The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Themightykabool on June 18, 2018, 12:33:18 PM
-
Hoi hoi
Apparently the horizon rises to eye level.
Prrrretty sure your heads are built to use this as a balancing point of reference.
Anyone wih motion sickbess will tell you they need to stare far out because their brains feel a disconnect between their inner ears-eyes.
"LOOKS" level. "Looks" flat. All "perspective".
-
Prrrretty sure your heads are built to use this as a balancing point of reference.
Anyone wih motion sickbess will tell you they need to stare far out because their brains feel a disconnect between their inner ears-eyes.
No, our heads were not at all built for this, because the horizon rises to /any/ eye level. People suffering motion sickness are told to look at the horizon because it is very stationary, so the disconnect between their eyes seeing fast movement and their inner ear experiencing no movement is reduced.
"LOOKS" level. "Looks" flat. All "perspective".
I don't see your point sorry. Are you saying the horizon doesn't look flat? Or that it only looks flat because of perspective? Or something else?
-
Anyone who has gone up a hill knows the horizon doesn’t always rise to eye level.
-
Anyone who has gone up a hill knows the horizon doesn’t always rise to eye level.
Oof you're right. I hadn't even bothered double checking because a round Earther said it. But you're right, and that was an inexcusable slip on my part. The horizon does not rise to eye level. Further showing our heads weren't custom built for it.
-
Can't chickens transmute silicon to calcium?
-
Can't chickens transmute silicon to calcium?
-
I mean, can they?
-
I mean, can they?
No!
-
http://
Can't chickens transmute silicon to calcium?
Excellent question.
-
Oof you're right. I hadn't even bothered double checking because a round Earther said it. But you're right, and that was an inexcusable slip on my part. The horizon does not rise to eye level. Further showing our heads weren't custom built for it.
We use perspective for our observations. Our perspective would show a flat horizon regardless of a flat earth or gigantic spherical earth when at low altitude.
Then we have eye-level, as in looking level relative to where you are, this is easily measurable using numerous methods.
But first the claims:
On the gigantic spherical earth, we can easily calculate the dip to the horizon, as being nearly eye-level when only meters above the sea, and degrees down when at obtainable higher altitudes (mountains and planes).
The flat earth claim is eye-level horizon at all altitudes due to FE perspective.
As said, it is easily shown by using a spirit-level or similar method at low and high altitude, and aligning your eye with it.
The result, which all flat earthers avoid like the plague, and the reason no flat earther will ever do and show the experiment, is that the horizon is below eye level when at higher altitudes.
You might hear some FE logic, or be shown a horizon seemingly following a camera being moved up and down, but never will flat earthers attempt at measuring if the horizon is eye level at high altitude.
Plenty of REers have done this, using all kinds of methods, but FEers always claim faulty measuring or logic, because they cannot believe the results.
You are basically blind to the truth.
-
You might hear some FE logic, or be shown a horizon seemingly following a camera being moved up and down, but never will flat earthers attempt at measuring if the horizon is eye level at high altitude.
Plenty of REers have done this, using all kinds of methods, but FEers always claim faulty measuring or logic, because they cannot believe the results.
You are basically blind to the truth.
An REer was the one here who said that the horizon rises to eye level. He was corrected, and I also was corrected, a correction that I accepted because after research it was shown to be better supported than the initial claim. The REer has yet to accept the correction. How does this make me blind to the truth?
-
An REer was the one here who said that the horizon rises to eye level. He was corrected, and I also was corrected, a correction that I accepted because after research it was shown to be better supported than the initial claim. The REer has yet to accept the correction. How does this make me blind to the truth?
I've never heard an FEer accept this. You truly have my praise. ;D
The thing is that the eye-level horizon is what most FEers stick to when they claim how perspective works. Might you also be accepting that perspective works solely on angles and straight lines, with refraction causing light (the lines) to bend a little?
-
I've never heard an FEer accept this. You truly have my praise. ;D
You're too kind. :)
Might you also be accepting that perspective works solely on angles and straight lines, with refraction causing light (the lines) to bend a little?
