[Tom Bishop]

I think you may have misunderstood how the experiment works.

I see perfectly well how the experiment works. The experimenter is aligning the water to be level, but the camera is down below the water line. The camera needs to be centered with the water line.

There are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the camera is exactly centered vertically with the water line. Its just a guy holding a camera in one hand and glasses of water in the other. Bad experiment.

Now how about addressing my points? Pointing me at different experiments really sounds like you guys are saying "well, you win on this one.... but look at this other thing I found"

[Frocious]

I think you may have misunderstood how the experiment works.

I see perfectly well how the experiment works. The experimenter is aligning the water to be level, but the camera is down below the water line. The camera needs to be centered with the water line.

There are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the camera is exactly centered vertically with the water line. Its just a guy holding a camera in one hand and glasses of water in the other. Bad experiment.

Now how about addressing my points? Pointing me at different experiments really sounds like you guys are saying "well, you win on this one.... but look at this other thing I found"

Perhaps we're taking a page out of your book?

And no, the camera cannot be "below the water line" if the the water lines are aligned. That isn't how perspective works. I suppose you could cast doubt on whether or not the water lines are level -- but that's why it's been recommended you do the experiment yourself!

[AATW]

There are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the camera is exactly centered vertically with the water line. Its just a guy holding a camera in one hand and glasses of water in the other.

This is true about the mechanism, but there are plenty of points where the two tubes of liquid line up and the horizon dip can be seen very clearly.
Here are some screen grabs from the 3 altitudes to help:



Very clear how the horizon dips more with altitude. Not a huge dip, as I've said but measurable and these are empirical measurements which prove it.
Honestly, the wriggling you do rather than concede any point no matter how clearly you are shown to be wrong really is embarrassing.

[Macarios]

The video you provided just has a guy holding up what is essentially a glass of water above the horizon line. He claims that he disproved something.

Is it impossible to hold a glass of water above the line of the horizon?

Why not address my points rather than trying to distract with various videos of different experiments?

LOL
That "glass of water" is actually two transparent pipes connected with horizontal pipe.
Water (painted) in both pipes is level, and aims horizontally.
And obviously, horizon is below horizontal.

Try it yourself.
We all know you understand how water level works.




EDIT: Yes, this directly addresses your point that "horizon always rises to the eye level".

[Parallax]

There are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the camera is exactly centered vertically with the water line. Its just a guy holding a camera in one hand and glasses of water in the other.

This is true about the mechanism, but there are plenty of points where the two tubes of liquid line up and the horizon dip can be seen very clearly.
Here are some screen grabs from the 3 altitudes to help:



Very clear how the horizon dips more with altitude. Not a huge dip, as I've said but measurable and these are empirical measurements which prove it.
Honestly, the wriggling you do rather than concede any point no matter how clearly you are shown to be wrong really is embarrassing.

Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants. Take a step back, be too close or take a photo from a slight angle, and it can be manipulated. The horizon always meets the eye level, it was proved in the 1800s. Honestly, its embarrassing how your blind Faith in 'science' will not let you see the forest for the trees.

[Frocious]

There are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the camera is exactly centered vertically with the water line. Its just a guy holding a camera in one hand and glasses of water in the other.

This is true about the mechanism, but there are plenty of points where the two tubes of liquid line up and the horizon dip can be seen very clearly.
Here are some screen grabs from the 3 altitudes to help:



Very clear how the horizon dips more with altitude. Not a huge dip, as I've said but measurable and these are empirical measurements which prove it.
Honestly, the wriggling you do rather than concede any point no matter how clearly you are shown to be wrong really is embarrassing.

Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants. Take a step back, be too close or take a photo from a slight angle, and it can be manipulated. The horizon always meets the eye level, it was proved in the 1800s. Honestly, its embarrassing how your blind Faith in 'science' will not let you see the forest for the trees.

Go do the experiment yourself. That's why he posted it.

[Tumeni]

The video you provided just has a guy holding up what is essentially a glass of water above the horizon line. He claims that he disproved something.

No, it's a large spirit level. A spirit level which indicates the horizon to be AT the level indicated by it at sea level, but BELOW its level at any significant altitude.

[Tumeni]

The horizon is always at eye level.

Disproved by the video above, with the spirit level at various altitudes

 This is demonstrated by the fact that when you rise in altitude, the horizon rises with you and your eye level.

How do you define and measure 'eye level' at altitude, other than with a levelling device as shown in the video above? If you have empirical data from another type of device used at altitude, please share it.

