Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #20 on: April 28, 2018, 11:49:35 AM »
Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?
:D

Wow. So you think that the water in the two connected tubes could be at different heights because "water flows down hill".
I think that's my new favourite Tom Bishop quote.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #21 on: April 28, 2018, 05:35:52 PM »
Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?

The hand held camera's slight up down motion, in line with the black line of the water in the foreground affects the scene significantly in the far background, even if it is a pixel.

Everything needs to be perfectly leveled and aligned, and this water device is insufficient.

Furthermore, on a mountain or large hill, how do you know that the true horizon hasn't disappeared into an atmospheric fog that you can't see, thousands of miles away from you, and is squished beyond imperceptibility? This is clearly what happens when you get to high altitudes like from an international flight. The horizon is very foggy. What makes you think that the same is not true at lower altitudes, but the disappearance is more squished into the horizon by perspective?
On YouTube, there are examples of flat earth proponents using this technique to demonstrate that the horizon DOES rise to eye-level. And in the comments section, flat earth skeptics harshly discount the demo/test using many of these same critiques.

I think the principle is sound. It comes down to the execution. Anyone making a claim either way (horizon rises to eye-level or it dips below horizontal), should be able to explain why it is so and how it could be verified. How do you know it's true, one way or the other? The "dip" below horizontal on a globe the size of the earth is so small, you can't tell with just your Mk 1 mod 0 eyeball. . Testers for "flatness" and "globeness" both face the same challenges before they can claim their pet conclusion has been verified.

1. Yes, I think a clear horizon with contrast is critical.
2. Everything needs to be steady and stable. Handheld is no good, IMO. Camera should be on a tripod. Water leveler kept still and given a few moments to stabilize and then don't jostle it.
3. Everything does need to be level, but mainly it's the camera/eye level that's the key. The water will find its own level, assuming no bubble dams or vacuums. Lining up the two water level indices along the sightline of the camera/eye is the crux of the demo.

I'm thinking using the water level itself to level the camera:


This demo isn't to measure the angle of declination. It's just to see if anyone with access to simple measuring tools can detect if any angle exists. It may be imperceptible close to MSL, but if in a flat earth the "horizon is always at eye level" then increasing elevation "h" should verify that claim since in globe geometry it won't.

If you're going to make the claim one way or the other, whether in support of flatness or curve, you should be able to back it up.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7044
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #22 on: April 28, 2018, 07:46:49 PM »
Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?
:D

Wow. So you think that the water in the two connected tubes could be at different heights because "water flows down hill".
I think that's my new favourite Tom Bishop quote.

It does take some time for water to flow. It isn't instantaneously.

In the video you have provided, at the top of the mountain, he is just holding the water device in his hand, which appears to be wobbly, and a camera in his other hand.

The flow of the water is one concern. The other concern is that the camera is not perfectly level and that there is some room to where things appear "perfectly level".

In have dealt with this question and proved through measurements with a sextant (accurate and calibrated) that the arc of the sky is more than 180 degrees, by pretty much the same amount as is expected for the hieght of the observer.
What dont you understand about that Tom?
If the sky, from clear, sharp horizon, to the south, across the sky to a clear sharp horizon on the north is more than 180 degrees, then the bit below you is less, therefore the horizon is NOT rising to meet you.

I cannot really explain much clearer, and a young teenage child would likely understand that.

Surveying is always in error. Always. Every angle and vertical and position needs to be finely positioned. And even when it is to the best of our ability, it is still in error. There is also lens error, which is always present.

http://whistleralley.com/surveying/theoerror/

Quote
As any surveyor should understand, all measurements are in error. We try to minimize error and calculate reasonable tolerances, but error will always be there. Not occasionally; not frequently; always. In the interest of more accurate measurements, we look for better instruments and better procedures.

Also see Rowbotham's issues with measuring the horizon with devices that have lenses, as an example of device error.

An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.

Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2018, 08:43:41 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #23 on: April 28, 2018, 08:30:48 PM »
Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.
If it's that hard to verify (or refute), then maybe a claim of "horizon is always at eye-level" isn't one FET should definitively make.

The difference between flat and curved in the earth's case is less than 1° for heights above surface we've been talking about. You can't tell that from just looking. You have to measure somehow.

Is there any demonstration FET has relied on to verify that claim? Anything I can duplicate?

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #24 on: April 28, 2018, 08:41:10 PM »
It does take some time for water to flow. It isn't instantaneously.
For a liquid that depends on the viscosity and water really isn't that viscous so it more or less is. It's close enough that you don't really have to give it any significant time to "settle".

Yes, it is all hand held although I'd say the result is pretty clear and I have provided the stills which show the result even more clearly.
And you have been shown two other methods of showing this, both of them gave the same result as this one.

But, as was said at the time, if you dispute the findings...do it yourself! This is an easily repeatable experiment.
You suggested an alternative experiment with two buildings. In theory that is equivalent but the problems with that are that buildings are, in general, not that high and it's only at significant altitude you see a decent horizon drop and it's next to impossible to be certain that the camera height and the building height are exactly the same. That's where the experiment with the two tubes of water wins, you can take the equipment to any height and, if they're connected, be sure that the water in the two tubes is the same

So...have a go. And if you do then agree that there is horizon dip then that doesn't mean you have to abandon belief in a flat earth, but you would maybe have to adjust your model accordingly. That's how pretty much all progress has been made. You lament the lack of funding and organisation in your movement but you don't need any funding to do this, the dude who made the original video just took it upon himself and did it one day. I tried to take a photo on a recent work trip when I was on a plane but I didn't have a window seat and it was a bit difficult. The horizon wasn't that clear either, there was quite a lot of cloud. I fly fairly regularly with work so will try again another time. Meanwhile, why not have a go yourself?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #25 on: April 28, 2018, 09:06:34 PM »
Water flows down hill. How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?
:D

Wow. So you think that the water in the two connected tubes could be at different heights because "water flows down hill".
I think that's my new favourite Tom Bishop quote.

It does take some time for water to flow. It isn't instantaneously.

In the video you have provided, at the top of the mountain, he is just holding the water device in his hand, which appears to be wobbly, and a camera in his other hand.

The flow of the water is one concern. The other concern is that the camera is not perfectly level and that there is some room to where things appear "perfectly level".

In have dealt with this question and proved through measurements with a sextant (accurate and calibrated) that the arc of the sky is more than 180 degrees, by pretty much the same amount as is expected for the hieght of the observer.
What dont you understand about that Tom?
If the sky, from clear, sharp horizon, to the south, across the sky to a clear sharp horizon on the north is more than 180 degrees, then the bit below you is less, therefore the horizon is NOT rising to meet you.

I cannot really explain much clearer, and a young teenage child would likely understand that.

Surveying is always in error. Always. Every angle and vertical and position needs to be finely positioned. And even when it is to the best of our ability, it is still in error. There is also lens error, which is always present.

http://whistleralley.com/surveying/theoerror/

Quote
As any surveyor should understand, all measurements are in error. We try to minimize error and calculate reasonable tolerances, but error will always be there. Not occasionally; not frequently; always. In the interest of more accurate measurements, we look for better instruments and better procedures.

Also see Rowbotham's issues with measuring the horizon with devices that have lenses, as an example of device error.

An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.

Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.
What is the error quoted for equipment available today?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2053
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #26 on: April 28, 2018, 10:07:23 PM »
Water flows down hill.

So .... how does that effect the two linked columns of water? Are you suggesting the farther away one will settle to be lower than the nearer? You suggest that would lead to the sight line along the two pointing downward?

How do we know that water was perfectly leveled out at the point of the line ups?

You can see stationary water in both.

