Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #420 on: November 06, 2018, 03:13:28 PM »
No, the horizon does not lower on a plane as elevation is increased. It's geometrically impossible on a plane. The line of sight fixed on the horizon will remain the same as elevation is increased, making more of the plane visible. The line of sight to the horizon will never lower or raise on a plane. Anything else is an optical illusion. If at any point the horizon begins to lower, it's no longer a plane but becomes a horizontal tube shape.   

Too much education can distort a mind.

If it any point the horizon begins to lower as elevation increases, then Globies really live on a horizontal tube. Either way, they still lose.

« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 03:53:18 PM by Earthman »
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #421 on: November 06, 2018, 04:24:46 PM »
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.
What do you mean by 'eye level'?

Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #422 on: November 06, 2018, 04:39:47 PM »
Define "eye-level".

And also, we've discussed this at length before and the flat earthers didn't understand any of the evidence presented.

Wasn't there an experiment performed a short while ago that soundly disproved this, using a u-tube filled with coloured water?


Yowza!  That's pretty much what I was thinking about doing.

But I thought I'd invite the community here to talk it through first: what am I measuring. How should I be sure to do it (and document it). And make predictions about the results or analysis of predicted results. Do all that before putting in the effort.

The wiki is making the claim and using that as the basis for a flat earth argument about horizons. I thought it might be worthwhile to test the claim.

This experiment with a water level only proves how to make second horizontal line above another. That's all.

A water level is used to establish a horizontal line.

The ends of two horizontal lines on the same level plane will meet because they are the same height.

An end of a horizontal line above another at any height will never meet the lower horizontal line.

This experiment only proves a second horizontal line is gaining height above another making it appear the lower is dropping as elevation is increased. The lower will always appear even lower as the other gains height.

If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #423 on: November 06, 2018, 05:00:09 PM »
This experiment only proves a second horizontal line is gaining height above another making it appear the lower is dropping as elevation is increased. The lower will always appear even lower as the other gains height.
So in your view the hypothesis that the earth is flat is consistent with the horizon not rising to eye level?

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #424 on: November 06, 2018, 05:53:29 PM »
No, the horizon does not lower on a plane as elevation is increased. It's geometrically impossible on a plane.
No. Well, on an infinite plane maybe.
On a finite plane you can either see the edge of the plane of you can see...as far as you can see.
Either way, you'd still be looking down at the horizon

"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #425 on: November 06, 2018, 06:15:18 PM »
This experiment only proves a second horizontal line is gaining height above another making it appear the lower is dropping as elevation is increased. The lower will always appear even lower as the other gains height.
So in your view the hypothesis that the earth is flat is consistent with the horizon not rising to eye level?

It rises to 6' below my eye "Level" at any elevation. The measurement is so minute, it's perfectly fine to use the phrase "The horizon rises to eye level"
« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 07:17:49 PM by Earthman »
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

Offline Earthman

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #426 on: November 06, 2018, 06:33:52 PM »
No, the horizon does not lower on a plane as elevation is increased. It's geometrically impossible on a plane.
No. Well, on an infinite plane maybe.
On a finite plane you can either see the edge of the plane of you can see...as far as you can see.
Either way, you'd still be looking down at the horizon



There is no "Maybe"

Yes, we are looking down at the horizon, but it's so minute it really can't be measured nor does it matter.

If it's an finite plane, then Earth is a horizontal rod or other type of shape, but it damn sure isn't a continuous curve that forms a sphere. Globies lose anyway. We don't lose because we live within the boundary of a plane and within the boundary of where the Sun shines. Anything beyond it is not really a part of our world, therefore does not really matter.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2018, 06:43:57 PM by Earthman »
If early astronomers could see what we see today, they would scoff at the thought of a Globe Earth.  Increased knowledge with technology has not been good for the RE community, nor is it on their side.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 433
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #427 on: November 06, 2018, 08:26:05 PM »
There is no "Maybe"

Yes, we are looking down at the horizon, but it's so minute it really can't be measured nor does it matter.

It can be measured and I think it matters to FET - It's pretty core to the "laws of perspective" argument used to explain a bunch of stuff.

If it's an finite plane, then Earth is a horizontal rod or other type of shape, but it damn sure isn't a continuous curve that forms a sphere. Globies lose anyway. We don't lose because we live within the boundary of a plane and within the boundary of where the Sun shines. Anything beyond it is not really a part of our world, therefore does not really matter.

