# Rowbotham claims we can see planets on the far side of the North Pole.

• 10 Replies
• 1390 Views

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Rowbotham claims we can see planets on the far side of the North Pole.
« on: November 06, 2016, 09:23:05 PM »
In Rowbotham's explanation of the "Retrograde motion of the Planets", on pp 322, 323 of his "ZETETIC ASTRONOMY, ZETETIC AND THEORETIC DEFINED AND COMPARED", we have this explanation:
Quote from: Parallax

The planets are sometimes seen to move from east to west, sometimes from west to east, and sometimes to appear stationary, and it is contended that “the hypothesis of the earth’s motion is the natural and easy explanation; and that it would be in vain to seek it from any other system.”

To those who have adopted the Newtonian theory the above language is quite natural; but when the very foundation of that system is proved to be erroneous, we must seek for the cause as it really exists in the heavens, regardless of every hypothesis and consequence. Careful observation has shown that the advance, apparent rest, and retrogradation of a planet is a simple mechanical result.

All the orbits are above the earth; and whenever a spectator stands in such a position that a planet is moving from right to left, he has only to wait until it reaches the end or part of its orbit nearest to him, when, as it turns to traverse the other side of the orbit, it will, for a time, pass in a direction to which the line of sight is a tangent.

A good illustration will be found in an elliptical or circular race-course. A person standing at some distance outside the course would see the horses come in from the right, and pass before him to the left; but on arriving at the extreme arc they would for a time pass in the direction of, or parallel to, his line of sight, and would, therefore, appear for a time not to progress, but on entering the other side of the course would appear to the spectator to move from. left to right, or in a contrary direction to that in which they ﬁrst passed before him. The following diagram, ﬁg. 99, will illustrate this.

FIG. 99.

Let S be the place of the spectator. It is evident that a body passing from A to P, would pass him from right to left; but during its passage from P to T it would seem not to move across the field of view. On arriving, however, at T, and passing on to B, it would be seen moving from left to right; but from B to A it would again appear to be almost stationary.

From ZETETIC ASTRONOMY, ZETETIC AND THEORETIC DEFINED AND COMPARED.

Now clearly, Rowbotham is saying that we can see the planets when they are at all positions around the 360° of their orbit, otherwise they could never show retrograde motion.

So I have to wonder, "If we can see the planets when they are on the other side of the earth,
why can't we see the sun, which is almost infinitely brighter than any planet?"

This explanation of "retrograde motion" differs markedly from the explanation in "the Wiki", so we have to ask
if Rowbotham is so wrong in this, what other parts of Rowbotham's writings are also simply incorrect.

<< Minor punctuation >>
« Last Edit: November 06, 2016, 09:37:00 PM by rabinoz »

#### disputeone

• Ranters
• 19891
• Or should I?
##### Re: Rowbotham claims we can see planets on the far side of the North Pole.
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2016, 09:33:40 PM »
Now clearly, Rowbotham is saying that we can see the planets when they are at all positions around the 360° of their orbit, otherwise they could never show retrograde motion.

So I have to wonder, "If we can see the planets when they are on the other side of the earth,
why can't we see the sun, which is almost infinitely brighter than any planet?"

This explanation of "retrograde motion" differs markedly from the explanation in "the Wiki", so we have to ask
if Rowbotham is so wrong in this, what other parts of Rowbotham's writings are also simply incorrect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Rowbotham claims we can see planets on the far side of the North Pole.
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2016, 12:20:29 AM »
Now clearly, Rowbotham is saying that we can see the planets when they are at all positions around the 360° of their orbit, otherwise they could never show retrograde motion.

So I have to wonder, "If we can see the planets when they are on the other side of the earth,
why can't we see the sun, which is almost infinitely brighter than any planet?"

This explanation of "retrograde motion" differs markedly from the explanation in "the Wiki", so we have to ask
if Rowbotham is so wrong in this, what other parts of Rowbotham's writings are also simply incorrect.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
I haven't seen anything from Rowbotham on the "Cosmological Constant", so I don't see the relevance to this thread.
Or, as Junker on TFES.org would reply "irrelevant!"

#### disputeone

• Ranters
• 19891
• Or should I?
##### Re: Rowbotham claims we can see planets on the far side of the North Pole.
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2016, 12:49:44 AM »
Everyone can make mistakes.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Rowbotham claims we can see planets on the far side of the North Pole.
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2016, 01:03:16 AM »
Everyone can make mistakes.
Yes  even you and I  ,
and I could point out quite a few more "mistakes" that Rowbotham made and yet the Flat Earthers seem to rely on his writings for so many things with no more justification.
The "other place" (TFES.org) is even more a stickler for adherence to "the Wiki" and "ENaG".

In at least one case he actually makes the observation that the horizon is actually below eye-level at a higher elevation, then he dismisses it by showing he doesn't understand the purpose of a telescope on a theodolite.

