I'm impressed.

  • 52 Replies
  • 5086 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40301
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #30 on: February 05, 2011, 11:47:07 AM »
Who proved FET wrong?

I think if you want modern science to be proven wrong, then you have to prove RET wrong. Protip for ya there kidda.

We already have. Read Earth Not a Globe.

Just like Chariots of the Gods proved that the earth has been visited by ancient aliens, right Tom?

Did the author conduct any experiments to demonstrate his premise for ancient alien visits like Samuel Birley Rowbotham did to demonstrate his premise of a flat earth? If so, yes.

Read the book and find out for yourself.
http://www.amazon.com/Chariots-Gods-Erich-von-Daniken/dp/0425166805
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #31 on: February 05, 2011, 01:48:50 PM »
Did the author conduct any experiments to demonstrate his premise for ancient alien visits like Samuel Birley Rowbotham did to demonstrate his premise of a flat earth? If so, then yes.

I thought zetetics didn't involve any hypothesising/assumptions. Looks like Robothem was trying to use the scientific method after all.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2011, 01:51:24 PM by Moon squirter »
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #32 on: February 05, 2011, 02:06:42 PM »
Who proved FET wrong?

I think if you want modern science to be proven wrong, then you have to prove RET wrong. Protip for ya there kidda.

We already have. Read Earth Not a Globe.

That's right. It complete clears the whole thing up, hangs it out to dry and then folds it neatly in a pile reading for pressing.


I am happy to see you agree.

?

Thevoiceofreason

  • 1792
  • Bendy Truth specialist
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #33 on: February 05, 2011, 02:40:02 PM »
Did the author conduct any experiments to demonstrate his premise for ancient alien visits like Samuel Birley Rowbotham did to demonstrate his premise of a flat earth? If so, then yes.

I thought zetetics didn't involve any hypothesising/assumptions. Looks like Robothem was trying to use the scientific method after all.

Scientific Method:

Observation
Question
Hypothesis
Experiment
Analysis
Conclusion
New-Hypothesis
Experiment
Analysis
Conclusion
..............
Researched Theory
Duplication
Peer Review
Peer Analysis
Overarching Conclusion
Scientific Theory
Test of Time
Scientific Law


Zeteticism:

Observation
Question
HypothesisConclusion from old book
DebunkingDenial of counter-arguements
Absolute Fact
« Last Edit: February 05, 2011, 02:43:23 PM by Thevoiceofreason »

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #34 on: February 05, 2011, 04:53:15 PM »
Who proved FET wrong?

I think if you want modern science to be proven wrong, then you have to prove RET wrong. Protip for ya there kidda.

We already have. Read Earth Not a Globe.

no he did some experiments then came to the conclusion he was correct in thinking it was flat then made a load of excuses for how the sun and moon etc etc work. like i said in a previous post that you never responded to, old sam's opinion is written in the book not fact

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #35 on: February 05, 2011, 06:52:25 PM »
Did the author conduct any experiments to demonstrate his premise for ancient alien visits like Samuel Birley Rowbotham did to demonstrate his premise of a flat earth? If so, then yes.

I thought zetetics didn't involve any hypothesising/assumptions. Looks like Robothem was trying to use the scientific method after all.

I said premise, not hypothesis. A premise is not a hypothesis. They are not the same thing.

"The flatness of the earth was experimentally proven by Samuel Birley Rowbotham."

The premise in the above sentence is that the earth is flat.  There is no hypothesis in the above sentence.

Quote
no he did some experiments then came to the conclusion he was correct in thinking it was flat

Yes. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has demonstrated that the earth is flat.

Quote
then made a load of excuses for how the sun and moon etc etc work.

Rowbotham's explanations for the sun and moon are based on direct empirical observation. Rowbotham does not guess at what he cannot observe. For example, Rowotham freely admits that he cannot guess at what causes the sun to move in its particular North-South patterns throughout the year because to guess without evidence - to hypothesize - is against the Zetetic Philosophy. Empirical evidence is required for all explanations.

Quote
like i said in a previous post that you never responded to, old sam's opinion is written in the book not fact

Experiments which demonstrate that the earth is flat are proofs that the earth is flat.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2011, 07:14:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40301
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #36 on: February 05, 2011, 07:20:41 PM »
Quote
then made a load of excuses for how the sun and moon etc etc work.

Rowbotham's explanations for the sun and moon are based on direct empirical observation.