I'm not sure this is a win/lose proposition. If the earth is flat and we need to adjust everything to be in accordance with it, then great. Seems like all of humanity should get busy with that work.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 240
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #428 on: November 07, 2018, 05:08:02 AM »
I saw a small misquote:  "water always flows downhill".  The correct quote should be:  "water flows toward the center of gravity". 
« Last Edit: November 07, 2018, 05:25:46 AM by RonJ »

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #429 on: November 07, 2018, 11:19:52 AM »
Yes, we are looking down at the horizon, but it's so minute it really can't be measured nor does it matter.
It can be measured, it has been measured and the amount the horizon dips varies by altitude.
That has all been shown very clearly...I think earlier in this thread.
If you dispute those results then feel free to do your own experiment and post the results for review.
"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #430 on: November 07, 2018, 03:26:42 PM »
It can be measured, it has been measured and the amount the horizon dips varies by altitude.
That has all been shown very clearly...I think earlier in this thread.
If you dispute those results then feel free to do your own experiment and post the results for review.
My point, and the premise of this thread, was whether or not the horizon "dips" with increased viewing elevation is a feature that would distinguish a flat earth from a convex one.
If the horizon dips below eye level as height increases, that favors convexity.
If it always stays at eye level, that favors flatness.

I don't know how to explain a horizon falling below eye level with increasing elevation on a flat earth, as depicted in this diagram:



We know other factors can influence the appearance of the horizon. A fog bank can obscure the horizon and make it appear to be closer/lower. Inferior mirage can obscure the horizon with an inverted image of the sky and make the horizon appear to be lower than it actually is. Sub-refractive and super-refractive atmospheric conditions can make the angle to the horizon increase or decrease.

But all else being equal -- of there is no change in atmosphere/atmolayer conditions between viewing points, increasing viewing height always makes the horizon drop. That's to be expected on a convex surface. I know of no way to explain that for a flat surface.

 

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #431 on: November 07, 2018, 03:49:04 PM »
The only way to explain it on a flat surface is if the Actual Horizon on my diagram stay at the same distance regardless of height.
That way the angle would increase but, without doing the maths, I think it would do so in a different more linear way than on a globe.
And we can observe that the horizon distance increases with altitude so that doesn't match observations in any case.
"This is literally just a few people talking about it for a brief time every day on their spare time. That’s the flat earth movement" - Tom Bishop

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #432 on: November 07, 2018, 04:18:00 PM »
The only way to explain it on a flat surface is if the Actual Horizon on my diagram stay at the same distance regardless of height.
But what would produce such a horizon?

The Natural Laws of Perspective claim of flat earth says the horizon is formed by the vanishing line, which stays at eye level.
What you're drawing is not the flat earth claim, and I can think of no reason to impart that claim to the flat earth argument unless you (or they) can come up with a reason for how such a perceived horizon on a flat earth is formed.

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #433 on: November 08, 2018, 05:40:47 PM »
Does anyone disagree with any of the following?

1. The horizon appears increasingly below eye level the higher we rise in elevation
2. This angle can be measured fairly easily with a variety of instruments
3. The amount the angle increases is consistent with being on a ball of around 7,900 miles in diameter
4. A horizon occurs as a result of curvature
5. There is no mechanism to cause a horizon on a flat plane
6. Even if there was, the actual measured dip of the horizon (or anything) isn't in line with what it should be on a flat plane
7. The measurable dip to the horizon (or another distant object) is an excellent proof of a spherical earth
« Last Edit: November 12, 2018, 07:14:57 AM by Max_Almond »
If you've proven yourself immune to logic and incapable of reasonable debate, please understand that I won't be paying you much heed (this means you, Baby Thork, Sandokhan, Tom Bishop, and Totallackey).

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #434 on: November 08, 2018, 06:11:04 PM »
Does anyone disagree with any of the following?

1. The horizon appears increasingly below eye level the higher we rise in elevation
2. This angle can be measured fairly easily with a variety of instruments
2. The amount the angle increases is consistent with being on a ball of around 7,900 miles in diameter
Where's the data?  Where are the calculations and what model ar they based on?
Quote
3. A horizon occurs as a result of curvature
4. There is no mechanism to cause a horizon on a flat plane
If the earth were an infinite plane the horizon would easily be explained because of the logical fact that if an observer were standing parallel to an infinite flat surface he would be able to see no higher than eye level. Ignoring refraction, if he could see higher than eye level while looking straight ahead that would imply that the ground was tilted upwards.  If looking straight ahead the ground appeared lower than eye level that would imply the ground was sloped down but according to the premises the earth and the observers eyes are parallel so by deduction, the observer would, looking straight ahead, only be able to see a horizon line at eye level, that horizon line being at some finite distance that is a function of the observer's height.
Quote
5. Even if there was, the actual measured dip of the horizon (or anything) isn't in line with what it should be on a flat plane
The horizon dip at higher altitudes is explained by flat earthers as being caused by refraction caused by the continual increase in intervening atmosphere between the observer and the horizon.  As far as I know nobody has actually calculated the predicted horizon drop caused by refraction vs. the horizon drop caused by curvature.
Quote
6. The measurable dip to the horizon (or another distant object) is an excellent proof of a spherical earth
It could be if the math fits the spherical model better than the flat model.  I lean RE but the fact that so many internet RErs use complete red-herring arguments to defend the globe is undeniable like the claim that a horizon is impossible on a flat earth.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 06:25:10 PM by George Jetson »

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #435 on: November 08, 2018, 06:26:44 PM »
Does anyone disagree with any of the following?