The hand held camera's slight up down motion, in line with the black line of the water in the foreground affects the scene significantly in the far background, even if it is a pixel.

Everything needs to be perfectly leveled and aligned, and this water device is insufficient.

Name a 'sufficient' device, then

Furthermore, on a mountain or large hill, how do you know that the true horizon hasn't disappeared into an atmospheric fog that you can't see, thousands of miles away from you, and is squished beyond imperceptibility? This is clearly what happens when you get to high altitudes like from an international flight. The horizon is very foggy. What makes you think that the same is not true at lower altitudes, but the disappearance is more squished into the horizon by perspective?

Surely such a fog would affect globe earthers and flat earthers equally, such that the flat earthers would also have their claim thrown into doubt?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2053
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #27 on: April 28, 2018, 10:10:03 PM »
An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.

Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.

So does that shed doubt on the flat-earthers' claim that the horizon always rises to eye-level, then, since all examples of illustrating this seem to also rely on hand-held cameras and off-the-cuff measures?

Or do you have access to better equipment than the globe-earthers? If so, what is it?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7044
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #28 on: April 28, 2018, 10:26:21 PM »
An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.

Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.

So does that shed doubt on the flat-earthers' claim that the horizon always rises to eye-level, then, since all examples of illustrating this seem to also rely on hand-held cameras and off-the-cuff measures?

Or do you have access to better equipment than the globe-earthers? If so, what is it?

Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.

An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #29 on: April 28, 2018, 10:32:22 PM »
An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.

Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.

So does that shed doubt on the flat-earthers' claim that the horizon always rises to eye-level, then, since all examples of illustrating this seem to also rely on hand-held cameras and off-the-cuff measures?

Or do you have access to better equipment than the globe-earthers? If so, what is it?

Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.

An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
And you have repeated this?  How would you know the height of the ground? How far apart?

You have still not tested anything. Sad...

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2053
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #30 on: April 28, 2018, 11:17:39 PM »
... involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.

Do you assert that this method is ... better? more accurate? something else? ... than the U-shaped pipes with coloured water?

An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.

How did R determine his markers were at the known height and distances without "calibration"
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #31 on: April 28, 2018, 11:21:15 PM »
An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.

Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.

So does that shed doubt on the flat-earthers' claim that the horizon always rises to eye-level, then, since all examples of illustrating this seem to also rely on hand-held cameras and off-the-cuff measures?

Or do you have access to better equipment than the globe-earthers? If so, what is it?

Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.

An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.

How on Earth do you verify that two markers are at exactly the same height? The only way to verify that two markers are at the same height is by calibrating devices and careful levelling.

I suspect that Rowbotham levelled his two markers by lining them up with the horizon, and then used them to verify that they were in line with the horizon.

This is another one of these situations where one starts to think that one is being made a fool of, and that this "Flat Earth" joke is just being pushed as far as it can go.

Offline Westprog

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #32 on: April 28, 2018, 11:22:38 PM »
... involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.

Do you assert that this method is ... better? more accurate? something else? ... than the U-shaped pipes with coloured water?

An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.

How did R determine his markers were at the known height and distances without "calibration"

See my guess - he lined them up with the horizon. Or he found a patch of ground that looked sort of level and stuck 'em in.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7044
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #33 on: April 28, 2018, 11:27:41 PM »
An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.

Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.

So does that shed doubt on the flat-earthers' claim that the horizon always rises to eye-level, then, since all examples of illustrating this seem to also rely on hand-held cameras and off-the-cuff measures?

Or do you have access to better equipment than the globe-earthers? If so, what is it?

Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.

An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.

How on Earth do you verify that two markers are at exactly the same height? The only way to verify that two markers are at the same height is by calibrating devices and careful levelling.

I suspect that Rowbotham levelled his two markers by lining them up with the horizon, and then used them to verify that they were in line with the horizon.

This is another one of these situations where one starts to think that one is being made a fool of, and that this "Flat Earth" joke is just being pushed as far as it can go.