Along with a complete rewrite of the laws of perspective.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #37 on: February 05, 2011, 07:25:52 PM »
Quote
then made a load of excuses for how the sun and moon etc etc work.

Rowbotham's explanations for the sun and moon are based on direct empirical observation.

Along with a complete rewrite of the laws of perspective.

There is empirical evidence which demonstrates that natural perspective works as Rowbotham says it does as opposed to how it is usually taught in art schools.

I encourage you to read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham and Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship for further information. Both are available online.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2011, 07:28:56 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40301
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #38 on: February 05, 2011, 07:27:56 PM »
Quote
then made a load of excuses for how the sun and moon etc etc work.

Rowbotham's explanations for the sun and moon are based on direct empirical observation.

Along with a complete rewrite of the laws of perspective.

There is empirical evidence which demonstrates that natural perspective works as Rowbotham says it does as opposed to how it is usually taught in art schools.

Then why has no one told the art schools that they're wrong?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #39 on: February 05, 2011, 07:33:53 PM »
TB the book is all opinion after chapter 2 not fact :/ but when you believe something strongly you see what you want to see

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #40 on: February 06, 2011, 02:05:18 AM »
Did the author conduct any experiments to demonstrate his premise for ancient alien visits like Samuel Birley Rowbotham did to demonstrate his premise of a flat earth? If so, then yes.

I thought zetetics didn't involve any hypothesising/assumptions. Looks like Robothem was trying to use the scientific method after all.

I said premise, not hypothesis. A premise is not a hypothesis. They are not the same thing.

"The flatness of the earth was experimentally proven by Samuel Birley Rowbotham."

The premise in the above sentence is that the earth is flat.  There is no hypothesis in the above sentence.

You said "his" (Robothem's) premise (not "the" premise).  That sounds awfully like a hypothesis to me ;).  BTW to be Zetetically correct, your statement should read:

"The shape of the earth was experimentally found to be flat by Samuel Birley Rowbotham."

Assumptions and hypocrisy, you see.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

Crustinator

  • 7813
  • Bamhammer horror!
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #41 on: February 06, 2011, 04:19:26 AM »
"The shape of the earth was experimentally found to be flat by Samuel Birley Rowbotham."

Fixed. Since Rowbotham doesn't describe experiments. He just looks at things and says what they are.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #42 on: February 06, 2011, 06:07:21 PM »
Then why has no one told the art schools that they're wrong?

Art schools are not necessarily interested in accuracy.

TB the book is all opinion after chapter 2 not fact :/ but when you believe something strongly you see what you want to see

Rowbotham presents two kinds of evidence in Earth Not a Globe. He presents experimental evidence and he presents empirical evidence. His water-convexity tests are experimental in nature while the rest of his work beyond Chapter 2 is empirical in nature.

For example; Rowbotham notes that deep coal mines tend to get hotter with depth. The deepest mines in Britain have steam pouring out of them constantly; as it gets hot enough for the air to condense. It is not possible to go into the mines without heavy protective gear and masks.

From this Rowbotham concludes, empirically, that the earth gets hotter with depth, as the weight of the earth causes compression and heat. Rowbotham further concludes that at some deeper depth the compression must be so great that rock liquefies; into a substance akin to the fiery magma which has been seen to erupt from volcanoes. Hence, the earth must be riding atop a great ocean of liquid magma, and there must be great quantities of liquid rock beneath us; an unprecedented notion for Rowbotham's time.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2011, 06:15:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #43 on: February 06, 2011, 06:36:24 PM »
Then why has no one told the art schools that they're wrong?

Art schools are not necessarily interested in accuracy.

TB the book is all opinion after chapter 2 not fact :/ but when you believe something strongly you see what you want to see

Rowbotham presents two kinds of evidence in Earth Not a Globe. He presents experimental evidence and he presents empirical evidence. His water-convexity tests are experimental in nature while the rest of his work beyond Chapter 2 is empirical in nature.

For example; Rowbotham notes that deep coal mines tend to get hotter with depth. The deepest mines in Britain have steam pouring out of them constantly; as it gets hot enough for the air to condense. It is not possible to go into the mines without heavy protective gear and masks.