1. The horizon appears increasingly below eye level the higher we rise in elevation
2. This angle can be measured fairly easily with a variety of instruments
2. The amount the angle increases is consistent with being on a ball of around 7,900 miles in diameter
3. A horizon occurs as a result of curvature
4. There is no mechanism to cause a horizon on a flat plane
5. Even if there was, the actual measured dip of the horizon (or anything) isn't in line with what it should be on a flat plane
6. The measurable dip to the horizon (or another distant object) is an excellent proof of a spherical earth

The first #2 is rather ambiguous. I've found it difficult to measure the angle of horizon dip with any sort of precision without a precision instrument (which I don't have access to). Coarse angle measurements -- which is all you need to tell if the angle increases with elevation -- is easy enough with non-precision and home-made leveling instruments.

The second #2 relates to the first one, but with the added caveat that (as I've been gradually learning from my own experimentation) the atmosphere plays a very large role in influencing deviations from what would be consistent with a sphere of a particular diameter. When the atmosphere bends light to more closely follow the curve of the earth, measurements will appear consistent with an earth of greater diameter. And conversely, if refraction is weaker, the atmosphere will bend light less making the curvature of the earth more pronounced, as if the diameter was smaller.

Calculations of curvature that don't account for the affect of an atmosphere layered over a terrestrial sphere will never meet consistency requirements.

I don't think you'll get agreement from flat earth advocates on 3, 4 or 5 but I won't speak for them.

However, the reasons I've seen for why there is a perceived horizon on a flat plane suggest there should be consensus on #6, although I would reword to say that "measurable dip to the horizon (or another distant object) is a distinguishing feature between a concave earth and a flat earth.

Horizon dip doesn't prove spherical-icity, er, spherical-ness...doesn't prove the earth is a globe. Horizon dip would occur on a cylinder earth too. You need dip in all directions from all locations on the surface to conclude a sphere. And phrasing it as a conditional (if this then convex, if that then flat) makes it a more neutral statement rather than an argument for one or the other.

#6, by the way, is the key premise of this topic, started way back when. If there isn't agreement between flat and globe earth proponents on that, then much posted on this topic has been pointless. But if there is a mechanism that could explain the apparent dip in the horizon with increased elevation on a flat earth, I'd love to invite it.

Note: Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory offers an explanation, but it is contradictory to other flat earth arguments so it can't (or shouldn't) be offered in isolation. In my opinion, the EAT-based flat earth model is a substantially different model and not conflated with what I'll call the more orthodox arguments in defense of a flat earth.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2018, 06:29:05 PM by Bobby Shafto »

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #436 on: November 08, 2018, 06:47:17 PM »


#6, by the way, is the key premise of this topic, started way back when. If there isn't agreement between flat and globe earth proponents on that, then much posted on this topic has been pointless. But if there is a mechanism that could explain the apparent dip in the horizon with increased elevation on a flat earth, I'd love to invite it.


To reiterate from my last post, the standard FE claim is that the higher you go the greater the distance the light must travel from the horizon line to your eye meaning the light has to travel through a greater volume of refraction-causing atmosphere to reach your eye the higher up you go.  It is this supposed effect that FEs claim causes the horizon drop.  It makes a certain amount of sense to me but I don't know if it actually fits the empirical data.

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #437 on: November 08, 2018, 07:29:46 PM »


#6, by the way, is the key premise of this topic, started way back when. If there isn't agreement between flat and globe earth proponents on that, then much posted on this topic has been pointless. But if there is a mechanism that could explain the apparent dip in the horizon with increased elevation on a flat earth, I'd love to invite it.


To reiterate from my last post, the standard FE claim is that the higher you go the greater the distance the light must travel from the horizon line to your eye meaning the light has to travel through a greater volume of refraction-causing atmosphere to reach your eye the higher up you go.  It is this supposed effect that FEs claim causes the horizon drop.  It makes a certain amount of sense to me but I don't know if it actually fits the empirical data.

A couple things about this.

