[Tumeni]

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.

Name a good experiment, then.

I think the same result would be got from a shop-bought spirit level instead of the guy's home-made rig. Mount that on (say) an adjustable camera tripod, line it up to be level, then sight along it with the camera

What do you think?

[Westprog]

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.

Name a good experiment, then.

I think the same result would be got from a shop-bought spirit level instead of the guy's home-made rig. Mount that on (say) an adjustable camera tripod, line it up to be level, then sight along it with the camera

What do you think?

There are spirit levels that come with tripods. Or you could just prop it up carefully on a little table until it's pointing precisely at the horizon.

Funny how spirit levels are trusted when it comes to an aircraft's armrest but not when lining up on the horizon.

[AATW]

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...

It is telling that they are so reluctant to try experiments. I guess at some level they know they're wrong. Or maybe they're just trolling. I note Tom has departed the thread as he so often does when shown up, the interesting thing is he probably thinks he won the debate. Again, I suspect he's just a troll and doesn't really believe any of this.

The particularly stupid thing about this example is that a horizon dip does not prove a globe earth
I showed in my diagram at the start of this thread that there would be a horizon dip on a flat earth too.
It's a right angled triangle - the ground is the base, the vertical side is from the ground to your eye and the hypotenuse is from your eye to the part of the ground which is the limit of your vision. We all agree this is finite so it has to be a triangle, there will be a horizon dip.

The difference is because we know the size of the globe earth we can calculate the dip angle at different altitudes and then check that experimentally. Maybe that is why they are so reluctant to experiment on this because they know it would prove the globe earth - not because of a dip, that would occur either way, but because the angle of the dip would match round earth predictions.

[Westprog]

It is telling that they are so reluctant to try experiments. I guess at some level they know they're wrong. Or maybe they're just trolling.

I have little doubt that this is true. I've seen it with a number of conspiracists. Faced with the opportunity to put up or shut up, they'll always veer away from the verification, because at some level they know that it won't actually work.

Hence the reliance on experiments performed in the distant past, rather than simply repeating them over and over to demonstrate to us that they're right.

[Frocious]

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.

I would really like to see this answered to. Tontogary, can you provide is with any confirmable credentials? The community here has a tendency to not believe posters are actually experts.

[Tontogary]

Yes i can,

I have beeen sailing since 1985, Gained my 1st certificate of competency as 2nd mate in 1989, and chief Officer licence in 1996, and my Masters licence in1999. I have been sailing as a Master of oil and gas tankers since 2004, so 14 years in command.

I can show a copy of my masters licence, although for obvious reasons (security and ID fraud being 2) will not show my licence number. As part of my navigational training we studied many subjects, Magnetism, correction of magnetic compasses, and the earths magnetic field.
Electronic navigational systems, such a GPS, transit sat NAV, as well as radio nav systems, nav aids, such as gyros and gyro compasses, radars, theory and understanding of them.
Navigation, celestial navigation which relies heavily on spoherical trigonometry, and principles of position fixing, as well as in depth position fixing from celestial bodies.
Surface navigation, using Rhumb lines, GFreat circles, composite great circles, and calculation of distances along different courses and to different destinations.
Calculation of vertical sextant angles to find distance from a known point, horizontal angles for the same, as well as bearings and ranges from objects.
Cartography, different projections of charts and why, Mercator, gnomonic projection etc, and how the world is charted.
I have spent years practicing celestial navigation, and it works...
As well as law, safety of life at sea, commercial and civil law, and loading of cargos and carriage of cargoes. Stability and damage control, rules of sailing and rules of the road. World wide weather patterns and the reasons for them
All of these things i have studied and understood to be able to pass my master mariners licence, of which i can provide a copy in a few hours. We are in the indonesian islands passages at present, it is late but i can provide my Master mariners licence.

Does that qualify Me as someone who has experienced quite a bit when it comes to actual real life experiences, and not some dragged up references for nearly 200 years ago?

[Westprog]

Does that qualify Me as someone who has experienced quite a bit when it comes to actual real life experiences, and not some dragged up references for nearly 200 years ago?

I have always assumed that pilots, navigators, around the world sailors etc must de facto be part of the conspiracy. OTOH there might be people who've sailed to Australia using flat Earth navigation. If so, no doubt we'll hear from them.

[Devils Advocate]

Yes i can,

I have beeen sailing since 1985, Gained my 1st certificate of competency as 2nd mate in 1989, and chief Officer licence in 1996, and my Masters licence in1999. I have been sailing as a Master of oil and gas tankers since 2004, so 14 years in command.

I can show a copy of my masters licence, although for obvious reasons (security and ID fraud being 2) will not show my licence number. As part of my navigational training we studied many subjects, Magnetism, correction of magnetic compasses, and the earths magnetic field.
Electronic navigational systems, such a GPS, transit sat NAV, as well as radio nav systems, nav aids, such as gyros and gyro compasses, radars, theory and understanding of them.
Navigation, celestial navigation which relies heavily on spoherical trigonometry, and principles of position fixing, as well as in depth position fixing from celestial bodies.
Surface navigation, using Rhumb lines, GFreat circles, composite great circles, and calculation of distances along different courses and to different destinations.
Calculation of vertical sextant angles to find distance from a known point, horizontal angles for the same, as well as bearings and ranges from objects.
Cartography, different projections of charts and why, Mercator, gnomonic projection etc, and how the world is charted.
I have spent years practicing celestial navigation, and it works...
As well as law, safety of life at sea, commercial and civil law, and loading of cargos and carriage of cargoes. Stability and damage control, rules of sailing and rules of the road. World wide weather patterns and the reasons for them
All of these things i have studied and understood to be able to pass my master mariners licence, of which i can provide a copy in a few hours. We are in the indonesian islands passages at present, it is late but i can provide my Master mariners licence.