From this Rowbotham concludes, empirically, that the earth gets hotter with depth, as the weight of the earth causes compression and heat. Rowbotham further concludes that at some deeper depth the compression must be so great that rock liquefies; into a substance akin to the fiery magma which has been seen to erupt from volcanoes. Hence, the earth must be riding atop a great ocean of liquid magma, and there must be great quantities of liquid rock beneath us; an unprecedented notion for Rowbotham's time.

this is what i wanted to discuss before with you :) i found the first champter very intresting but he makes many presumtions after that. i dont think he would believe the earth was flat in this day and age though as technology has gone very far since and the globe has now been observed (obviously putting the FET conspiracy aside ofcourse) the guys here are paraniod about loosing thier faith in flat earth by pushing aside anything that points towards a round earth.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40301
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #44 on: February 06, 2011, 06:47:37 PM »
Then why has no one told the art schools that they're wrong?

Art schools are not necessarily interested in accuracy.

Then why do they teach perspective in the first place?

Rowbotham presents two kinds of evidence in Earth Not a Globe. He presents experimental evidence and he presents empirical evidence. His water-convexity tests are experimental in nature while the rest of his work beyond Chapter 2 is empirical in nature.

The problem with Rowbotham's water convexity "experiments" (observations, really) is that he makes no allowance for atmospheric refraction as a possibility.

For example; Rowbotham notes that deep coal mines tend to get hotter with depth. The deepest mines in Britain have steam pouring out of them constantly; as it gets hot enough for the air to condense. It is not possible to go into the mines without heavy protective gear and masks.

From this Rowbotham concludes, empirically, that the earth gets hotter with depth, as the weight of the earth causes compression and heat. Rowbotham further concludes that at some deeper depth the compression must be so great that rock liquefies; into a substance akin to the fiery magma which has been seen to erupt from volcanoes. Hence, the earth must be riding atop a great ocean of liquid magma, and there must be great quantities of liquid rock beneath us; an unprecedented notion for Rowbotham's time.

That's nice, but has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #45 on: February 06, 2011, 08:42:19 PM »
Quote
this is what i wanted to discuss before with you :) i found the first champter very intresting but he makes many presumtions after that.

Rowbotham backs up his conclusions about the workings of the world with empirical evidence, not mere presumption.

Quote
i dont think he would believe the earth was flat in this day and age though as technology has gone very far since and the globe has now been observed (obviously putting the FET conspiracy aside ofcourse)

As Rowbotham has already proven time and time again through test, trial, and experiment that the earth is flat, if he were still living today I doubt that he would blindly trust the claims of a government agency which have not undergone peer review.

Quote
the guys here are paraniod about loosing thier faith in flat earth by pushing aside anything that points towards a round earth.

That the earth is flat isn't a matter of faith. It's a matter of fact.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2011, 08:51:25 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17587
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #46 on: February 06, 2011, 08:48:20 PM »
Then why has no one told the art schools that they're wrong?

Art schools are not necessarily interested in accuracy.

Then why do they teach perspective in the first place?

Because art school students tend to draw like crap.

Quote
The problem with Rowbotham's water convexity "experiments" (observations, really) is that

No. It's an experiment. Rowbotham predicts what kind of curvature he should see across so and so miles if the world were a globe. That observation was used to see the results is immaterial; virtually all experiments in science requires the experimenter to observe the experiment.

Quote
he makes no allowance for atmospheric refraction as a possibility.

Yes he does. Rowbotham accounts for the possibility of a atmospheric refraction. See Experiment 9, for instance:

    ...

    The only modification which can be made in the above calculations is the allowance for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude. of the object observed. If we make this allowance, it will reduce the various quotients so little that the whole will be substantially the same. Take the last case as an instance. The altitude of the light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet, which, divided by 12, gives 13 feet as the amount to be deducted from 491 feet, making instead 478 feet, as the degree of declination.

    Many have urged that refraction would account for much of the elevation of objects seen at the distance of several miles. Indeed, attempts have been made to show that the large flag at the end of six miles of the Bedford Canal (Experiment 1, fig. 2, p. 13) has been brought into the line of sight entirely by refraction. That the line of sight was not a right line, but curved over the convex surface of the water; and the well-known appearance of an object in a basin of water, has been referred to in illustration. A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water. Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air. To make the cases parallel, the flag or the boat should have been in the water, and the observer in the air; as it was not so, the illustration fails. There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed. Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.