But, let's stick to this one for a start.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Rowbotham claims we can see planets on the far side of the North Pole.
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2016, 01:31:59 AM »
Of all your ridiculous posts, this one is the most ridiculous.  Congratulations.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Rowbotham claims we can see planets on the far side of the North Pole.
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2016, 03:41:54 AM »
Of all your ridiculous posts, this one is the most ridiculous.  Congratulations.
Please explain. You don't even say which part of which post is "ridiculous".

If you are by any chance referring to this bit
. . . . . . . . . . .
In at least one case he (Rowbotham) actually makes the observation that the horizon is actually below eye-level at a higher elevation, then he dismisses it by showing he doesn't understand the purpose of a telescope on a theodolite.

Maybe you should read this before you say more?

From Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' (pseud. Samuel Birley Rowbotham), TANGENTIAL HORIZON. Note that emphasis in the quote is mine.
Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
TANGENTIAL HORIZON.
IF a theodolite is placed on the sea shore, "levelled," and directed towards the sea, the line of the horizon will be a given amount below the cross-hair, and a certain "dip" or inclination from the level position will have to be made to bring the cross-hair and the sea-horizon together. If the theodolite is similarly fixed, but at a greater altitude, the space between the cross-hair and the sea horizon, and the dip of the instrument to bring them together, is also greater. From the above, which is perfectly true, it has been concluded that the surface of the earth is convex, and the line of sight over the sea tangential. As a proof that such is not the case, the following experiment may be tried:--

Place a theodolite on an eminence near the sea. "Level," and direct it over the water, when the horizon will be seen a little below the cross-hair or centre of the telescope, as shown in the diagram, fig. 30, page 41, and from the cause there assigned, viz., collimation, or refraction. Now let the instrument be inclined downwards until the cross-hair touches the horizon, as shown in fig. 31, page 41,

 fig. 30, page 41 fig. 31, page 41

and in the following diagram, fig. 92. If the theodolite had a simple tube without lenses, instead of a telescope, which causes the appearance shown in , the

FIG. 92.

horizon would be seen in a line with the cross-hair, or axis of the eye, as at A, fig. 92, and the amount of "dip" required to bring the cross-hair and the horizon in contact with each other will be represented by the angle A, T, S, to which must be added the collimation. In every instance where the experiment has been specially tried, the dip without the collimation only amounted to the angle A, T, S; thus proving that the' surface of the sea, S, B, is horizontal, because parallel to the line A, T. If the water is convex, the line of sight, A, T, would be a tangent, and the dip to the horizon would be T, H, represented by the angle A, T, H. This angle, A, T, H, is never observed, but always A, T, S, plus collimation or divergence produced by the lenses in the telescope of the theodolite. Hence the surface of the waters is everywhere horizontal.

The words "collimation," "divergence," "refraction," &c., have many times been used in connection with this part of the subject, and the following very simple experiment will both exhibit what is meant, and show its influence in practice.

Take a "magnifying glass," or a convex lens, and hold it over a straight line drawn across a sheet of paper. If the line is drawn longer than the diameter of the lens, that part of it which is outside the lens will have a different position to that seen through it, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 93.

FIG. 93.

Instead of the line going uninterruptedly through the lens in the direction A, B, it will diverge, and appear at 1, 2; or it will appear above the line A, B, as at 3, 4, if the lens is held to the slightest amount above or below the actual centre.

A lens is a magnifying glass because it dilates, or spreads out from its centre, the objects seen through it. The infinitesimal or mathematical point actually in the centre is, of course, not visibly influenced, being in the very centre or on the true axis of the eye, but any part in the minutest degree out of that abstract centre is dilated, or diverged, or thrown further away from it than it would be to the naked eye; hence its apparent enlargement or expansion. Whatever, therefore, is magnified, is really so because thrown more or less out of the centre, and the more or less magnifying power of the lens is really the more or less divergence of the pencils of light on passing through the substance of which it is composed. In the telescope of a theodolite, or spirit-level, the spider's web of which the cross hair is made is placed in the actual centre; hence, in an observation, the point absolutely opposite to it is not seen, but only some other point minutely distant from it, but the distance of which is increased by the divergence caused by the lenses; and this divergence is what is called the "magnifying power." This is the source of those peculiarities which have been so very illogically considered to be proofs of the earth's rotundity. It is from this peculiarity that several gentlemen prematurely concluded that the water in the Bedford Canal was convex.

In all this Rowbotham clearly observes the "dip to the horizon", then tries to explain it away by claiming that the magnification of the telescope is somehow distorting what we see, wheras all the magnification does is to make slight variations measurable.

These "dip angles to the horizon" will be very small for the heights he is likely to be referring to. He does not tell us the actual height he raised the theodolite to, but I doubt it would be over 100' or so. Now for an elevation of 100' the "dip angle to the horizon" is only about 11 minutes of arc (0.18°) and without magnification would hardly be visible.

