Flat Earth Philosophy

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 07, 2009, 10:55:16 PM

You can read all about it in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham You can find an online version in the resources in my signature link.

What you refuse to understand is that merely having to cite that charlatan's ridiculous book in order to back up your arguments does at least as much damage to your credibility as the best reasoned arguments by opponents of FET!  Every time you refer us to Rowbotham's book for support, you only further undermine your own credibility!  As far as I am concerned, the instant you have to refer to Earth Not a Globe to back up your argument, you have already automatically lost the argument!

The argument is that some of what is in ENAG is false.

HTH

Also, the Vanishing Point is a drawing technique, not a physical phenomenon. You are right when you show that the hull and the masts should disappear at the same time if the vanishing point were a physical phenomenon.

   I was trying to show that the masts should disappear before the hull.

Thanks for the rest of the post, very informative.

The hull will intersect the Vanishing Point before the mast because the hull is at a lower altitude and will intersect the Vanishing Point first as the ship recedes.

What is the width of your mast?

The Vanishing Point is readily seen in nature. Look out your window.

I can see a ship. I cannot see any masts. I can post a photo if you want.

You can learn more about the Vanishing Point and it's key role in perspective in Samuel Birley Rowbotham's book Earth Not a Globe. It's available through Kessinger.

You can learn more about the Vanishing Point and it's key role in perspective in Samuel Birley Rowbotham's book Earth Not a Globe.

The description of the Vanishing Point in Samuel Birley Rowbotham's book Earth Not a Globe has raised the question. I'm looking for someone to answer it on his behalf. It would appear that you can't. Do you know who can?

I am trying to gain knowledge through understanding and I don't understand why a mast can be visible when the hull of a ship can't if the vanishing point is calculated the way Mr Rowbotham explains in Earth Not a Globe.

I'm sure you would gain a lot more respect if you just admitted you don't know.

Receding bodies intersect the Vanishing Point from the bottom up, what's so hard to understand?

Receding bodies intersect the Vanishing Point from the bottom up, what's so hard to understand?

No they don't. Look out of your window.

The author is assuming that he would be able to see an infinite distance away. He cannot.

He doesn't assume it anywhere. If the wake wouldn't go to the point in flat earth even then it would be smaller as they observed.  And there is no such thing as vanishing point where things just disappear from your vision. If thing moves away from you then it goes smaller and smaller until it is as a point and then it disappears from your view. Not like it goes small and then - poof - it just disappears.

This thread has gone wildly off-topic, so I'm now going to close it. Suffice to say, I don't think anyone has really challenged this philosophical framework. It doesn't prove anything abut the shape of the earth, but it does provide us with a well argued justification for our assertion of sensorial primacy.