    In may, the author delivered a course of lectures in the Mechanics' Institute, and afterwards at the Rotunda, in Dublin, when great interest was manifested by large audiences; and he was challenged to a repetition of some of his experiments--to be carried out in the neighbourhood. Among others, the following was made, across the Bay of Dublin. On the pier, at Kingstown Harbour, a good theodolite was fixed, at a given altitude, and directed to a flag which, earlier in the day, had been fixed at the base of the Hill of Howth, on the northern side of the bay. An observation was made at a given hour, and arrangements had been made for thermometers, barometers, and hygrometers--two of each--which had been previously compared, to be read simultaneously, one at each station. On the persons in charge of the instruments afterwards meeting, and comparing notes, it was found that the temperature, pressure, and moisture of the air had been alike at the two points, at the time the observation was made from Kingstown Pier. It had also been found by the observers that the point observed on the Hill of Howth had precisely the same altitude as that of the theodolite on the pier, and that, therefore, there was no curvature or convexity in the water across Dublin Bay. It was, of course, inadmissible that the similarity of altitude at the two places was the result of refraction, because there was no difference in the condition of the atmosphere at the moment of observation.

Quote
That's nice, but has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

It has to do with his use of empirical evidence.

?

squevil

  • Official Member
  • 3184
  • Im Telling On You
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #47 on: February 06, 2011, 09:20:17 PM »
no TB as much as you would like to disagree he came to the conclusion it was flat then made excuses for how things work to fit FET. he really had no proof apart from he thought (well tested) the earth was flat.
i wont deny the first experiments are excellent.
i think i quoted some of his theories before that were mere asumptions. for instance the distance of the other planets and stars cannot be measured so how would he know they are 3100 miles up?

also you dont need to be in the goverment to get high enough to see the curve of the earth, but you deny the pictures sent back anyway. even though beyond the spotlight you would clearly see the light from a city.


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40301
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #48 on: February 06, 2011, 09:35:46 PM »
Because art school students tend to draw like crap.

Irrelevant.  Art school students are there to learn how to draw better.

Quote
he makes no allowance for atmospheric refraction as a possibility.

Yes he does. Rowbotham accounts for the possibility of a atmospheric refraction. See Experiment 9, for instance:

    ...

    Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.

The relevant atmospheric refractive phenomena happen when a vertical temperature gradient is present.  In fact, such vertical temperature gradients are quite common near the water's surface, which is why I'm sure that Rowbotham made such a big deal about having the observer as close to the water as possible.
http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: I'm impressed.
« Reply #49 on: February 07, 2011, 04:06:55 AM »
    The only modification which can be made in the above calculations is the allowance for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude. of the object observed. If we make this allowance, it will reduce the various quotients so little that the whole will be substantially the same. Take the last case as an instance. The altitude of the light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet, which, divided by 12, gives 13 feet as the amount to be deducted from 491 feet, making instead 478 feet, as the degree of declination.

    Many have urged that refraction would account for much of the elevation of objects seen at the distance of several miles. Indeed, attempts have been made to show that the large flag at the end of six miles of the Bedford Canal (Experiment 1, fig. 2, p. 13) has been brought into the line of sight entirely by refraction. That the line of sight was not a right line, but curved over the convex surface of the water; and the well-known appearance of an object in a basin of water, has been referred to in illustration. A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water. Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air. To make the cases parallel, the flag or the boat should have been in the water, and the observer in the air; as it was not so, the illustration fails. There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed. Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.

    In may, the author delivered a course of lectures in the Mechanics' Institute, and afterwards at the Rotunda, in Dublin, when great interest was manifested by large audiences; and he was challenged to a repetition of some of his experiments--to be carried out in the neighbourhood. Among others, the following was made, across the Bay of Dublin. On the pier, at Kingstown Harbour, a good theodolite was fixed, at a given altitude, and directed to a flag which, earlier in the day, had been fixed at the base of the Hill of Howth, on the northern side of the bay. An observation was made at a given hour, and arrangements had been made for thermometers, barometers, and hygrometers--two of each--which had been previously compared, to be read simultaneously, one at each station. On the persons in charge of the instruments afterwards meeting, and comparing notes, it was found that the temperature, pressure, and moisture of the air had been alike at the two points, at the time the observation was made from Kingstown Pier. It had also been found by the observers that the point observed on the Hill of Howth had precisely the same altitude as that of the theodolite on the pier, and that, therefore, there was no curvature or convexity in the water across Dublin Bay. It was, of course, inadmissible that the similarity of altitude at the two places was the result of refraction, because there was no difference in the condition of the atmosphere at the moment of observation.
    [/list]

    That passage is just so scientifically incorrect.  It only really demonstrates how easy it is for people to be led astray.  Tom, how can you take this seriously when it's just plain wrong:

    1. Vertical temperature gradients cause atmospheric refraction. (to agree with markjo).  Testing the atmospheric pressure/temperature etc at each "station" is a waist of time (unless was done as a deliberate smokescreen).
    2. The "observer being in the same medium" argument is irrelevant.  The "same medium" (air) has variable density.

