[Tom Bishop]

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.

[hollow earther]

You will notice that my "well-educated" friend supports NASA, but unconditionally evades questions about anything related to the shape of the Earth or the redundant, blatant moves NASA makes to hide the fact that the Earth is not round.








My name is sarcastic, don't roast me!

[Bobby Shafto]

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.

Cool! I did not see that coming.

/thread?

[Max_Almond]

I agree that the horizon isn't always at eye level, and drops as elevation increases.

Kudos, Tom. Fair play to you.

[Mysfit]

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.

*starts crying*
Go wiki go

[inquisitive]

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 is it at eye level?

[MiraculumHelix]

While the horizon is not always at eye level, we all agree that the higher you go, the farther you can see, because no obstacles block your view, right?
So, basically, if you climb Mount Everest, you will see that it's day all time. Why? Well, obvious, isn't it? You can see the sun at all times, travelling in circles across the plane, only trailed by the moon. And because there is nothing higher than the mount everest, it's light can be seen day in day out. Try it. THere is no thing such as a night on mount everest. The night only occurs because mountains or buildings are blocking the sun.

[Max_Almond]

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 is it at eye level?

When you're standing at about the same level as the horizon - for example, lying on a beach looking out to sea.

[AATW]

I agree that the horizon isn't always at eye level, and drops as elevation increases.

Wow. That is only the 3rd time I've ever seen you cede any ground in any discussion and the first time it's something which actually contradicts Rowbotham's FE model.
I'm interested what brought about this change of mind, Bobby has shown the result clearly but he did so some time ago and you dismissed it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted you've finally conceded this, this is how progress is made, but I'm curious as to why you've done so now.

So how does this change your model of perspective? Horizon remaining at eye level was a key part of it, no?

[iamcpc]

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

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[iamcpc]

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.

The question I have is that does the horizon drop or does the horizon stay at the same level and our optical devices just perceive a change in the level of the horizon do to environmental/optical conditions?


If perceived horizon is affected by altitude what methods could we use to determine why this is?

In flat earth models in which the earth has an edge or a defined end wouldn't the edge of the earth be considered a horizon?

If this is the case and you went to a high enough altitude wouldn't the perceived horizon (assuming there was no optical/environmental phenomenon) also drop in these flat earth models too?

[Bobby Shafto]

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.

Ah, I knew there had to be a qualifier.

Yes, locating the horizon is affected by atmospheric conditions. Fog and haze can obscure the horizon, and if it's in the distance, it can present appearance of a false horizon.

Also, conditions that cause an inferior mirage can create a very convincing appearance of a horizon when, in fact, the true horizon is actually higher; but due to the mirage, an inverted image of sky obscures the actual horizon.

Both of these can fool you into thinking the line of the horizon is lower than it actually is. With mirage, you can 'defeat' that with elevation if the layer of atmosphere causing the optics is shallow enough.

But those are specific deviations. When the atmosphere is clear and mirage conditions are minimal or non-existent, the horizon still fails to rise to eye-level with increasing elevation.

Even in looming conditions when atmospheric refraction can be extreme (and by this I don't mean mirage but simply greater refractive index than standard which causes the earth to appear to have less of a curve), the horizon dips with elevation. It would require a refractive index causing light to match the curvature of the earth for the earth to appear flat and the horizon remain at eye level.

No. The horizon does not rise with eye level. It would IF the earth was flat, but since it does not, the earth can't be flat. Failure of the horizon to match eye level doesn't mean the earth is a globe, but it can't be flat. It also means EnaG's explanation of perspective is in error. That's just a zetetic conclusion.

Note: I've been observing and photographing the Mexican Coronado Islands from San Diego's Point Loma for months. From vantage points 360-410 feet above sea level, the horizon line has never risen above this outcrop spur on Middle Coronado. The line of an apparent horizon will sometimes appear to be lower when there is fog behind the island or when inferior mirage creates a mirror-fold. And sometimes you can't see that spur at all when the fog or haze is close in.  But never does a horizon line appear above that level, which is far lower than the 400' eye level.  That's the limit of how high the horizon rises, and it's consistent what a globe earth calculator claims when standard atmospheric refraction is factored:



I'd also like to point out that I've been hawking a Webcam streaming from Pacific Beach, and have noted that while sometimes the horizon is indistinct or uncertain, it is never seen above this line on a reference palm street.



So, if you're going to use my results or my images, make sure you don't misrepresent them to say that it is atmospheric conditions that cause the horizon to appear lower than eye level. Rowbotham was wrong. The wiki is wrong. The horizon dips.

[iamcpc]

Yes, locating the horizon is affected by atmospheric conditions. Fog and haze can obscure the horizon, and if it's in the distance, it can present appearance of a false horizon.

I suggest taking pictures at the same time of the same object on the same day at the exact same second (maybe have a buddy on the phone and say 3-2-1-snap) to take a picture. This will eliminate ANY claims about environmental/atmospheric conditions because both images would have been taken under virtually the EXACT same atmospheric and optical conditions.

Then it just strengthens then claim that altitude above sea level, in addition to atmospheric/environmental conditions, affect the perceived horizon. Then the wiki should be updated to show that there are multiple factors which affect the perceived horizon.