Here is more evidence of the horizon rising to eye level when altitude is increased:

VIDEO

That video only shows the operator taking his drone to a height where the camera is aligned with the top of his selected building and horizon.

It carries no indication at all that the camera is level at that point. There's no eyes involved, so how does this support a claim of "eye level" - the other video has the level held in front of the camera/observer's eye, and the level can be seen

Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants. Take a step back, be too close or take a photo from a slight angle, and it can be manipulated. The horizon always meets the eye level, it was proved in the 1800s. Honestly, its embarrassing how your blind Faith in 'science' will not let you see the forest for the trees.

So let's see you construct your own water/spirit level of similar design, and photograph it such that it reinforces your viewpoint, then.

How do you determine what eye level is at this height, without a device like this?

The experimenter is aligning the water to be level, but the camera is down below the water line. The camera needs to be centered with the water line. There are no mechanisms in place to ensure that the camera is exactly centered vertically with the water line.

The screen grabs with the far away tube partly behind the nearer one, with the water levels exactly aligned. The experimenter cannot "align the water to be level" when it finds its own level....

Here's a suggestion - do it yourself. Construct the level, and mount it on a tripod with a moveable head. Align the head to be level, using a separate spirit level, and photograph along the top of the two columns of water/spirit. 

Tilt the tripod head away from you, and repeat
Tilt the tripod head back toward you, and repeat.

Will the water find its own level? I think so. Will a photograph along the top of the two columns of water, regardless of the angle of the tripod head, always be aligned to the same spot in the sky? I think so.

I don't think you can manually "align the water to be level". It will find its own level.

Are you going to do some empirical work?

[AATW]

Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants.

Well firstly, those photos are simply stills from that video.
And secondly if you dispute the findings you have all the information you need to repeat the experiment. I presume that Tom has stopped posting to do just that, given how important he regards empirical evidence.

I look forward to your findings.

[Parallax]

How do you determine what eye level is at this height, without a device like this?

Well it's pretty simple. You go to that height, and the horizon is level with your eyes.

[Parallax]

Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants.

Well firstly, those photos are simply stills from that video.
And secondly if you dispute the findings you have all the information you need to repeat the experiment. I presume that Tom has stopped posting to do just that, given how important he regards empirical evidence.

I look forward to your findings.

I don't need to, I've seen first hand how the horizon is always at eye level.

[Frocious]

Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants.

Well firstly, those photos are simply stills from that video.
And secondly if you dispute the findings you have all the information you need to repeat the experiment. I presume that Tom has stopped posting to do just that, given how important he regards empirical evidence.

I look forward to your findings.

I don't need to, I've seen first hand how the horizon is always at eye level.

Empiricism at work, ladies and gentlemen!

[inquisitive]

Photos can be manipulated to show what the photographer wants.

Well firstly, those photos are simply stills from that video.
And secondly if you dispute the findings you have all the information you need to repeat the experiment. I presume that Tom has stopped posting to do just that, given how important he regards empirical evidence.

I look forward to your findings.

I don't need to, I've seen first hand how the horizon is always at eye level.

How can it be for 2 observers in the same place at different heights?  Eye level defined as 90deg to the vertical.

[Tumeni]

Well it's pretty simple. You go to that height, and the horizon is level with your eyes.

How do you prove this to others, though? How do you prove it's not just your impression that it's level?

[Parallax]

Well I'd tell them to see for themselves. Next time they are somewhere high, for them to take a look. The horizon will be at eye level.

[inquisitive]

Well I'd tell them to see for themselves. Next time they are somewhere high, for them to take a look. The horizon will be at eye level.

Please define eye level as the angle must be different from different heights.

[Tontogary]

Ok lets try and put this one to bed shall we.

I am a navigator, and have been for 35 years on varying ships, and can tell you for sure the earth is a globe, because i have sailed around the world, and end up nearly the same place by sailing east or west.

The argument around the horizon is really simple to observe and see.

Mariners have been using tables and maths to work out distances from objects of a known height for hundreds of years, and they are proved to be accurate, there are numerous references to them, and they work. I have done it myself and seen it.

Given an object of known height above the datum level (sea level, highest astronomical tide, whatever is being used) it is easy to use tables, or in fact calculate the distance you are from that distance by using a sextant.