    Robotham does not understand the fundamentals of refraction, so the whole passage is worthless.

    Tom - I know you are not going to reply to this because the indefensible cannot be defended.
    I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

    *

    markjo

    • Content Nazi
    • The Elder Ones
    • 40301
    Re: I'm impressed.
    « Reply #50 on: February 07, 2011, 10:13:37 AM »
    ... the indefensible cannot be defended.

    You're new here, aren't you?
    Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
    Quote from: Robosteve
    Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
    Quote from: bullhorn
    It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

    *

    silver

    • 149
    Re: I'm impressed.
    « Reply #51 on: February 07, 2011, 01:32:33 PM »
    If Modern Science also has that element of a belief of the unobserved, then logically, Modern Science sounds like a religion as well, right?

    Nope.  Modern science is willing to admit when it's proven wrong.  Religion isn't.  And neither is FET, apparently.

    Who proved FET wrong?

    I did? Along with countless others through the years. I am sure you're very talented at ignoring these persons though.

    ?

    Crustinator

    • 7813
    • Bamhammer horror!
    Re: I'm impressed.
    « Reply #52 on: February 07, 2011, 02:28:34 PM »
    Then why has no one told the art schools that they're wrong?

    Art schools are not necessarily interested in accuracy.

    Then why do they teach perspective in the first place?

    Because art school students tend to draw like crap.

    Quote
    The problem with Rowbotham's water convexity "experiments" (observations, really) is that

    No. It's an experiment. Rowbotham predicts what kind of curvature he should see across so and so miles if the world were a globe. That observation was used to see the results is immaterial; virtually all experiments in science requires the experimenter to observe the experiment.

    Quote
    he makes no allowance for atmospheric refraction as a possibility.

    Yes he does. Rowbotham accounts for the possibility of a atmospheric refraction. See Experiment 9, for instance:

      ...

      The only modification which can be made in the above calculations is the allowance for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude. of the object observed. If we make this allowance, it will reduce the various quotients so little that the whole will be substantially the same. Take the last case as an instance. The altitude of the light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet, which, divided by 12, gives 13 feet as the amount to be deducted from 491 feet, making instead 478 feet, as the degree of declination.

      Many have urged that refraction would account for much of the elevation of objects seen at the distance of several miles. Indeed, attempts have been made to show that the large flag at the end of six miles of the Bedford Canal (Experiment 1, fig. 2, p. 13) has been brought into the line of sight entirely by refraction. That the line of sight was not a right line, but curved over the convex surface of the water; and the well-known appearance of an object in a basin of water, has been referred to in illustration. A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water. Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air. To make the cases parallel, the flag or the boat should have been in the water, and the observer in the air; as it was not so, the illustration fails. There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed. Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.

      In may, the author delivered a course of lectures in the Mechanics' Institute, and afterwards at the Rotunda, in Dublin, when great interest was manifested by large audiences; and he was challenged to a repetition of some of his experiments--to be carried out in the neighbourhood. Among others, the following was made, across the Bay of Dublin. On the pier, at Kingstown Harbour, a good theodolite was fixed, at a given altitude, and directed to a flag which, earlier in the day, had been fixed at the base of the Hill of Howth, on the northern side of the bay. An observation was made at a given hour, and arrangements had been made for thermometers, barometers, and hygrometers--two of each--which had been previously compared, to be read simultaneously, one at each station. On the persons in charge of the instruments afterwards meeting, and comparing notes, it was found that the temperature, pressure, and moisture of the air had been alike at the two points, at the time the observation was made from Kingstown Pier. It had also been found by the observers that the point observed on the Hill of Howth had precisely the same altitude as that of the theodolite on the pier, and that, therefore, there was no curvature or convexity in the water across Dublin Bay. It was, of course, inadmissible that the similarity of altitude at the two places was the result of refraction, because there was no difference in the condition of the atmosphere at the moment of observation.

    Quote
    That's nice, but has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

    It has to do with his use of empirical evidence.

    please don't copy pasta. It wastes precious bandwidth. If you want to refer to the text, post it on myspace and hyperlink it.