Now, Rowbotham is so convinced of the Flat Earth, that he claims that the telescope's magnification is "causing an error".
But this "dip angle to the horizon" is real and I could post plenty of references where it is calculated and measured.

So, please tell me what bits of what posts are so ridiculous?

#### Sam Hill

• 642
##### Re: Rowbotham claims we can see planets on the far side of the North Pole.
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2016, 05:26:35 AM »
Of all your ridiculous posts, this one is the most ridiculous.  Congratulations.
Please explain. You don't even say which part of which post is "ridiculous".
Maybe Ski has come around to the realization that everything Rowbotham wrote is ridiculous, and therefore you quoting him is also ridiculous?

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Rowbotham claims we can see planets on the far side of the North Pole.
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2016, 12:45:18 PM »
Of all your ridiculous posts, this one is the most ridiculous.  Congratulations.
Please explain. You don't even say which part of which post is "ridiculous".
Maybe Ski has come around to the realization that everything Rowbotham wrote is ridiculous, and therefore you quoting him is also ridiculous?
Sure, agreed on both points, but the  Rowbothomonian (or is if Rowbothian?) teachings still seem to underpin "the Wiki" and the general theory behind the Flat Earth.

Ski certainly seem to follow Rowbothomon's ideas on perspective and this particular topic is just another application of that. Even their interpretation of the Bedford Canal results seems to suffer from the same fallacy.

#### Ski

• Planar Moderator
• 8730
• Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
##### Re: Rowbotham claims we can see planets on the far side of the North Pole.
« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2016, 09:48:43 PM »
Quote
Now clearly, Rowbotham is saying that we can see the planets when they are at all positions around the 360° of their orbit, otherwise they could never show retrograde motion.

We can see retrograde motion by observing the planets at night. They are not completing 24 hr orbits. In the same way we observe the diurnal path of the sun throughout the year, does not mean that we see the sun at night. The fact that we can observe the retrograde motion throughout the year at night is in no way analogous to being able to see the sun at night.     Are you completely unable to process abstractions from context, or are you deliberately trolling with some sort of ridiculous hyper-literalism?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

#### rabinoz

• 26528
• Real Earth Believer
##### Re: Rowbotham claims we can see planets on the far side of the North Pole.
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2016, 11:19:10 PM »
Quote
Now clearly, Rowbotham is saying that we can see the planets when they are at all positions around the 360° of their orbit, otherwise they could never show retrograde motion.

We can see retrograde motion by observing the planets at night. They are not completing 24 hr orbits. In the same way we observe the diurnal path of the sun throughout the year, does not mean that we see the sun at night. The fact that we can observe the retrograde motion throughout the year at night is in no way analogous to being able to see the sun at night.     Are you completely unable to process abstractions from context, or are you deliberately trolling with some sort of ridiculous hyper-literalism?

I am quite able to "to process abstractions from context", but it seems that you have not compared the diagrams in "the Wiki" and in Rorbotham's "STATIONS AND RETROGRADATION OF PLANETS" - they are quite different.

I know the cause of retrograde motion and I know "the Wiki" explanation of retrograde motion, but that is quite irrelevant!

I am claiming that Rowbotham is explaining retrograde motion by assuming that we can see the planets at all positions around the 360° of their orbit.

Rowbotham quite clearly shows the planets as simply moving in a circular "orbit" about the North Pole as is described in my OP.

There is no indication that he ever considered the planets orbiting the sun as in the Wiki explanation:
Quote from: the Wiki

Q. Why do the planets retrograde in the sky?
A. Retrograde motion occurs from the fact that the planets are revolving around the sun while the sun itself moves around the hub of the earth. This particular path the planets take makes it appear as if several of them make a loop along their journeys across the night sky.

Now that motion is nothing like that shown in Rowbotham's diagram.
Quote from: Parallax

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
All the orbits are above the earth; and whenever a spectator stands in such a position that a planet is moving from right to left, he has only to wait until it reaches the end or part of its orbit nearest to him, when, as it turns to traverse the other side of the orbit, it will, for a time, pass in a direction to which the line of sight is a tangent.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The following diagram, ﬁg. 99, will illustrate this.

FIG. 99.
Let S be the place of the spectator. It is evident that a body passing from A to P, would pass him from right to left; but during its passage from P to T it would seem not to move across the field of view. On arriving, however, at T, and passing on to B, it would be seen moving from left to right; but from B to A it would again appear to be almost stationary.

I fail to see how Rowbotham's planetry orbit can be interpreted as anything but one about the North Pole, and so for his "retrograde motion" to work we must see the planets when they are behind the North Pole.

By the way, I am not arguing here against the "the Wiki" explanation of retrograde motion. While I have not examined in detail, if the earth were flat it seems as good an explanation as you can get. It is of course the "Flat Earth" equivalent of the Tychonic Solar System.