Interesting!
While I'm a RE supporter, I'm guessing a lot of FE'ers will cite "Bendy Light," AKA Electromagnetic Acceleration (long story) as an explanation for this. Has this been considered?
has anyone tried this yet? Particularly flat earth advocates? If you don't have a spirit level, you can jury rig a very accurate one using a long straight-edge and a length of water filled plastic tube.
has anyone tried this yet? Particularly flat earth advocates? If you don't have a spirit level, you can jury rig a very accurate one using a long straight-edge and a length of water filled plastic tube.
I'm going to try this on Mt. Hood (er, against Mt. Hood?) from various places near my home. Might do Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Adams as well.
Nice writeup Alex! Wonder if any FE'ers will follow your fine example? ;)
Nice writeup Alex! Wonder if any FE'ers will follow your fine example? ;)
I'm afraid that they may be too preoccupied with looking at clouds from an airplane rather than taking part in a cleverly designed experiment.
We already know about the Sinking Ship Effect (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm).
I would suggest reading the chapter to see how it is relevant.
I would suggest reading the chapter to see how it is relevant.
I would suggest reading the chapter to see how it is relevant.
Like I said, this is about geometry and the reduction of apparent height of objects as distance increases over flat vs. curved surfaces, NOT the reduction of visual features to less than one arc minute of angle at the viewer's eye as distance increases. Seriously Tom, try to keep your comments relevant to the topic at hand.
The experiment would prove nothing to me.
If you had read any of the material provided, you would see that Dr. Rowbotham meets your objection and that art-school perspective is not rooted in reality, but merely approximates it. :-\
Tom is exactly correct that you are misinterpreting perspective. The experiment would prove nothing to me. I have no doubt that the mountains' height as calculated by simple art-school perspective will differ.
If you had read any of the material provided, you would see that Dr. Rowbotham meets your objection and that art-school perspective is not rooted in reality, but merely approximates it. :-\
Tom is exactly correct that you are misinterpreting perspective. The experiment would prove nothing to me. I have no doubt that the mountains' height as calculated by simple art-school perspective will differ.
Okay, so the bottom arcminute of Mt. Adams merged with the horizon. Do you know how much that is? 33 meters. So let's assume this somehow magically pulls the summit of Mt. Adams 33 meters closer to the ground--shortened my measurement by a whole arcminute.
My measurement was off from FE predictions by 30 arcminutes. Where are those extra 29 arcminutes coming from, Ski? Why was my measurement a whole half-degree shorter than what FE predicts?
If you had read any of the material provided, you would see that Dr. Rowbotham meets your objection and that art-school perspective is not rooted in reality, but merely approximates it. :-\
Art school perspective is based on observation. Brunelleschi would trace reflections on mirrors to derive a 2D image of a 3D subject. Rowbotham's perspective is based on wishful thinking and was created to suit his needs.
I did read the chapter. It says: "when any object or any part thereof is so far removed that its greatest diameter subtends at the eye of the observer, an angle of one minute or less of a degree, it is no longer visible."
...
Your insistence that this can explain why I saw Adams a whole half-degree smaller than I should have for a flat Earth makes me wonder if any FEer has actually read Rowbotham's Chapter 14.
he may have realized how his take on linear perspective was flawed wherein lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line recede at the same rate.
I would suggest reading the chapter to see how it is relevant.
If you had read any of the material provided, you would see that Dr. Rowbotham meets your objection and that art-school perspective is not rooted in reality, but merely approximates it. :-\
Art school perspective is based on observation. Brunelleschi would trace reflections on mirrors to derive a 2D image of a 3D subject. Rowbotham's perspective is based on wishful thinking and was created to suit his needs.
Brunelleschi used a mirror to demonstrate how closely his painting matched the actual baptistry he painted. It was across a plaza and not near the horizon. If Brunelleschi had actually traced the reflection of a distant object, he may have realized how his take on linear perspective was flawed wherein lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line recede at the same rate.
