Power lines stretching across lake pontchartrain.

The sinking effect was proven rather conclusively in Earth Not a Globe. Plenty of other authors have reproduced the restoration effect. If you cannot contradict his work, then there is little more to address with you.

In regards to the specific image in the OP and the explicit curvature seen, it is pretty apparent that the conventional model does not describe us as living on Kerbal.

Note that a few days ago they were all trumpeting art school perspective against my presentation of Dr. Rowbotham, and became unglued when I suggested art school perspective was unnatural compared to Dr.Rowbotham's method.

Now faced with the real world examples, art school perspective "doesn't work", and Rowbotham invented perspective to trick everyone because it is a more natural presentation of reality than art school perspective.

The mental gymnastics must be enormously straining.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 07, 2018, 10:22:48 PM

The sinking effect was proven rather conclusively in Earth Not a Globe. Plenty of other authors have reproduced the restoration effect. If you cannot contradict his work, then there is little more to address with you.

In regards to the specific image in the OP and the explicit curvature seen, it is pretty apparent that the conventional model does not describe us as living on Kerbal.

Note that a few days ago they were all trumpeting art school perspective against my presentation of Dr. Rowbotham, and became unglued when I suggested art school perspective was unnatural compared to Dr.Rowbotham's method.

Now faced with the real world examples, art school perspective "doesn't work", and Rowbotham invented perspective to trick everyone because it is a more natural presentation of reality than art school perspective.

The mental gymnastics must be enormously straining.

Wait! Rowbotham is a doctor now?

Well, just now, I believe he is deceased and not seeing patients, but yes, he was quite successful at it, by all accounts.

Well, just now, I believe he is deceased and not seeing patients, but yes, he was quite successful at it, by all accounts.

By all accounts, really?

Quote from: Ski on June 10, 2018, 02:22:24 PM

Well, just now, I believe he is deceased and not seeing patients, but yes, he was quite successful at it, by all accounts.

By all accounts, really?

Yes, really.

So you lot are knowingly presenting an image with horizon distortions as your evidence of the horizon? Lovely.

It was presented as evidence of curvature.

Note that a few days ago they were all trumpeting art school perspective against my presentation of Dr. Rowbotham

No we weren't.
We were "trumpeting" real perspective, with how perspective actually works in reality against your presentation of conman RowBoat.
The fact that art schools take a simplified view is irrelevant and merely an attempt at ridicule.

Now faced with the real world examples

No we aren't.
These objects are not disappearing due to perspective. They don't make a parallel line all the way.
It is not a real world example of perspective making objects vanish.
Instead it is an example of the objects appearing lower due to the curvature of Earth.

Do I need to draw in the parallel lines for this image and show how they converge at the same point?

One wee ago:

The heart of Rowbotham's (indeed Nature's) perspective is that parallel lines nearer the eyeline converge more rapidly than those farther away. This is what makes art school perspective appear unnatural.

Quote from: markjo

I disagree.  Art school perspective appears quite natural to me.

I agree. That's actually the point of it to make things look natural.

Nope. That is just his. It has nothing to do with nature.

That was a week ago. Today we're back to pretending Rowbotham's represents nature and not art school perspective. Is there any limit to things you will argue?

Quote from: Xphilll on June 10, 2018, 02:48:23 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 10, 2018, 02:22:24 PM

Well, just now, I believe he is deceased and not seeing patients, but yes, he was quite successful at it, by all accounts.

By all accounts, really?

Yes, really.

Have you seen his degree?
The wiki doesn't even mention anything about him being a Dr.
You think adding Dr. to his name make his hypothesis more credible?
I guess its the little things, as they say right?

Found this thread pretty interesting.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62919.30

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 07, 2018, 10:22:48 PM

The sinking effect was proven rather conclusively in Earth Not a Globe. Plenty of other authors have reproduced the restoration effect. If you cannot contradict his work, then there is little more to address with you.

In regards to the specific image in the OP and the explicit curvature seen, it is pretty apparent that the conventional model does not describe us as living on Kerbal.

Note that a few days ago they were all trumpeting art school perspective against my presentation of Dr. Rowbotham, and became unglued when I suggested art school perspective was unnatural compared to Dr.Rowbotham's method.

Now faced with the real world examples, art school perspective "doesn't work", and Rowbotham invented perspective to trick everyone because it is a more natural presentation of reality than art school perspective.

The mental gymnastics must be enormously straining.

One consequence of art school perspective putting the vanishing point at infinity is that it assumes a flat earth, so naturally the curvature of the earth will cause some discrepancies.  Atmospheric distortion near the surface of a body of water will cause problems with an accurate horizon vanishing point as well.

