Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham

Earth Not a Globe

So this is where it all started, This is the first book about the world not being round, written by some bible basher who was inspired by certain passages from his bible. We all know that jesus math dosent add up and after reading chapter 2 of the "Earth Not A Globe" where Rowbotham lists the 15 experiments he pulls out his ass to support his flat earth theory its shocking that all these experiments (which are still being used to argue the flat earth thing) just point blank do not account for the way light bends in our atmosphere. All he does in this book is use dodgy math to support the round earth theory and then expose the blatant holes in it, holes which are there because the math he used at the very start is wrong, not becuase the earth isnt round. Thats an outrageous claim.

Whats the most up to date flat earth experiment proving the earth is flat? Its been 150 years since this was published. Are flat earthers really lazy???

Is this supposed to be a debate or a complaint?

It wasn't the first book.

Is this supposed to be a debate or a complaint?

Definentaly not a complaint, that would imply I actually wanted to make it better, which isnt appart of my....agenda.

It wasn't the first book.

Yes it was.

This guy is on the right track, somebody answer his question please?

Although I believe that the results are wrong in Rowbotham's experiments, why would the experiment become outdated? Testing bodies for water for curvature should conceivably produce the same result as 150 years ago.

Although I believe that the results are wrong in Rowbotham's experiments, why would the experiment become outdated? Testing bodies for water for curvature should conceivably produce the same result as 150 years ago.

You are right, I do not think computers would change the accuracy at all.

Why would they become outdated?

Because they are inaccurate. With time comes knowledge and so it makes sence to replace the old with the new. Keeps you up to date.

Thats an outrageous claim.

Stay about 3 more weeks, and you will get tired of saying that.

that would imply I actually wanted to make it better, which isnt appart of my....agenda.

The first honest troll on FES.

Why would they become outdated?

Because they are inaccurate. With time comes knowledge and so it makes sence to replace the old with the new. Keeps you up to date.

Basic trigonometry and/or geometry haven't been improved upon in any way relevant to the experiment.

just point blank do not account for the way light bends in our atmosphere. All he does in this book is use dodgy math to support the round earth theory and then expose the blatant holes in it, holes which are there because the math he used at the very start is wrong, not becuase the earth isnt round. Thats an outrageous claim.

No. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham accounts for Terrestrial Refraction in his experiments.

Consider Experimentr 9 of Earth Not a Globe:

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 1851, 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.

The following remarks from the Encyclopędia Brittanica--article, "Levelling"--bear on the question:--

"We suppose the visual ray to be a straight line, whereas on account of the unequal densities of the air at different distances from the earth, the rays of light are incurvated by refraction. The effect of this is to lessen the difference between the true and apparent levels, but in such an extremely variable and uncertain manner that if any constant or fixed allowance is made for it in formula or tables, it will often lead to a greater error than what it was intended to obviate. For though the refraction may at a mean compensate for about one-seventh of the curvature of the earth, it sometimes exceeds one-fifth, and at other times does not amount to one-fifteenth. We have, therefore, made no allowance for refraction in the foregone formulę."

It will be seen from the above that, in practice, refraction need not be allowed for. It can only exist when the line of "sight passes from one medium into another of different density; or where the same medium differs at the point of observation and the point observed. If we allow for the amount of refraction which the ordnance surveyors have adopted, viz., one-twelfth of the altitude of the object observed, and apply it to the various experiments made on the Old Bedford Canal, it will make very little difference in the actual results.

Basic trigonometry and/or geometry haven't been improved upon in any way relevant to the experiment.

Yeah your right with that sentence but this isnt basic trig here. Well there shouldnt be, but there is. Thats because in these 15  experiments basic math was used where it should be alot more complicated. Dont tell me you were taken in by the pretty numbers?

Im just saying on a side note, I have been out surveying plenty of times, and one of the things you note is the temp and time you start measuring at. You have to account for light bending round the curve of the earth, the temp effects how much the light is bent by and the time so people know if it was a night or not. Most measuring should be done at night as the sun isnt fucking up the atmosphere so its more accurate. I have to make adjustments for the curve of the earth when I measure more than 500m. This boy is doing 6 miles and not taking into effect the variables of the enviroment he lives in.

Why would they become outdated? Because they need to be outdated or we will never advance. Stuck in the past wondering why there is only 12 hours of light.

Let me read that spew tom.

See heres the first problem

for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I can tell you for a fact now that you dont work out the refractive index of air by dividing how high up you are by 12. Big assumption there.

Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed

So fucking true and totaly irrelevant. I wasnt talking about how light refracts in air, but how it bends. Big difference. Like the way light bends in all thoes data cables when the cable is bent round a corner. That refraction has got nothing to do with experiment 9, infact it just proves my point of it being crap math, full of holes.

Whats worring is the chap even states what reffraction is, how it is irrelevant to his experiment and yet continues to use it to effect his answer. I couldnt be assed reading it any further as it has got nothing to do with the earth being flat or round.

It wasn't the first book.  Think medieval and ancient.

There were geography books back then.

Quote from: Trekky0623 on December 03, 2007, 10:12:34 AM

It wasn't the first book.

Yes it was.

A ridiculously poorly thought out claim.

It wasn't the first book.  Think medieval and ancient.

There were geography books back then.

I dont give two shits what there was back in the days of knights and magic. This was the first book that actually had someone trying to explain the flat earth theory using the language of maths and that didnt envolve pretty colourful pictures which you seem to love so much.

A ridiculously poorly thought out claim.