In about 1413 a contemporary of Ghiberti, Filippo Brunelleschi, demonstrated the geometrical method of perspective, used today by artists, by painting the outlines of various Florentine buildings onto a mirror. When the building's outline was continued, he noticed that all of the lines converged on the horizon line.
I would love to see a quote that is from something other than wiki. I am not saying that you're wrong, only that I have never heard this account before.
I would love to see a quote that is from something other than wiki. I am not saying that you're wrong, only that I have never heard this account before.
I would love to see a quote that is from something other than wiki. I am not saying that you're wrong, only that I have never heard this account before.
How's this? http://www.gallerydiabolus.com/gallery/artist.php?image=1612&id=utisz&page=214 (http://www.gallerydiabolus.com/gallery/artist.php?image=1612&id=utisz&page=214)
I see where I was erring--I thought Rowbotham was able to keep a single coherent thought in his works, but that's obviously not the case.
There's a thread where I bring out what Rowbotham says. You've not given any reason why I've been interpreting it wrong other than saying "You're doing it wrong." Until you do, would you mind addressing the rest of my post?I see where I was erring--I thought Rowbotham was able to keep a single coherent thought in his works, but that's obviously not the case.
And I erred when I thought you might have actually read the information we provided to your query without resorting to base falsehood and/or incomprehension.
See how easy it is to be needlessly snitty? ::)
The top of Mt. Adams was 3659 m above my eye-level, meaning it should have measured 1.88 degrees. Even if we take away the part of the mountain that has merged with the horizon, which using Rowbotham's 3000:1 rule would be 33 meters, you're still missing hundreds of meters of mountain.
Did you make that measurement assuming the same vanishing point for the base of the mountain and the peak? You did. And therein lies the flaw, as you've been told repeatedly.No, actually, I didn't. In fact, I didn't make that measurement on any assumption at all. I simply measured the mountain.
You've yet to show me any indication that you understand Rowbotham's perspective, so forgive my skepticism.And you've yet to show me what I'm not understanding about Rowbotham's perspective. Please reply to this post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59577.msg1529044.html#msg1529044) and tell me what I'm not getting.
Tom is exactly correct that you are misinterpreting perspective. The experiment would prove nothing to me. I have no doubt that the mountains' height as calculated by simple art-school perspective will differ.
We already know about the Sinking Ship Effect (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm).
Are you actually experimenting? Data? What is this? Are you lost? This is the Flat Earth Society, you utterly foolish noob! Do you not know that data is not welcome here?
Be GONE!!! >o<
Are you actually experimenting? Data? What is this? Are you lost? This is the Flat Earth Society, you utterly foolish noob! Do you not know that data is not welcome here?
Be GONE!!! >o<
Actually there are more REs in this WEB site than FEs!!! it's incredible!
Are you actually experimenting? Data? What is this? Are you lost? This is the Flat Earth Society, you utterly foolish noob! Do you not know that data is not welcome here?
Be GONE!!! >o<
Actually there are more REs in this WEB site than FEs!!! it's incredible!
Yes, and I am sure that you go around all day measuring the "real world", right? ::)
Did you take into account any possibility of atmospheric distortion?
Yes, and I am sure that you go around all day measuring the "real world", right? ::)
This thread is fantastic. The pure lack of actual input and attention from FE proponents has me thinking they have given up :)
Does this mean we win?
On a sidenote, a while back I calculated the height of occlusion from a curving horizon to be 1 meter per 7,3 km of distance. Calculated as the height of a chorde (entirely theoretical).
It's a nice number to remember.
This thread is fantastic. The pure lack of actual input and attention from FE proponents has me thinking they have given up :)Win what? As far as you are all concerned there was nothing TO win. I mean, 'you know'... and all your global Earth friends know that your Earth is a globe, 100% don't you? If that's the case; why are you even jumping up and down patting other on the back and saying flat Earth has lost and you have won? Won what exactly?