Knowing your own hieght of eye is also important, as this will give you the distance to the visible horizon, and if the base of the object is closer than the visible horizon, then that is the only calculation needed, however, if the object is further away than the visible horizon, you can still calculate how far beyond the visible horizon the object is by doing a similar calculation taking into account the Base of the object (of a known hieght) will be below the horizon, and that can be measured.

Verification is easy since the introduction of radar, i have measured the vertical angle to lighthouses, mountains etc, and been able to calculate the range of the vessel from them. I have then used the radar to verify the calculations (and tables) and have come up with the same (or very nearly the same) answer. This has been further verified by then steaming towards the object at a certain speed for a certain time, and actually covering that distance.

https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/5429240/FID89/PUB9/chapters/tblexpl.pdf

Tables 13, 14 15 and 16 all are used. The mathematics are provided.

The above links explain the maths and tables to use, and the thing is THEY WORK, so if there was no curvature of the earth, then the tables are wrong, and there will be a hell of a lot more ship wrecks around.

Either i am lying, or have been fantastically duped and lucky to get away without running my (large) ships aground all these years.

Also look at this reference, clearly explaining why an object dips below the horizon. There are pictures etc, plus diagrams. I would love to have explained to me why the science behind what i have known and practiced to be true is wrong.

http://www.splashmaritime.com.au/Marops/data/less/Nav/Vsa.pdf

Finally when looking at the home page of this site it is stressed that pictures and videos and wiki references should not be trusted as they are easily manipulated, why therefore does Tom continue to try to provide references to textbooks written over 150 years ago, when our understanding of science was more primitive, indeed we had not even flown an aeroplane at that point, and Darwin had just publish Origin of species, and most people believed in creationism, as opposed to evolution. Please lets have some sense of reality here.
Although i have provided web links, one of them is to a universally accepted journal of navigation that has been published for over 200 years, and the tables are accurate. Have been proved so many times by practice, and measurement, as well as theory.

Please provide solid evidence other than “i believe” or “it has been proved” without explaining why.

[douglips]

It doesn't matter whether the horizon is perfectly at eye level or not. When you rise to great altitude the atmosphere tends to build up at the horizon and it's all just a fog in the distance. The true horizon is at risk of being hidden behind that fog.

How can this be true if we can see the sun and Moon at the horizon? They don't fade into a fog as you claim they would, despite being thousands of miles away.

[Tumeni]

Well I'd tell them to see for themselves. Next time they are somewhere high, for them to take a look. The horizon will be at eye level.

That's like telling them to measure the wind speed up there by wetting a finger and holding it up to the air. Or measuring the drop in atmospheric pressure by taking a few deep breaths. Or measuring the rainfall by wringing out their clothes into their hands.

It's not precise, in other words.

If you want to prove any sort of level, you need some sort of measuring device. Again, see the video above.

[Westprog]

Now this is funny, someone who claims to be interested in empirical measurements grumbling that a video showing empirical measurements is a distraction simply because those measurements prove him wrong.

I'd imagine that one could line up the horizon on a spirit level. If there was a drop at altitude, then that should show with the little bubble. However, not sure if the effect would be easily measurable.

At the very least, actually doing the experiment and filming it would show something.

But this is a very typical example. Here's an assertion of something observable and verifiable. This is the website of an organisation devoted to the exposure of a worldwide conspiracy. They're actively proselytising, trying to persuade everyone to see through the lies and to accept that the Earth is not a globe and this is just a way that powerful people control the masses.

So why aren't there FE advocates performing this experiment on every hillside that overlooks the sea? Set up a little stall with a big hand-lettered sign saying "See the truth of the Flat Earth - THERE IS NO DIP". Verify that no matter what the height, the horizon is at eye level. Thousands of new converts every day.

And yet... it seems that the people actually doing this experiment, and reporting it, and most importantly, telling other people to try it aren't FE advocates. Why is that? I mean, if it's true that the horizon is always at eye level, and that this proves Flat Earth to be true, then surely...

But in fact there's always a little tickle at the back of the mind which provides self-preservation. It doesn't always work - see the hilarious instance where an advocate denied that the Pontchartrain power lines actually existed - but it does quite a good job of avoiding the dangerous areas. Think of FE belief as a living creature inside the minds of its hosts, making sure that they avoid anything that might harm it.

However, just as we saw with the Pontchartrain power lines, it's a resilient little chap, and if it's unavoidably exposed to proof of a dipping horizon, it will spring back with an assertion that the dipping horizon is and always has been part of FE theory and in fact disproves the Round Earth.