The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Rowbotham on August 31, 2011, 08:28:20 PM
-
EnaG proves the earth is flat, did you RE loonies read it?
-
I read enough of ENaG to realize that Rowbotham could have given P.T. Barnum a run for his money.
-
I read enough of ENaG to realize that Rowbotham could have given P.T. Barnum a run for his money.
Clearly you believe NASA, read ENaG without the bias.
-
I believe my eyes when I watch the sun set below the horizon. If the earth were flat and the sun was 3000 miles above, then the sun would never appear to come close to the horizon, let alone sink below it.
-
I believe my eyes when I watch the sun set below the horizon. If the earth were flat and the sun was 3000 miles above, then the sun would never appear to come close to the horizon, let alone sink below it.
I know this is off topic but my friend wants to know what a troll would say in response to your comment, what is the proper toll response?
-
I believe my eyes when I watch the sun set below the horizon. If the earth were flat and the sun was 3000 miles above, then the sun would never appear to come close to the horizon, let alone sink below it.
I know this is off topic but my friend wants to know what a troll would say in response to your comment, what is the proper toll response?
According to ENaG (perhaps you should read it yourself), it's a (creatively interpreted) perspective effect. If you had lurked moar, you would know that some here think that an (as of yet) undiscovered electromagnetic accelerator curving the path of light is a more reasonable explanation. Either way, you seem woefully unprepared to keep up with the major league trolling around here.
-
I believe my eyes when I watch the sun set below the horizon. If the earth were flat and the sun was 3000 miles above, then the sun would never appear to come close to the horizon, let alone sink below it.
Im working on an experiment to explain this phonomena.
-
I believe my eyes when I watch the sun set below the horizon. If the earth were flat and the sun was 3000 miles above, then the sun would never appear to come close to the horizon, let alone sink below it.
I know this is off topic but my friend wants to know what a troll would say in response to your comment, what is the proper toll response?
A friend, righhhttt ;)
I believe my eyes when I watch the sun set below the horizon. If the earth were flat and the sun was 3000 miles above, then the sun would never appear to come close to the horizon, let alone sink below it.
Im working on an experiment to explain this phonomena.
No you're not.
-
I believe my eyes when I watch the sun set below the horizon.
You've seen the sun below the horizon? ???
-
I believe my eyes when I watch the sun set below the horizon.
You've seen the sun below the horizon? ???
Don't play dumb, Tom.
-
I believe my eyes when I watch the sun set below the horizon.
You've seen the sun set below the horizon? ???
Yes, I have.
-
and so have I,
the FAQQERS flock of seagull setting sun has been debunked.
-
I believe my eyes when I watch the sun set below the horizon.
You've seen the sun set below the horizon? ???
Yes, I have.
But you don't see the sun set below the horizon. You see the sun set into the horizon.
-
But you don't see the sun set below the horizon. You see the sun set into the horizon.
Would you say this cat is setting below the table or into the table?
(http://)
-
I believe my eyes when I watch the sun set below the horizon.
You've seen the sun set below the horizon? ???
Yes, I have.
But you don't see the sun set below the horizon. You see the sun set into the horizon.
I saw the sun travel downwards into the horizon. I saw nothing to make me believe that the sun did anything but continue along its downward path below the horizon after it disappeared from view. The fact that clouds were illuminated from underneath strongly suggests that the sun physically traveled to a position below those clouds. This would be impossible if the sun were still 3000 miles above the surface of the earth as required by FET.
-
But you don't see the sun set below the horizon. You see the sun set into the horizon.
Would you say this cat is setting below the table or into the table?
(http://)
Niiice!
-
The cat is not receding into the horizon. I'm not sure what your point is.
-
I believe my eyes when I watch the sun set below the horizon.
You've seen the sun set below the horizon? ???
Yes, I have.
But you don't see the sun set below the horizon. You see the sun set into the horizon.
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6084/6104973027_a8712737ff_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6104973027/)
setting sun (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6104973027/) by max_wedge (http://www.flickr.com/people/pitdroidtech/), on Flickr
Which of the above scenarios do you see?
-
I'm not sure what your point is.
Typical of you.