Does this mean we win?
On a sidenote, a while back I calculated the height of occlusion from a curving horizon to be 1 meter per 7,3 km of distance. Calculated as the height of a chorde (entirely theoretical).
It's a nice number to remember.
It appears that you also can't understand how big the Earth is, because time and time again I keep seeing many of you putting up stuff like, "look, there's a plane and you can see that the Earth is a globe." Then you use the vanishing act of a ship going down the globe.This thread is fantastic. The pure lack of actual input and attention from FE proponents has me thinking they have given up :)
Does this mean we win?
On a sidenote, a while back I calculated the height of occlusion from a curving horizon to be 1 meter per 7,3 km of distance. Calculated as the height of a chorde (entirely theoretical).
It's a nice number to remember.
They can't understand any of that. Remember to them, looking at the horizon at the beach is proof enough the world is flat. They can't understand that the world is so big you could not see the curve of the earth at ground level. It is like they have their eye stuck on the large beach ball.
You will not see the bottom of a ship over the horizon with a telescope. If that were true you would see ships that you could not see at all.It appears that you also can't understand how big the Earth is, because time and time again I keep seeing many of you putting up stuff like, "look, there's a plane and you can see that the Earth is a globe." Then you use the vanishing act of a ship going down the globe.This thread is fantastic. The pure lack of actual input and attention from FE proponents has me thinking they have given up :)
Does this mean we win?
On a sidenote, a while back I calculated the height of occlusion from a curving horizon to be 1 meter per 7,3 km of distance. Calculated as the height of a chorde (entirely theoretical).
It's a nice number to remember.
They can't understand any of that. Remember to them, looking at the horizon at the beach is proof enough the world is flat. They can't understand that the world is so big you could not see the curve of the earth at ground level. It is like they have their eye stuck on the large beach ball.
It's as if you really believe that the globe you believe you stand on is actually just a reasonable large ball and things just disappear over the curve because your eyes are super human and you can see this is true, when a telescope easily disproves your own eyes.
Of course, you people will never admit this. But like you all mention from time to time, when things don't go your way. You people say " oh we are just here for the fun of it, to watch the zoo animals hang onto a flat Earth whilst we laugh at them." Yeah, ok. ;D
We even had a "pilot" here just the other day who claimed that he can see the curvature of the Earth from cruising altitude, even though every other pilot on Earth says you can not. He then went on to say that you can even see the curvature of the Earth from the beach. ::) I hope I never fly with him at the wheel.One pilot does not make his claim true. The X-15 pilot can make that claim.
Yes, and I am sure that no pilot has ever been caught in a lie, right? ???True but one pilot does represent all the pilots.
Yes, all of the rest say it is BS that you can see the curvature of the Earth.
You've yet to show me any indication that you understand Rowbotham's perspective, so forgive my skepticism.
You've yet to show me any indication that you understand Rowbotham's perspective, so forgive my skepticism.
I really think it's time that the flat earth fraternity dismissed Rowbotham's "theories" from 150 years ago as their sole source of "evidence", and concentrated a little more on current scientific theories established by people who haven't been dead for more than a century, and who also hold accredited academic qualifications in the various fields of science such as geophysics and astrophysics. Rowbotham held no academic qualifications of any sort, and was totally unequipped to make the calculated guesses he did with his Bedford Level "experiments".
The only reason a handful of people accepted his experimental "results" was that in the mid-19th century, the wider population had virtually no scientific knowledge to draw upon. Very few children attended school beyond the age of 14 years—if they were lucky—and their parents were schooled in the early 1800s when contemporary science was in its infancy. So anything that was backed up with fancy illustrations and big words and glib explanations was swallowed whole without question in most cases.
Today, Rowbotham is considered by the scientific establishment to be nothing more than a curiosity of the period. He actually added not one iota of knowledge to the current scientific magnum opus