Rowbotham contradicts his own law

  • 19 Replies
  • 6195 Views
Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« on: July 05, 2007, 09:25:26 AM »
So this is a little thing that occured to me and I briefly posted my thoughts in The Canberran's thread, but I wanted to see what answer TomB could come up with because I haven't been entertained by him lately. There is a massive discrepancy between Robotham's experiments on the one hand and his use of the law of perspective on the other hand. Now you might say: "but slappy, haven't you and many others already shattered the law of perspective? Isn't this just pouring salt in the wound?" The answer is yes, but this is just to show what a manipulative prick (or astounding idiot) Rowbotham was... that and I like kicking bad theories when they're down.. I'm an ass, I know.

So here goes:

Rowbotham uses the law of perspective basically as a stand-in for the rotundity of the earth. Everything that is obscured in reality by the Earth's rotundity (sinking ships etc.) is obscured in exactly the same way and to exactly the same degree on the FE only via the law of perspective instead.

Interestingly enough however, in many of his experiments Rowbotham claims that things that should not be visible on a RE (due to its rotundity) are in fact visible, ergo the earth is flat. However, since the law of perspective is just a substitute for the earth's rotundity, anything that should not be visible on an RE should also not be visible on an FE (due to perspective of course). So then, I ask myself: aren't those experiments and the law of perspective mutually exclusive? I look forward to being entertained Tommy.
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..

*

Ulrichomega

  • 736
  • Bring it Bishop.
Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2007, 09:38:52 AM »
I'll just step in for him here:

Useless explaination.

Quote that has nothing to do with arguement

False conclusion based on zero evidence and faulty logic.

Oh yeah: How dare you defile the  sacred book of FE, may a thousand trolls eat your flesh.
I'm so tempted to put a scratch and sniff at the bottom of a pool and see what you do...

Avert your eyes, this is too awesome for them...

Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2007, 09:44:48 AM »
Yea, it looks like he did get himself caught in his complicated world...

*

sokarul

  • 13764
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2007, 09:47:34 AM »
So this is a little thing that occured to me and I briefly posted my thoughts in The Canberran's thread, but I wanted to see what answer TomB could come up with because I haven't been entertained by him lately. There is a massive discrepancy between Robotham's experiments on the one hand and his use of the law of perspective on the other hand. Now you might say: "but slappy, haven't you and many others already shattered the law of perspective? Isn't this just pouring salt in the wound?" The answer is yes, but this is just to show what a manipulative prick (or astounding idiot) Rowbotham was... that and I like kicking bad theories when they're down.. I'm an ass, I know.

So here goes:

Rowbotham uses the law of perspective basically as a stand-in for the rotundity of the earth. Everything that is obscured in reality by the Earth's rotundity (sinking ships etc.) is obscured in exactly the same way and to exactly the same degree on the FE only via the law of perspective instead.

Interestingly enough however, in many of his experiments Rowbotham claims that things that should not be visible on a RE (due to its rotundity) are in fact visible, ergo the earth is flat. However, since the law of perspective is just a substitute for the earth's rotundity, anything that should not be visible on an RE should also not be visible on an FE (due to perspective of course). So then, I ask myself: aren't those experiments and the law of perspective mutually exclusive? I look forward to being entertained Tommy.

I was actually thinking about this after those sinking ship threads. Rowbotham must contradict himself.   
If you are on İntikam's ignore list it's because you destroyed his arguments.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16631
Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2007, 09:55:43 AM »
Rowbotham does not contradict himself because his experiments are conducted on relatively short stretches of water (eg. six miles along the Bedford Canal). The perspective effect would not occur until past the vanishing point, at a distance far greater.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 10:02:26 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

sokarul

  • 13764
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2007, 10:01:29 AM »
Rowbotham does not contradict himself because his experiments are conducted on relatively short stretches of water (eg. six miles along the Bedford Canal). The perspective effect would not occur until past the vanishing point, as a distance far greater.
Apparently you forgot about this one. 
If you are on İntikam's ignore list it's because you destroyed his arguments.

?

The Communist

  • 1217
  • Paranoid Intellectual & Pedantic Twat
Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2007, 10:04:42 AM »
That curve is produced by the perspective over the slight curvature of the earth-disc.
On FES, you attack a strawman. In Soviet Russia, the strawman attacks you
-JackASCII

Do you have any outlandish claims to back up your evidence?
-Raist

Quote from: GeneralGayer date=1190908626
Yeah I love gay porn.

Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2007, 10:05:59 AM »
That takes place AT the vanishing point, ooo, a tricky one.

?