Absolutely.
-
You might hear some FE logic, or be shown a horizon seemingly following a camera being moved up and down, but never will flat earthers attempt at measuring if the horizon is eye level at high altitude.
Plenty of REers have done this, using all kinds of methods, but FEers always claim faulty measuring or logic, because they cannot believe the results.
You are basically blind to the truth.
An REer was the one here who said that the horizon rises to eye level. He was corrected, and I also was corrected, a correction that I accepted because after research it was shown to be better supported than the initial claim. The REer has yet to accept the correction. How does this make me blind to the truth?
I find the the often used claim, "Horizon rises to eye level", very ambiguous and virtually meaningless as it stands.
For a start, just what is "eye-level"? It is usually just assumed, though not explicitly stated to be the local horizontal.
Then, of course, whether the earth is a Globe or flat the horizon does not rise at all, so the horizon never actually rises to "eye-level". Though it certainly seems to rise, due simply to perspective making to small distance down the horizon seem very small.
On the flat earth, since the horizon would be some indefinitely large distance away, the horizon would always appear to rise to the horizontal - eye-level.
On the Globe the situation is more complicated. The distance to the horizon now varies with the height of the observer.
This distance can be calculated with one of the usual equations.
Now it will be found that the horizon is always twice the observer height below the observer.
This horizon is, however, so far away compared to this dip that the horizon still does seem to "rise" almost at the local horizontal - eye-level.
But the horizon the Globe, neglecting refraction, is always a small visual angle below this local horizontal.
Neglecting any refraction we get these horizon distances and dip angle to the horizon
From 1.5 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 4.4 km away and 3 m below eye level. This makes the horizon only 0.04° below eye-level - quite imperceptible!
From 100 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 36 km away and 200 m below eye level. This makes the horizon 0.32° below eye-level - measurable with good instruments!
From 1000 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 113 km away and 2000 m below eye level. This makes the horizon 1.0° below eye-level - easily measurable.
And from 10,000 m above sea-level, the horizon is about 357 km away and 20,000 m below eye level. The horizon is now 3.2° below eye-level - barely detectable to the unaided eye, but easily measurable!
So, while the horizon does in fact not rise but falls, it does appear to nearly rise to that level, certainly up to 1,000 m or so. This because the 2,000 m drop to the (Globe) horizon is over a distance of 113 km - or only 1 part in 56, so quite close to level.
-
You're preaching to the choir here, rab, but I do appreciate the in-depth explanation and equations for others.
-
I've never heard an FEer accept this. You truly have my praise. ;D
You're too kind. :)
Might you also be accepting that perspective works solely on angles and straight lines, with refraction causing light (the lines) to bend a little?
Absolutely.
So, you have the basic tools in order, which is a rarity. Your personal model of the flat earth must be different than the general flat earth consensus?
-
You're preaching to the choir here, rab, but I do appreciate the in-depth explanation and equations for others.
How am I to know whether I'm preaching to ;)Tessa or Yuri ;), though it was actually more intended to be flat-earther and Globe supporter alike.
They all talk of "The horizon rising to eye-level".
-
Anyone who has gone up a hill knows the horizon doesn’t always rise to eye level.
Oof you're right. I hadn't even bothered double checking because a round Earther said it. But you're right, and that was an inexcusable slip on my part. The horizon does not rise to eye level. Further showing our heads weren't custom built for it.
I can tell you have never checked and just blindly believe YouTube
Videos which sole purpose is to make money.
-
I can tell you have never checked and just blindly believe YouTube
Videos which sole purpose is to make money.
So you've tried it yourself then? Can we see photos please?
-
Ugh
Yuri needs to pick a point.
Your first response was that it does rise to eye level.
My OP point is that a person will naturally have their head at "level". This means the "rising" of the horizon is a perceived self balance of the eyes-head.
When you run, does the world look like a shaky hand held camera video?