-
Perhaps if you were to make a coherent one, ...
-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6104973027/
Which of the above scenarios do you see?
I see the scenario where you neglected to read Earth Not a Globe before posting your dribble thinking that you are outwitting us.
-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/6104973027/
Which of the above scenarios do you see?
I see the scenario where you neglected to read Earth Not a Globe before posting your dribble thinking that you are outwitting us.
The dribble (sic) that enag craps on about perspective is stupid in the extreme. A disc does not look like a circle as it recedes into the distance - it looks like an elipse. This is shit easy to demonstrate and I'm not going to bother arguing any further than that.
-
Only if you persist on perpetuating the art-school perspective myth even after reading why it is demonstrably flawed.
-
Perhaps if you were to make a coherent one, ...
If only FE could ever grant us the same courtesy, then I'd consider spelling it out for you.
I see the scenario where you neglected to read Earth Not a Globe before posting your dribble thinking that you are outwitting us.
So you think you're in the clear just because you've been able to come up with an imaginative explanation as to why it seems as so given the presupposition that the Earth is flat. This is basically a big "what if" scenario, and not scientific whatsoever.
Unless you want to give us some evidence? Oh and please, please don't mention ENaG or I'll shit myself.
Only if you persist on perpetuating the art-school perspective myth even after reading why it is demonstrably flawed.
Myth? Oh art school is a part of the conspiracy... ofcourse....
-
Only if you persist on perpetuating the art-school perspective myth even after reading why it is demonstrably flawed.
Art school perspective assumes an infinite plane flat earth model.
-
Only if you persist on perpetuating the art-school perspective myth even after reading why it is demonstrably flawed.
enag's take on perspective is based entirely on how Rowbotham needs it to be in order to explain the phenomena of objects disappearing over the horizon. He makes no effort to demonstrate geometrically how his perspective works. He makes a series of wild guesses then declares triumphantly that the quandary of ships disappearing over the horizon hull first is solved.
Art school perspective is not a myth; it's simply a guideline, and it is accepted that a simple two point perspective does not fit well into real life. But for the example of a ship sitting on or below the horizon, with mostly straight vertical or horizontal lines, the model is adequate.
Take Leanardo's explanation of perspective in art: "'Perspective', wrote Leonardo, 'is nothing else than seeing a place (sito) behind a pane of glass, quite transparent, on the surface of which the objects which lie behind the glass are to be drawn. They can be traced in pyramids to the point in the eye and these pyramids are intersected by the glass plane.' The 'pyramids' are composed of the light rays which link the visible surfaces of objects to the eye by straight lines called visual rays. Their points of intersection with the transparent plane (the picture plane) form the perspective image." http://www.oxfordreference.com/pages/samplep-17.html
Even so we don't rely on this. We rely on the basic principal of geometry. Things that are distant from us appear smaller due to the change in angle of the reflected light hitting our retina. This formula is the same in both x and y axis of view. As an object recedes, all points reduce in apparent size at an equal rate. Light travels in straight lines regardless of direction, and these reflected light rays project a mini-version of the reflected object onto our retina. There is no plausible explanation that could account for Rowbotham's theory that the hull reduces in the vertical dimension while it's horizontal dimension remains unshrunken.
The Study of Optics is a field of Physics, and unlike art school, the laws are not stylised and simplified. They are complex and proven. http://www.play-hookey.com/optics/
The amount of refraction in the atmosphere is not sufficient to affect the result significantly other than in certain circumstances where mirages form (though these make ships appear upside down, or to be floating above the horizon, neither of which are believed to be actually occuring by FET or RET). But where mirages do not form, which is is the majority of instances, there is a very clear sinking of the hull behind the horizon.
Mirages (or Superior Mirages is is most common on the ocean), and the behaviour of light in normal atmospheric conditions, is very well understood.
-
Myth? Oh art school is a part of the conspiracy... ofcourse....
Ah yes of course, I'll add them to the list....