Skeptical ATM

Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2007, 10:38:17 AM »
It doesn't matter if it actually does happen, the point is he said it does Tom.

Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2007, 11:34:13 AM »
Rowbotham does not contradict himself because his experiments are conducted on relatively short stretches of water (eg. six miles along the Bedford Canal). The perspective effect would not occur until past the vanishing point, at a distance far greater.

But the vanishing point is technically infinite!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 16631
Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2007, 01:26:43 PM »
Quote
But the vanishing point is technically infinite!

The vanishing point rises with the observer. An ant, for example, would have a vanishing point a few inches away from it. An airplane pilot would have a vanishing point dozens of miles away.

Rowbotham's vanishing point in the experiment would depend on his altitude.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2007, 01:29:24 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #11 on: July 05, 2007, 01:37:43 PM »
Quote
But the vanishing point is technically infinite!

The vanishing point rises with the observer. An ant, for example, would have a vanishing point a few inches away from it. An airplane pilot would have a vanishing point dozens of miles away.

Rowbotham's vanishing point in the experiment would depend on his altitude.
Do you have any evidence of your claim? Or are you just making things up again?

The point remains that the "altitude" of the boats is not enough to use the loophole that you're unsuccessfully trying to make for Parallax.

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1209
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #12 on: July 05, 2007, 01:39:25 PM »
So Tom... Why can I see the moon? It must be well past my vanishing point.

?

The Canberran

Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #13 on: July 05, 2007, 01:58:09 PM »
Quote
But the vanishing point is technically infinite!

The vanishing point rises with the observer. An ant, for example, would have a vanishing point a few inches away from it. An airplane pilot would have a vanishing point dozens of miles away.

Rowbotham's vanishing point in the experiment would depend on his altitude.

He must've been on some bloody big ships.

Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #14 on: July 05, 2007, 02:11:44 PM »

The vanishing point rises with the observer. An ant, for example, would have a vanishing point a few inches away from it. An airplane pilot would have a vanishing point dozens of miles away.

Rowbotham's vanishing point in the experiment would depend on his altitude.

Yeah.. the vanishing point on a sphere also depends on altitude. You're missing my point here. Rowbotham contends that perspective practically sits in for curvature. If perspective predicts that objects will dissapear later than curvature does, then there is a major discrepancy between the two. There should also be a major discrepancy between when you would expect an object to sink below the horizon in the two scenarios. However, my understanding is that Rowbotham uses perspective to account for the sinking phenomenon precisely as observed and as expected on a round earth. Ergo, it is a direct substitute. If such is the case, then there is nothing one should be able to see on an FE that one couldn't see on an RE. What is obscured by rotundity on an RE is obscured in the same fashion and to the same extent by perspective on an FE. So him saying "hey look, I can see this object which RE says I shouldn't see, therefore the earth is flat" stands in direct contradiction to his 'perspective' explanation of the sinking ship phenomenon.
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..

*

RENTAKOW

  • 1209
  • REPENT. THE END IS EXTREMELY FUCKING NIGH!
Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2007, 04:29:14 PM »
Tom! Don't leave us!  :'(


?

Tom Dipshit

  • 484
  • Flat Earth Opponent
Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2007, 04:30:04 PM »
Don't worry, I won't
Tom Bishop: "The earth cuts the universe in half."

Narcberry (smarticus): "Oceans are free from gravity."

Z' Lord of Purple: "yes, superfast jet streams for the win!!!"

Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2007, 05:40:39 PM »
Quote
But the vanishing point is technically infinite!

The vanishing point rises with the observer. An ant, for example, would have a vanishing point a few inches away from it. An airplane pilot would have a vanishing point dozens of miles away.

Rowbotham's vanishing point in the experiment would depend on his altitude.

Everything you said holds true for a round earth.

On a flat earth, the vanishing line on an infinite plane ALWAYS is at 0 degrees.  I.E., the person looks straight ahead at any altitude and his sight sees the vanishing line.

Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #18 on: July 10, 2007, 04:03:27 PM »
Tom, I'm still waiting for an answer. Be so kind as to address my last post and sokarul's as well (you know, regarding rowbotham's experiment of apparently being able to see that light source 30 miles away, which should be impossible on an RE, but also on an FE thanks to perspective.. which he ignores ergo he's a liar or an idiot.)
Quote
Quote
Hmm... A good solid RE arguement and not an FE'er in sight. ::)
Oh, no...they're here. It's just that damn perspective..

*

Midnight

  • 7702
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Rowbotham contradicts his own law
« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2007, 05:42:50 PM »
Rowbotham does not contradict himself because I am his reincarnated self on Earth.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.