Read Earth Not a Globe by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham).
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm#page_201 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm#page_201)
Read Earth Not a Globe by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham).
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm#page_201 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm#page_201)
Yeah, I read that whole thing and... I'm not convinced he's right. I don't wanna really get into why I think his theory is wrong, because that would take forever and it wouldn't really accomplish anything anyways.
I WILL bring up the fact that Rowbotham was proven to be a con-man and a charlitan. He allegedly invented medicine that he claimed could cure anything, and they found out it was little more than a placebo.
Incorrect. He was labeled as a con man by haters. The medicine in question was thought to have healing properties by many at that time. Later on it was discovered that the application of the medicine for what they were attempting to use it for would not foster the desired results. Of course he was called a con. Can you tell me why others wouldnt have said that? Why dont you 'disprove' the ship and the visual effect as noone has done thus far instead of these baseless attacks on Dr. Rowbathom.
Read Earth Not a Globe by Parallax (Samuel Birley Rowbotham).
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm#page_201 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm#page_201)
Yeah, I read that whole thing and... I'm not convinced he's right. I don't wanna really get into why I think his theory is wrong, because that would take forever and it wouldn't really accomplish anything anyways.
I WILL bring up the fact that Rowbotham was proven to be a con-man and a charlitan. He allegedly invented medicine that he claimed could cure anything, and they found out it was little more than a placebo.
Glaring misconceptions in the understanding of medicine in the past is not something unique to Rowbotham. I'm not going to torture you with clichés about the Middle Ages, but here's an example I've found particularly amusing:
(http://i.imgur.com/YPAe6.jpg)
Why would water in the distance come to point H, but an object on the water come to point W?Nicely put. Rowbotham requires magical properties of the "water" and of the "boat" and of the "mast" so they can disappear for the reason he wants them to, not for the simple reason that the water is curved.
Yep, and...... I don't see Dr. Batty telling us the world is a cube, either...So, if he's not saying the Earth is a cube, it's okay, but if he were, his medicine would be an obvious con? Now, that's a very interesting approach.
Nah. It just means that Dr. Batty stuck to one con while Dr. Birley moved on to another.Yep, and...... I don't see Dr. Batty telling us the world is a cube, either...So, if he's not saying the Earth is a cube, it's okay, but if he were, his medicine would be an obvious con? Now, that's a very interesting approach.
So, if he's not saying the Earth is a cube, it's okay, but if he were, his medicine would be an obvious con? Now, that's a very interesting approach.Nein. What I'm saying is that, if you're a con man, you're a con man. And being a con man brings about a natural distrust in what you say and what you believe. Earlier I was saying that Rush Limbaugh abusing Oxycontin doesn't discount conservatism. Likewise, Parallax being a con man doesn't disprove FE Theory, but... conservatism isn't a fringe belief. FE Theory is. Parallax's faulty and since disproven theories on perspective are the genesis of the flat earth movement. When you discount HIS account, you don't really have that much left. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, you still have plenty of conservatives to keep the conviction alive and continue to give it credence.
Let's consider Rowbotham's argument: In fig.1 (below) we see that the hull is visible under a smaller angle (green) than the mast (red). Rowbothams argument is that this smaller angle is why the hull disappears before the mast. (ENAG, Chapter XIV: "Any distinctive part of a receding object becomes invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same object.")(http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/8122/shiphorizon.png)
However, in fig.2, the hull appears under a larger angle than the mast and funnels. Does this mean that in this case, the funnels disappear "before any larger part", in particular the hull?
- how comes that it still disappears?
- how comes that it still disappears?
Because the earth is round and the bottom is behind the curvature :P