Does that qualify Me as someone who has experienced quite a bit when it comes to actual real life experiences, and not some dragged up references for nearly 200 years ago?

My friend has been a mariner for about 20 years now, he's failed His masters ticket 4 times! Partly because he's not good at exams but also due to the sheer volume of subject matter they are tested on. TontoGary should be considered an absolute authority where the subjects he lists are concerned in my opinion.

[Frocious]

Yes i can,

I have beeen sailing since 1985, Gained my 1st certificate of competency as 2nd mate in 1989, and chief Officer licence in 1996, and my Masters licence in1999. I have been sailing as a Master of oil and gas tankers since 2004, so 14 years in command.

I can show a copy of my masters licence, although for obvious reasons (security and ID fraud being 2) will not show my licence number. As part of my navigational training we studied many subjects, Magnetism, correction of magnetic compasses, and the earths magnetic field.
Electronic navigational systems, such a GPS, transit sat NAV, as well as radio nav systems, nav aids, such as gyros and gyro compasses, radars, theory and understanding of them.
Navigation, celestial navigation which relies heavily on spoherical trigonometry, and principles of position fixing, as well as in depth position fixing from celestial bodies.
Surface navigation, using Rhumb lines, GFreat circles, composite great circles, and calculation of distances along different courses and to different destinations.
Calculation of vertical sextant angles to find distance from a known point, horizontal angles for the same, as well as bearings and ranges from objects.
Cartography, different projections of charts and why, Mercator, gnomonic projection etc, and how the world is charted.
I have spent years practicing celestial navigation, and it works...
As well as law, safety of life at sea, commercial and civil law, and loading of cargos and carriage of cargoes. Stability and damage control, rules of sailing and rules of the road. World wide weather patterns and the reasons for them
All of these things i have studied and understood to be able to pass my master mariners licence, of which i can provide a copy in a few hours. We are in the indonesian islands passages at present, it is late but i can provide my Master mariners licence.

Does that qualify Me as someone who has experienced quite a bit when it comes to actual real life experiences, and not some dragged up references for nearly 200 years ago?

My friend has been a mariner for about 20 years now, he's failed His masters ticket 4 times! Partly because he's not good at exams but also due to the sheer volume of subject matter they are tested on. TontoGary should be considered an absolute authority where the subjects he lists are concerned in my opinion.

I think arguing against him as an authority that is something even most FE'rs would struggle to do. Unfortunately, that just means he will be ignored.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.

[inquisitive]

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.

"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.

We have yet see any studies, data etc. from yourself.  Actual measurements that can be repeated today.

[Frocious]

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.

"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.

Why did you deliberately leave out the parts of the quoted post that gave you exactly what you are asking for?

[Tom Bishop]

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.

"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.

Why did you deliberately leave out the parts of the quoted post that gave you exactly what you are asking for?

Are you talking about this?

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.

That's a document titled "explanation of navigation tables". This is not study. It is explaining how tables work.

[Frocious]

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.

"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.

Why did you deliberately leave out the parts of the quoted post that gave you exactly what you are asking for?

Are you talking about this?

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.

That's a document titled "explanation of navigation tables". This is not study. It is explaining how tables work.

All right. I will leave it to our navigator to argue the specifics here, as clearly he knows much more about it than either of us.

I am curious as to why a study is necessary for you in this case, as scientific papers/studies seem to matter very little to you when it comes to your beliefs.

[inquisitive]

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.

"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.

Why did you deliberately leave out the parts of the quoted post that gave you exactly what you are asking for?

Are you talking about this?

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.

That's a document titled "explanation of navigation tables". This is not study. It is explaining how tables work.

Do you agree to document produces the correct results?  If you are unsure you need to do some research of your own before you comment.

[Westprog]

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.

"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.



That's a document titled "explanation of navigation tables". This is not study. It is explaining how tables work.

Do you agree to document produces the correct results?  If you are unsure you need to do some research of your own before you comment.

This is a good one, because it will require really strong levels of denial. We have someone who actually navigates around the world. He's shown in some detail how he does it, and how at every level it requires the assumption of a round Earth.

We know that this won't change anyone's mind, but it will be interesting to see how it's rejected. There'll be various ways - he'll be accused of misrepresentation or downright lying, that the techniques used are in fact compatible with a flat Earth, that this is all a CIA trick - mostly though it will just be ignored.

We have in the above "verification" quote an example of how nowadays our lives are totally bound up with the reality of the globe, and that it requires a very particular mindset to ignore it.

[Parallax]

Tontogary is a classic example of someone who thinks he is going round the globe, but in reality isn't.

[AATW]

"Totally proven. There are studies." doesn't fly around here. We need to see the studies, see the data, and see the actual thing that is being tested.

Unless it's from Rowbotham of course in which case him saying "this is what I saw" is cast-iron proof. No data required. 
How are your empirical measurements of horizon dip coming along? You're am empiricist so I'm sure you're keen to get going on that.
You've been given a suggested experiment to try, or you can devise your own.
Looking forward to seeing you studies and data...

[Parallax]

Dr Rowbotham did provide proof.

[Frocious]

Tontogary is a classic example of someone who thinks he is going round the globe, but in reality isn't.

This schtick is getting old. Starting to think this is simply Tom's troll account rather than a standard troll.