Thank you, its what I was going for. I couldnt be assed explaining I meant it was a main book not the first but I didnt want to give trekky the space to reply.

This was the first book that actually had someone trying to explain the flat earth theory using the language of maths and that didnt envolve pretty colourful pictures which you seem to love so much.

Another completely undefendable stance.

Totaly especially after he posted yon picture.

"It all started" when Anaximander drew what was probably the first map of the Flat Earth and he and his student Anaximenes conjectured that it was held aloft by currents of air (Anaximander hypothesised that this "air" was in fact aether - what we now know as dark matter).

"It all started" when Anaximander drew what was probably the first map of the Flat Earth and he and his student Anaximenes conjectured that it was held aloft by currents of air (Anaximander hypothesised that this "air" was in fact aether - what we now know as dark matter).

Correct if I was reffering to the whole idea of a flat earth, sorry I should have said that I was reading that the flat earth society, was that not a following of this book? When the chap wrote it and traveled the country flogging it off, he got a following and then turned it into a cult!! That was back in the 1900's and I thought thats were the name came from, seeing as this place isnt really the birthplace of "the flat earth society" name.

Can anyone shoot me down with that thought or has anyone else read this? It would just be good to know either way.

I am totaly not dicounting the fact that the info I read could have been complete bullshit.

part of his "logic" was "the drop does not match my calculations, so there is no drop at all, so earth is flat"!

it never occurred to him that it might drop by a lesser amount. no, it had to be all or nothing, and he assumed it was nothing, just like the ass he was.

his other point: someone showed him that when a surveying instrument is leveled-made to point perfectly horizontal-it did not point at the horizon, but slightly above.
his response? "it must be due to refraction". he probably didn't even know what "refraction" means!

and that's the so-called "authority" of the FE theory? sheesh...

Correct if I was reffering to the whole idea of a flat earth, sorry I should have said that I was reading that the flat earth society, was that not a following of this book? When the chap wrote it and traveled the country flogging it off, he got a following and then turned it into a cult!! That was back in the 1900's and I thought thats were the name came from, seeing as this place isnt really the birthplace of "the flat earth society" name.

Can anyone shoot me down with that thought or has anyone else read this? It would just be good to know either way.

I am totaly not dicounting the fact that the info I read could have been complete bullshit.

Well before the so-called "enlightenment" (and also prior to some dodgy strands of medieval globular pseudoscience) there was no Flat Earth Society - there was no need for one. What you now call "the Flat Earth Society" might then have been termed "the mainstream scientific community".

Quote from: Spacehopperjoe on December 08, 2007, 06:32:32 PM

Correct if I was reffering to the whole idea of a flat earth, sorry I should have said that I was reading that the flat earth society, was that not a following of this book? When the chap wrote it and traveled the country flogging it off, he got a following and then turned it into a cult!! That was back in the 1900's and I thought thats were the name came from, seeing as this place isnt really the birthplace of "the flat earth society" name.

Can anyone shoot me down with that thought or has anyone else read this? It would just be good to know either way.

I am totaly not dicounting the fact that the info I read could have been complete bullshit.

Well before the so-called "enlightenment" (and also prior to some dodgy strands of medieval globular pseudoscience) there was no Flat Earth Society - there was no need for one. What you now call "the Flat Earth Society" might then have been termed "the mainstream scientific community".

do you have any evidence to back up that assertion?

if you look for it, you'll find this instead: that a flat earth was only popular for a very brief time amongst a minority of people in europe.  it was a fundamentalist religious belief, not a popular science.  a scientific conviction and/or basic belief of a round earth goes back to almost all ancient cultures that we know enough about to know their round/flat beliefs.

Pythagoras and Anaximander, who lived in 600 BC, made maps of a round earth!

do you have any evidence to back up that assertion?

if you look for it, you'll find this instead: that a flat earth was only popular for a very brief time amongst a minority of people in europe.  it was a fundamentalist religious belief, not a popular science.  a scientific conviction and/or basic belief of a round earth goes back to almost all ancient cultures that we know enough about to know their round/flat beliefs.

Afraid not. You're right in thinking that the modern, western Flat Earth movement was born with Rowbotham's UZS (looks like someone's been reading Garwood's FE:HoaII by the way- good work if you have).

You're wrong in thinking that FEers have historically (and we're talking broadly historically here) been a minority.

Of the Seven Sages of Greece, every single one was a Flat Earther. In fact, I'd put money on it that every pre-Socratic scholar you can dig up held Flat Earth beliefs. Even with Plato's whackjob globularism, it's likely that the vast majority of ancient Greeks retained zetetic worldviews. We know that the ancient Egyptians were aware of the true shape of the Earth (don't have time to source this right now - trust me, they were), and theirs was one of the most successful ancient civilizations in history.

Medieval western science is where things start to really go wrong. You'd be right to claim that many Europeans from 1000 to say 1800 were Round Earthers - the same scientific scrutiny that bought us the idea that the human body is filled with nothing but blood and bones, and is governed by four magical "humours", resulted in people taking Platonism on Earth's shape seriously. Newton and fellow enlightenment buddies are the ultimate culmination of this bogus science.

Pythagoras and Anaximander, who lived in 600 BC, made maps of a round earth!

Anaximander made a map of a Flat Earth, you dumbshoe.

aha, you just admitted pythagoras was right!

aha, you just admitted pythagoras was right!

No he didn't....are you fucking dense?

well, let's see:

on one side is the DEBATER, robotham.

on the other side, thousands of real scientists.

so FErs think only robotham was right, and ignore all the scientists who repeatedly proved him wrong...