No. The horizon does not rise with eye level. It would IF the earth was flat, but since it does not, the earth can't be flat. Failure of the horizon to match eye level doesn't mean the earth is a globe, but it can't be flat. It also means EnaG's explanation of perspective is in error. That's just a zetetic conclusion.

This would only be correct if you were talking about an infinite single flat plane flat earth model. Most of the flat earth models involve some sort of end/edge of the earth. Even in these models if you went up high enough you would just be looking down at the earth and the horizon along with it. The end/edge of the earth in these models would be considered the horizon.

[edby]

I suggest taking pictures at the same time of the same object on the same day at the exact same second (maybe have a buddy on the phone and say 3-2-1-snap) to take a picture. This will eliminate ANY claims about environmental/atmospheric conditions because both images would have been taken under virtually the EXACT same atmospheric and optical conditions.

I was about to suggest the same thing.

In addition, to see whether this distortion effect is due to random multiple causes, or a single cause (i) take pictures at different days at sea level, to test whether the effect operates at sea level and (ii) the same thing but higher up, at exactly the same location.

If the random hypothesis is correct, you will see a scatter graph as the 'perceived horizon' moves up and down. If there is a single cause, you will get measurements close to each other.

If a single cause, then the question is whether refraction consistently operates on a flat earth in a way entirely consistent with earth being curved, or whether earth actually is curved.

[zorbakim]

Annotated:

interesting. But It is hard to understand that the island is below the eye level.
In addition, The extension lines are not correct.
The device may not be accurate.
When I try again, they don't meet at one point.
Some meet a little above the horizon.
(I don't know how to insert a picture.)
Precision is important in this experiment.
The result varies from a slight angle.
I've done it three times,
The points of intersection of the <left extension lines> are usually <below>,
The points of intersection of the <right extension lines> are usually <above>.

If the island higher than an observer is below eye level,
it is impossible on FE.
But I don't think that's possible.
When I draw the line, eye level is lower than yours.

By the way, How far is it to the island?

[Bobby Shafto]

I've abandoned the wire cube for precisely the confusion is causes some people. The device was never supposed to be a precision instrument, but just to show how lines of perspective can contribute to identifying where "eye-level" is. But because of imperfections in the components that are not designed for surveying, some of the wires (or in the assembly itself) would not align. You had to be able to look at the trends. And at low viewing elevations, it was ambiguous. But at higher elevations, the Area of Uncertainty (AOU) of the intersecting lines would be completely above the horizon even if they didn't converge to a dot.

But it was too cumbersome to tote around and set up, had to be leveled and aligned (at least in order to avoid having to explain why that didn't matter) and the smaller imprecision was enough for naysayers (like you) to want to reject what should be obvious. So, I stopped using it.

The target islands are companions to the one I showed before in my video challenging your 1m wave obscuring a 100m building claim. There are a set of 4 islands south of San Diego off the Mexican coast called the Coronado Islands. They were anywhere from 100 ft to about 400 ft high and about 17 or so miles from Point Loma in most of my images.

With coming Santa Ana conditions and low humidity, I'm hoping to have some good visibility, and hope to take a level sighting of the islands from a 360' and 410' vantage point and document one final time, under best possible conditions, whether or not they align according to a flat earth or a convex earth. 

(I have another video about sighting a smokestack in Carlsbad from a sea level spot in La Jolla across 20 miles of open water, and given good visibility, I hope to capture another set of images of that sighting.)

[Bobby Shafto]

Some evidence of horizon uncertainty:

From Friday morning, November 2nd:




The horizon is below eye level but watch it move. It moves up and done, but then so does the smoke stack.

The stack is 400 feet high. The roof of the structure is 140 ft above sea level. The proportion isn't right. Something's happening, optically.

Added a couple of horizontal index lines:


I am tending toward believing that a temperature inversion is causing an opacity beyond the distance of the apparent horizon, making that structure below the stack appear stretched and abnormally vertically elongated. But it isn't doing it at where the horizon line is because we can see boats transiting along that line.  But I have to wonder if there isn't something like mirage occurring beyond the distance of those boats that is inverting and inferior miraging (can I make that a verb) the power station building, making it look almost as tall as the smoke stack. I have to wonder what we would see if that "veil" was lifted. Would we see the houses and the bluffs above the beach? Or would the horizon line appear higher?

I'm pretty sure my telescope was rock solid. I was in a protected area and there was little wind anyway. Any motion, both vertically and laterally, has to be due to optics. And that smokestack is definitely moving over the course of 10-20 minutes per sequence. It's not producing a "sinking ship" effect, but it does call into question where the horizon is if trying to determine if it's at eye-level.

[seriousb1tch]

Math was never designed to be applied to real-life situations. What is the point of linear approximation? What is the point of life? Nobody can come to a conclusion and thus prove that the Earth is flat. However, it all depends on what you believe in. Yes, the horizon is always eye-level, so yes, I believe the earth is flat. It doesn't matter in any other perspective, only my sole perspective is what counts for me. Ignorance is bliss and I can proud to be an American.

[AATW]

However, it all depends on what you believe in.

No, it doesn't.
Whether the horizon remains at eye level as you ascend is not a matter of belief.
It is something which can be clearly determined in a way which can be repeated by anyone.
This is not a matter of opinion.