The NASA big three are really wishing right now they'd never started this bloody conspiracy....it's getting a bit expensive paying off: Art school tutors, Physicists in the field of Optics, Observatories world wide and their staff and anyone who has access to the observatory (and who can view teh sun and observe that it is flat and not round), So Jose Bonet of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias in Spain and colleagues, Astronomy magazine editors and "reader contribution" faking staff, various actors involved in faked artic bases, moonlandings etc, family and loved one's of disposed-of artic explorers paid to keep quiet, cell phone tower engineers, management and firmware designers , The many thousands of civilians who witnessed shuttle launches, the media that reported the shuttle launches, and the police, army and airforce who provided the shuttle launch security, Cosmologists, fake arctic scientists, arctic set builders, artic computer graphics designers, Geophysists, professional astronomers, global climate scientists, particle physicists and partical accelerator designers, telecommunications engineers, astro-physicists, NASA boffins, engineers, astronauts, ground crew, contractors, Indian, Chinese, European and Russian space agencies, private satelitte launch company management and engineers, gps manufacturers, ham radio operators (the vhf line of sight conspiracy), international airline pilots, flight path designers, "gps" aircraft pilots, mapping companies, surveyors, radar operators and manufacturers, ballistics engineers and ice wall guards, but the world's body of amatuer astronomers, Microsoft founder Paul Allen, Virgin owner Richard Branson, Burt Rutan, Brian Binnie, Mike Melvill (BB and MM, they just gotta be made up names), doctors, hospital administrators, moonburn patients, nurses and pharmacists, artic south pole explorers, circumnavigators.
-
There is no art school conspiracy. There is a conspiracy of ill-intentioned dolts to ridicule the movement by representing art school perspective as a completely adequate explanation of phenomena they do not (or cannot) understand.
-
Only if you persist on perpetuating the art-school perspective myth even after reading why it is demonstrably flawed.
enag's take on perspective is based entirely on how Rowbotham needs it to be in order to explain the phenomena of objects disappearing over the horizon.
Nope. Please read the literature in my signiature. The hulls of half-sunken ships in the distance restored in full when looking at them through a telescope. This proves that they are not really hiding behind a "hill of water" and that Rowbotham's explanations for perspective are true.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49605.msg1236876#msg1236876
-
Nope. Please read the literature in my signiature. The hulls of half-sunken ships in the distance restored in full when looking at them through a telescope.
Then why has no one provided photographic evidence of this phenomenon?
-
An globularist posted pictures that featured such a restoration in this very forum and the lot of you tried to run away from the results.
-
An globularist posted pictures that featured such a restoration in this very forum and the lot of you tried to run away from the results.
Link please?
-
An globularist posted pictures that featured such a restoration in this very forum and the lot of you tried to run away from the results.
Was the restoration more than one pixel?
-
The pictures were taken by Rig Navigator:
http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/5175/imgp2163ky0.jpg
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6884/imgp2164ak6.jpg
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/9834/imgp2165eg0.jpg
The photos show that the height-to-width ratio of each rig increases with zoom even taken with a simple telephoto lens (a 35mm camera with a 200mm focal length lens).
http://i38.tinypic.com/fllpc9.jpg
-
The pictures were taken by Rig Navigator:
http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/5175/imgp2163ky0.jpg
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6884/imgp2164ak6.jpg
http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/9834/imgp2165eg0.jpg
The photos show that the height-to-width ratio of each rig increases with zoom even taken with a simple telephoto lens (a 35mm camera with a 200mm focal length lens).
http://i38.tinypic.com/fllpc9.jpg
These measurements are inconclusive due to the clarity and blurriness of the images at distance. Also you haven't provided a link for the thread these images were posted in, which is necessary to establish context, for example were both images taken at the same elevation?
If this is the best evidence you can find you need to try a little harder. Especially when you consider these threads, which shows clearly the hull restored by elevation.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49605.msg1236552#msg1236552
-
Of course the hull will be restored by elevation; why wouldn't it be? The thread was by Rig Navigator. I'm on vacation at the moment, so I'm not going to spend the time to find it. The pictures were taken by Rig Navigator. The measurements were done by another poster. Euclid, or 3Tesla perhaps. One of the more intelligent globularist posters of the time.