Why not read the book to find out?

See my guess - he lined them up with the horizon. Or he found a patch of ground that looked sort of level and stuck 'em in.

Incorrect. The markers are often natural in nature, that are a known altitude. There are numerous horizon experiments in Earth Not a Globe. Read the book.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2018, 11:36:55 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #34 on: April 28, 2018, 11:34:51 PM »
Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.

An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
I thought he used a clinometer and recorded observations from different floors of a seaside building.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #35 on: April 28, 2018, 11:39:52 PM »
Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.

An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
I thought he used a clinometer and recorded observations from different floors of a seaside building.
Experiment 15
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za20.htm

There are numerous such horizon experiments in the book.
Several experiments, but this was the only one I remember (and currently skimming through is the only one I'm finding) dealing with horizon rising to eye-level.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2018, 11:42:05 PM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #36 on: April 28, 2018, 11:46:28 PM »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #37 on: April 29, 2018, 12:01:39 AM »
Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.

An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.
I thought he used a clinometer and recorded observations from different floors of a seaside building.

Experiment 15
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za20.htm

This is essentially the kind of demonstration both globe and flat earth advocates are attempting, and what I've been planning.

If this is inherently flawed, Experiment 15 ought to be discounted.

I'm not finding the one you describe, but you can point me to it, I'd appreciate it.

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #38 on: April 29, 2018, 12:28:51 AM »
Incorrect. The markers are often natural in nature, that are a known altitude.
And how do you think that we determine those altitudes? You can either (a) accept that the altitude measurements are accurate, and therefore that Tontogary's experiment is accurate, or (b) concede that Rowbotham's experiments had some inaccuracies and lose one of your biggest "proofs" that the Earth is flat. Oh yeah, there's a (c) for explaining why Rowbotham's experiments are accurate but not Tontogary's, but I have no faith that you will actually do that in any sane way.
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #39 on: April 29, 2018, 01:35:02 AM »
An off-the-cuff or hand-held surveying demo is not going to cut it. The tolerances are extremely sensitive, and there are many ways it can be wrong. Slight angles and positions and incorrect device calibration will create different results.

Once you have something that is actually irrefutable to FET, let us know, so we can shut down this website.

So does that shed doubt on the flat-earthers' claim that the horizon always rises to eye-level, then, since all examples of illustrating this seem to also rely on hand-held cameras and off-the-cuff measures?

Or do you have access to better equipment than the globe-earthers? If so, what is it?

Read how Rowbotham determined how the horizon was at eye level. He didn't use a theodolite. It involved setting up markers of a known height a far distance apart from each other and placing your eye at the level of the first marker and seeing that the horizon was lined up with it.

An experiment of this sort is far better than one which relies on calibrating devices and careful leveling.

Then he was in error.
As you are fond of claiming all surveying methods are in error. He could not have ensured the markers of being EXACTLY the same hieght, on an EXACTLY level ground. How could he have measured the height to be absolute? The experiment therefore it must be discounted as in error. There is no calculations, method, or verification of his experiment, other than his statement that he did this and that.

As for his experiment in chapter II experiment 15, are we to believe what is written as proof?
He took a “clinometer” no mention of what type or how its calibrated, to different floor in a hotel, and saw the horizon was the same. (Or virtually the same) Which might well have been a plumb bob with a set square attached (as he used in other “experiments”) and eyeballed the horizon.


However have you ever seen the “Grand Hotel” in Brighton? It is not that “grand” and has a total of 6 stores. Now lets be generous and and say it has a height of 10 feet (3M) between floors. By the time he gets to the highest room, he is about 20 meters above the lowest floor, and the dip of the horizon when eyeballing it is 7.9 minutes of arc. Pretty much guesswork if you are eyeballing it.
This experiment is in error. As all surveys are in error according to you.
Therefore one cannot trust EnaG, as it is full of errors.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.