there in Earth Not a Globe.

Please provide evidence of an experiment that has been carried out in the last 5 years to prove a theodolite is inaccurate.

Please provide evidence conducted in the last 5 seconds that it is not.

Since when does truth have an expiration date?

[inquisitive]

What is your evidence that has anything to do with a theodolite? You have one statement written by someone with a bias, claiming the theodolite doesn't do the exact job it was made to do, and continues to do to this day. Where is your experimental evidence that your statement about the theodolite is correct?

The experimental evidence on that subject is there in Earth Not a Globe.

Please provide evidence of an experiment that has been carried out in the last 5 years to prove a theodolite is inaccurate.

Please provide evidence conducted in the last 5 seconds that it is not.

Since when does truth have an expiration date?

Why are you so certain that something written over 100 years ago is true?

You have said this before but we learn more as time goes on, you have been given details of a theodolite that is accurate to 2 seconds.  That proves the accuracy available today.

[Tom Bishop]

What is your evidence that has anything to do with a theodolite? You have one statement written by someone with a bias, claiming the theodolite doesn't do the exact job it was made to do, and continues to do to this day. Where is your experimental evidence that your statement about the theodolite is correct?

The experimental evidence on that subject is there in Earth Not a Globe.

Please provide evidence of an experiment that has been carried out in the last 5 years to prove a theodolite is inaccurate.

Please provide evidence conducted in the last 5 seconds that it is not.

Since when does truth have an expiration date?

Why are you so certain that something written over 100 years ago is true?

You have said this before but we learn more as time goes on, you have been given details of a theodolite that is accurate to 2 seconds.  That proves the accuracy available today.

Last I checked Darwin's Origin of the Species and Einstein's work is over 100 years old. How about attacking the content rather than the time the study was written?

[inquisitive]

What is your evidence that has anything to do with a theodolite? You have one statement written by someone with a bias, claiming the theodolite doesn't do the exact job it was made to do, and continues to do to this day. Where is your experimental evidence that your statement about the theodolite is correct?

The experimental evidence on that subject is there in Earth Not a Globe.

Please provide evidence of an experiment that has been carried out in the last 5 years to prove a theodolite is inaccurate.

Please provide evidence conducted in the last 5 seconds that it is not.

Since when does truth have an expiration date?

Why are you so certain that something written over 100 years ago is true?

You have said this before but we learn more as time goes on, you have been given details of a theodolite that is accurate to 2 seconds.  That proves the accuracy available today.

Last I checked Darwin's Origin of the Species and Einstein's work is over 100 years old. How about attacking the content rather than the time the study was written?

I have given you details of a theodolite with 2 seconds accuracy.  They are not inaccurate and you did not define eye level.  Please do.