-
Of course the hull will be restored by elevation; why wouldn't it be? The thread was by Rig Navigator. I'm on vacation at the moment, so I'm not going to spend the time to find it. The pictures were taken by Rig Navigator. The measurements were done by another poster. Euclid, or 3Tesla perhaps. One of the more intelligent globularist posters of the time.
The hull won't be restored by elevation unless something is obscuring the hull that the extra elevation allows you to see over. That's the whole point. :P
-
Of course the hull will be restored by elevation; why wouldn't it be? The thread was by Rig Navigator. I'm on vacation at the moment, so I'm not going to spend the time to find it. The pictures were taken by Rig Navigator. The measurements were done by another poster. Euclid, or 3Tesla perhaps. One of the more intelligent globularist posters of the time.
So a distant sphere would look like this from different altitudes:
(http://i51.tinypic.com/34gk7qh.png)
-
So a distant sphere would look like this from different altitudes:
http://i51.tinypic.com/34gk7qh.png
That's not a distant sphere. That's a sphere 8 inches away.
Please read up on perspective in Earth Not a Globe.
-
So a distant sphere would look like this from different altitudes:
http://i51.tinypic.com/34gk7qh.png
That's not a distant sphere. That's a sphere 8 inches away.
Please read up on perspective in Earth Not a Globe.
You read it, then come back here when you've understood Rowbotham's error in logic which leads to his erroneous conclusion.
-
So a distant sphere would look like this from different altitudes:
http://i51.tinypic.com/34gk7qh.png
That's not a distant sphere. That's a sphere 8 inches away.
Please read up on perspective in Earth Not a Globe.
You read it, then come back here when you've understood Rowbotham's error in logic which leads to his erroneous conclusion.
There is no error in logic. Rowbotham's explanation of perspective is proven by the fact that half-sunken ships can be restored by looking at them through a telescope. Please see this link (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49605.msg1236876#msg1236876) I provided earlier. Additionally, Ski has posted pictures of this restoration effect in this thread.
-
There is no error in logic. Rowbotham's explanation of perspective is proven by the fact that half-sunken ships can be restored by looking at them through a telescope. Please see this link (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49605.msg1236876#msg1236876) I provided earlier. Additionally, Ski has posted pictures of this restoration effect in this thread.
I've explained Rowbotham's error and no FE'er has yet satisfactorily rebutted my explanation of how Rowbotham is wrong. You continue to rely on faith that Rowbotham somehow understands something that can't be explained with the use of logic. Markjo, Momentia and myself have all offered proofs that demonstrate why Rowbotham is wrong in the Crows Nest thread, but all FE'ers do is refer us back to enag or claim we aren't able to understand the material. It's very clear what Rowbotham claims, he is simply and demonstrably wrong about it.
The ship on the horizon isn't at the vanishing point, so this convulated malarky doesn't apply. The ship would be at the vanishing point if the vanishing point was the same as the horizon, which it would be on a flat earth. But it isn't on a curved earth. Further, if the ship was at the vanishing point (to be clear, we are talking about vanishing point of of human eyesight in these discussions), all the points that mark out it's shape would effectively be equi-distant from the eye and the ship would appear as a single dot. At that distance, the resolving error of the human eye negates the small differences in distances between the mast or the hull and the viewers eye. If a telescope is brought into play, it simply (optically) brings the object back from the vanishing point. It restores the whole image, not just the hull. Of course the Hull is never restored because the vanishing point of the human eye, for something the size of a ship, is beyond the horizon.
Rowbotham is using his misunderstanding of perspective to prove a Flat Earth. In other words, he is saying "this is how perspective would have to work to explain this sinking ship phenomena, so I am going to bloody-mindedly insist that perspective does work this way, and therefore prove the Earth is flat".
ie: "I postulate A. For A to exist, B must exist. Therefore B exists." B is Rowbotham's twisted law of perspective.
His problem comes from having a biased towards the Flat Earth Theory. His view of perspective is predicated on the vanishing point of the human eye being synonomous with the Horizon, and then heattempts to force the experience of reality to fit this model
Please see this link I provided earlier. Additionally, Ski has posted pictures of this restoration effect in this thread.