That was a week ago. Today we're back to pretending Rowbotham's represents nature and not art school perspective. Is there any limit to things you will argue?

No we aren't.
No RE here is pretending RowBoat represents nature.
You are the one pretending that.
We are pointing out it curves and gets hidden by Earth (and to some extent refraction).

I have explained why art school perspective fails:
EARTH ISN'T FLAT!
This means that as objects get further away they don't simply shrink.
From your point of view they also appear to get lower as they follow the curvature of Earth.
This is not perspective, it is the curvature of Earth.

Row Boat tries to pretend the results of the curve is merely perspective.

If Earth was flat, art school perspective would work up until the point the atmosphere became to blurry.

Quote from: Ski on June 10, 2018, 02:02:52 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 07, 2018, 10:22:48 PM

The sinking effect was proven rather conclusively in Earth Not a Globe. Plenty of other authors have reproduced the restoration effect. If you cannot contradict his work, then there is little more to address with you.

In regards to the specific image in the OP and the explicit curvature seen, it is pretty apparent that the conventional model does not describe us as living on Kerbal.

Note that a few days ago they were all trumpeting art school perspective against my presentation of Dr. Rowbotham, and became unglued when I suggested art school perspective was unnatural compared to Dr.Rowbotham's method.

Now faced with the real world examples, art school perspective "doesn't work", and Rowbotham invented perspective to trick everyone because it is a more natural presentation of reality than art school perspective.

The mental gymnastics must be enormously straining.

Wait! Rowbotham is a doctor now?

Rowbotham  claimed to have PhD and MD degrees, operated under the names of "Parallax" , "Dr. S. Golden" and others, claimed to have invented an "elixir known to have a cure for all the diseases known to man or beast."

It is correct to refer to Rowbotham as "Dr" even though he often did not fashion himself as such.   

He was and is still respected for his contributions to FET and for his ability to defend these views in open forums. 

Quote from: Ski on June 10, 2018, 03:07:24 PM

Quote from: Xphilll on June 10, 2018, 02:48:23 PM

Quote from: Ski on June 10, 2018, 02:22:24 PM

Well, just now, I believe he is deceased and not seeing patients, but yes, he was quite successful at it, by all accounts.

By all accounts, really?

Yes, really.

Have you seen his degree?
The wiki doesn't even mention anything about him being a Dr.
You think adding Dr. to his name make his hypothesis more credible?
I guess its the little things, as they say right?

Found this thread pretty interesting.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62919.30

The American Association for the Advancement of Science
Volume 5, no 196. The issue date is 13 Feb 1885. The text is as follows:
"— We observe this note in a late number of the Athenaeum: 'РАRRALAX' is dead! Dr. Samuel Rowbotham used this name as the author of ' Zetetic astronomy,' and he was well known by it as a lecturer on such subjects as 'the earth not a globe.' The doctor, some years before his death, directed his 'seeking philosophy' to chemistry; but we never heard of any discovery resulting from his search."

Eng. Mech. & World of Science, no 1,032
References The Times obit.   I still haven't found The Times obit online, if you can find it, please let me know.

The Bookseller, 7 January, 1885
By far the most in depth I have, describes his practice. "For some years past Dr. Rowbotham, in the name of Dr. Birley, exercised his legitimate profession with immense success. He had a special medicine of his own manufacture, “ Free Phosphorous,” which was reputed to be eflicacious in the cure of a variety of ailments."

Should be easy enough to find or to confirm with the establishments cited.

Curious that his many detractors who were just as snarky as you lot did not seize on the opportunity to call him a fraud, were he not a real doctor. All we have are contemporary references (including patents) which give him the appellation "Doctor" and not one example of a contemporary accusation of fraud.

Schadewald records that he had made a mint from the "Dr. Birley's" elixir (he detractively names a nostrum), having distribution and supply (in part through zetetic contacts) and the product outlived Rowbotham by 20 years. Remarkable.

The sinking effect was proven rather conclusively in Earth Not a Globe. Plenty of other authors have reproduced the restoration effect. If you cannot contradict his work, then there is little more to address with you.

The sinking effect was NOT proven in ENAG. It was written about in there, with erroneous geometry to back it up. Writing something down in a book does not mean it's true.
NO other authors have reproduced the restoration effect with any more evidence than simple say-so, and all of those are confined to the 19th century.

I take it y'all have seen Walter Bislin's very excellent simulator:

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth

You can use it to see what the row of transmission towers should look like on both a round and a flat earth, and view them from all sorts of different angles by playing with the sliders. Lots of other goodies in there too.