Or is it "level".
Try running.
And i parallel my OP last statment to Flatters who insist that the horizon is level because it looks level.
As theyve been told, "looks" flat doesnt mean is flat when put to measurement devices.
"Looks like it rises" doesnt mean it is as rab already mentioned.
i feel yuri is jane in disguise.
pick a point.
Understand the debate/ discussion and start making sense.
-
I'm going to dissect your response very, very carefully.
Ugh
Yuri needs to pick a point.
Your first response was that it does rise to eye level.
Yes. Then I was challenged, did some research and changed my mind. I'm absolutely baffled that you would complain that I was willing to admit I was wrong.
My OP point is that a person will naturally have their head at "level". This means the "rising" of the horizon is a perceived self balance of the eyes-head.
Just to be extremely clear, your OP said:
Apparently the horizon rises to eye level.
When you run, does the world look like a shaky hand held camera video?
Or is it "level".
Try running.
This is a completely different use of the word 'level' than your OP. Here, you are referring to steadiness, as in the ability of the human body and brain to compensate for movement without greatly impacting sight. In your OP you were referring to being at the same height as a person's eyes, which is false. The horizon is not at eye level, as established by all other Round Earthers here.
"Looks like it rises" doesnt mean it is as rab already mentioned.
You were the person to claim it looks like it rises.
i feel yuri is jane in disguise.
pick a point.
Understand the debate/ discussion and start making sense.
I try to be nice on this site, I don't see any reason to be rude because that only makes conversations less productive. So, I will offer a quick recap of what my 'understanding' of this discussion is (please correct me if I am wrong):
1. You claim the horizon rises to eye level.
2. I agree, but do not concede to your claim that the human body was designed for that, because to me that makes no sense.
3. Someone challenges the claim that the horizon rises to eye level.
4. I do research, and conclude I was wrong. I announce this here.
5. You respond with the above, which I think speaks for itself.
-
So, you have the basic tools in order, which is a rarity. Your personal model of the flat earth must be different than the general flat earth consensus?
It is a little different. Some of the pieces I'm still putting together, but you can get a decent idea from my post history. Maybe I'll need to make my own 'My thoughts'.
-
I'm going to dissect your response very, very carefully.
Ugh
Yuri needs to pick a point.
Your first response was that it does rise to eye level.
Yes. Then I was challenged, did some research and changed my mind. I'm absolutely baffled that you would complain that I was willing to admit I was wrong.
My OP point is that a person will naturally have their head at "level". This means the "rising" of the horizon is a perceived self balance of the eyes-head.
Just to be extremely clear, your OP said:
Apparently the horizon rises to eye level.
When you run, does the world look like a shaky hand held camera video?
Or is it "level".
Try running.
This is a completely different use of the word 'level' than your OP. Here, you are referring to steadiness, as in the ability of the human body and brain to compensate for movement without greatly impacting sight. In your OP you were referring to being at the same height as a person's eyes, which is false. The horizon is not at eye level, as established by all other Round Earthers here.
"Looks like it rises" doesnt mean it is as rab already mentioned.
You were the person to claim it looks like it rises.
i feel yuri is jane in disguise.
pick a point.
Understand the debate/ discussion and start making sense.
I try to be nice on this site, I don't see any reason to be rude because that only makes conversations less productive. So, I will offer a quick recap of what my 'understanding' of this discussion is (please correct me if I am wrong):
1. You claim the horizon rises to eye level.
2. I agree, but do not concede to your claim that the human body was designed for that, because to me that makes no sense.
3. Someone challenges the claim that the horizon rises to eye level.
4. I do research, and conclude I was wrong. I announce this here.
5. You respond with the above, which I think speaks for itself.
The sarcasm of the OP has avoided you.
If you had withdrawn your asertion to the misconception of "rises" i missed it.
Sorry.
-
The sarcasm of the OP has avoided you.
Please don't post non-serious threads in the upper fora. It is a violation of forum rules. Such threads belong in Complete Nonsense.