On a flat earth, you'd have an atmolayer, not an atmosphere. That's not just semantics. In an atmolayer, air density doesn't curve away from the line of sight as it would with an atmosphere. Having to penetrate more atmo- (air) isn't what causes refractive "bending" of light. Extinction due to scattering and absorption yes, but not refraction. Not unless there are reasons for why the density gradient of the air is different at different distances through which that line of sight passes. But as a characteristic of an atmolayer, it's not "refraction-causing" in the way that an atmosphere would be. Standard atmoSPHERE will cause light to bend toward the curve of the underlying sphere. Standard atmoLAYER would not have that feature.

Secondly, claiming horizon dip on a flat earth is due to refraction of an atmolayer due to an angle of viewing from an elevation of rarer air to a lower elevation of denser air relies on a bending of light that is the opposite of how refraction works. If light from a dipped horizon is being refracted as it encounters the less dense air of the viewer, it will be refracted toward the denser medium, back to toward the surface of the earth. This has the visual effect of raising the apparent elevation of the sighted object not lowering it. In this case, the object is the horizon. For the horizon to appear to decline in angle, the light would have to bend UPWARD, away from the surface of the earth. Horizon dip could be explained by EAT because it's claimed mechanism has light bending upward, away from earth's surface. Refraction by the air could do that too, but it is far from typical. You need a density inversion of the atmolayer for refraction to cause upward-bending light and make the horizon appear to "dip."

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 240
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #438 on: November 08, 2018, 08:35:46 PM »
I am surprised you guys haven't looked at the publications 'The American Practical Navigator' or the 'Nautical Almanac'.  These publications contain a wealth of information regarding what kind of effects the atmosphere has on the measurements of heavenly bodies.  The theory of the sextant would be most interesting as well.  Yes, height of eye and atmospheric refraction are important considerations in these measurements.  You can even buy a sextant for a reasonable price.  I used to have a plastic Davis sextant that was really quite accurate.  My only problem with it was when I was 'shooting the sun'.  Even a small amount of warping due to the sunlight on a hot day would alter the measurements a little when you are trying to measure angles to the second. I never had any accuracy problems when measuring the moon, stars, or planets at night.  If you are land locked, you can even use a pool of water to get your sights.  I can personally attest that it works, but takes some practice.  In WWII the bomber crews used a bubble sextant for their long distance navigation across the Pacific to bomb Japan.  I often have supper with a pilot who did just that.  He said he never got lost, but came close a couple of times and survived the war.  Of course the flat earth community probably doesn't believe much in that kind of technology because it assumes that the earth is a rotating sphere in orbit around the sun.  On the other hand, it is quite difficult to argue with something that works if properly used.  If it didn't then mariners would have been getting lost for 100's of years.  That hasn't been happening so it's safe to assume that their idea of the earth has some validity.

Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level
« Reply #439 on: November 08, 2018, 10:07:10 PM »


#6, by the way, is the key premise of this topic, started way back when. If there isn't agreement between flat and globe earth proponents on that, then much posted on this topic has been pointless. But if there is a mechanism that could explain the apparent dip in the horizon with increased elevation on a flat earth, I'd love to invite it.


To reiterate from my last post, the standard FE claim is that the higher you go the greater the distance the light must travel from the horizon line to your eye meaning the light has to travel through a greater volume of refraction-causing atmosphere to reach your eye the higher up you go.  It is this supposed effect that FEs claim causes the horizon drop.  It makes a certain amount of sense to me but I don't know if it actually fits the empirical data.

A couple things about this.

On a flat earth, you'd have an atmolayer, not an atmosphere. That's not just semantics. In an atmolayer, air density doesn't curve away from the line of sight as it would with an atmosphere. Having to penetrate more atmo- (air) isn't what causes refractive "bending" of light. Extinction due to scattering and absorption yes, but not refraction. Not unless there are reasons for why the density gradient of the air is different at different distances through which that line of sight passes. But as a characteristic of an atmolayer, it's not "refraction-causing" in the way that an atmosphere would be. Standard atmoSPHERE will cause light to bend toward the curve of the underlying sphere. Standard atmoLAYER would not have that feature.

Secondly, claiming horizon dip on a flat earth is due to refraction of an atmolayer due to an angle of viewing from an elevation of rarer air to a lower elevation of denser air relies on a bending of light that is the opposite of how refraction works. If light from a dipped horizon is being refracted as it encounters the less dense air of the viewer, it will be refracted toward the denser medium, back to toward the surface of the earth. This has the visual effect of raising the apparent elevation of the sighted object not lowering it. In this case, the object is the horizon. For the horizon to appear to decline in angle, the light would have to bend UPWARD, away from the surface of the earth. Horizon dip could be explained by EAT because it's claimed mechanism has light bending upward, away from earth's surface. Refraction by the air could do that too, but it is far from typical. You need a density inversion of the atmolayer for refraction to cause upward-bending light and make the horizon appear to "dip."
Thanks for the optics lesson.  :)