Those two pictures are way too blurry to draw any conclusion. Besides no link was provided to verify the source of the images or the elevation. Ski is able to find the link for the images, but not the thread that contains them? Seems rather convenient to me.
-
I have several items saved for my own personal collection. I'm sorry my holiday is interfering with your using the search function.
You haven't explained Dr. Rowbotham's error, because you continue to miss a vital point of perspective which Tom and I have tried again and again to explain to you. Nor have you explained how an oil rig (or ship or anything else) become restored if it were in fact being hidden behind a hill of water.
-
I have several items saved for my own personal collection. I'm sorry my holiday is interfering with your using the search function.
You haven't explained Dr. Rowbotham's error, because you continue to miss a vital point of perspective which Tom and I have tried again and again to explain to you. Nor have you explained how an oil rig (or ship or anything else) become restored if it were in fact being hidden behind a hill of water.
I have given my rebuttal for both points.
For the first, you have in fact not tried to explain it at all, instead you parrot "read enag" over and over again.
For the second, I don't accept that the quality of the photos is adequate to make accurate enough measurements to draw any firm conclusions. I can't find the thread without looking through every single thread that either rig or trig have posted to or that contains the word navigator.
I will conduct my own research once I get a clear calm day and an opportunity to head out to Moreton Bay and collect my own photographic evidence using both a 50mm lens and a 900mm telescope. I will present it hear, and I will do the measurements on that data.
-
I have several items saved for my own personal collection. I'm sorry my holiday is interfering with your using the search function.
You haven't explained Dr. Rowbotham's error, because you continue to miss a vital point of perspective which Tom and I have tried again and again to explain to you. Nor have you explained how an oil rig (or ship or anything else) become restored if it were in fact being hidden behind a hill of water.
I looked at your photos, and I don't see anything "hidden":
(http://i53.tinypic.com/33kpx7b.png)
(http://i53.tinypic.com/sm58r8.png)
The only difference is in the angular resolution. And there have already been other photos posted where angular resolution is not a problem, but clearly show the bottom parts of ships missing.
Compare that to these photos with better angular resolution (taken at different heights):
(http://i53.tinypic.com/whczkw.png)
These clearly show a difference in how much the water obscures the hull, as no features but the hull are lost.
-
Great contribution.
-
I believe my eyes when I watch the sun set below the horizon.
You've seen the sun below the horizon? ???
Yes. I sure have.
-
momentia demonstraits that clearer photos will be needed as the zoomed picture is just pixels. i hope to see the new pictures soon so we can draw new conclusions
-
momentia demonstraits that clearer photos will be needed as the zoomed picture is just pixels. i hope to see the new pictures soon so we can draw new conclusions
On rigs photos. Mine on the other hand have more than enough detail for it to be clear that the hull is revealed from altitude.
-
The OP was a rather pathetic attempt at the very least.
-
before you people come with those argument about sun celestial gears etc,
maybe you should go with a basic map,
i mean us spherical earth beleiver, begin by the first step and did a basic map of the round earth, and we did explore all the place on it, refining it,
in your case you just omit the basic thing, started by explaning the edges, and your so called ice wall that repulse boat in a mysterious way,
explain also why there is no report what so ever of boat in the entire naval history that have go againts this so called magnetic field and couldt go any further
there is a lot to be explain before, the sun on the horizon, the celestial gears even your gravity with the stupid 94 meter second theory that we go upward,
anyway just my cup of tea onvce again you wil probably just ignore all of those cause this site is a joke
-
in your case you just omit the basic thing, started by explaning the edges, and your so called ice wall that repulse boat in a mysterious way,
The ice wall does not repulse boats in mysterious ways.
explain also why there is no report what so ever of boat in the entire naval history that have go againts this so called magnetic field and couldt go any further
I'm not sure where you read about "this so-called magnetic field," but it sounds like bunkum.
there is a lot to be explain before, the sun on the horizon, the celestial gears even your gravity with the stupid 94 meter second theory that we go upward,
I don't believe in celestial gears. I'm not sure anyone does. If you're going to criticize the model perhaps you could do so in a manner that actually addresses a real concern and not a straw man. Where did you come up with a "94 meter second theory"?