Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account

  • 58 Replies
  • 13129 Views
Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« on: May 29, 2007, 04:56:09 AM »
ok, i've been thinking hard about how could Dr Rowbothams results be accurate as the earth is clearly a sphere. His calculations are spot on however i noticed he doesn't take into account the bending of light travelling through an inhomogenous refractive index, the bending of light due to the earths gravitational field and the effect of the moon on bodys of water. He also doesn't say anything about his margin of error which as far as i'm aware is bad practise for "scientists". With these factors taken into account could his experiments be flawed?

Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2007, 05:10:08 AM »
When you also consider that Rowbotham's instrument of choice was a theodolite (which isn't too accurate over several miles), the fact that Rowbotham was religiously motivated to prove the Earth flat, and the fact that he made such observations as this:

Quote
The light of the moon is damp, cold, and powerfully septic; and animal and nitrogenous vegetable substances. exposed to it soon show symptoms of putrefaction. Even living creatures by long exposure to the moon's rays, become morbidly affected. It is a common thing on board vessels going through tropical regions, for written or printed notices to be issued, prohibiting persons from sleeping on deck exposed to full moonlight, experience having proved that such exposure is often followed by injurious consequences.

"It is said that the moon has a pernicious effect upon those who, in the East, sleep in its beams; and that fish having been exposed to them for only one night, becomes most injurious to those who eat it."

"At Peckham Rye, a boy named Lowry has entirely lost his sight by sleeping in a field in the bright moonlight."

"If we place in an exposed position two pieces of meat, and one of them be subjected to the moon's rays, while the other is protected from them by a screen or a cover, the former will be tainted with putrefaction much sooner than the other."

Professor Tyndall describing his journey to the summit of the Alpine Mountain, Weisshorn, August 21st, 1861, says:--
"I lay with my face towards the moon (which was nearly full), and gazed until my face and eyes became so chilled that I was fain to protect them with a handkerchief."

I think his experiments could easily be flawed.
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2007, 05:24:36 AM »
The conspiracy made his experiments seem flawed.

Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2007, 05:47:04 AM »
Quote
the bending of light travelling through an inhomogenous refractive index,

This is unlikely to be a large factor since, in general, it would even out over the distance. On a really hot day, this may be visible as heat haze, but then it would be really obvious and all you'd see is a blurr.

Quote
the bending of light due to the earths gravitational field

This would be really really negligable over 5 meters.

Quote
and the effect of the moon on bodys of water

AFAIK canals are tidal so this would again be a very insignificant factor.

Quote
He also doesn't say anything about his margin of error which as far as i'm aware is bad practise for "scientists".

I have only looked at his first experiment where he claims to see a man in a boat at a distance of 6 miles. In this case, putting errors on the experiment arn't really very important. To be rigorous, he should give an error on the height of the observation and the length of the canal (if it turns out to be [6 +/- 5]miles we would probably be unimpressed) but tbh, I don't think its really necessary.


I havn't really looked into the experiments yet, but if I were to try to discredit them, I wouldn't start with these things  ;)

Remember, the vast majority of science is working out what we can ignore. The physical world is virtually infinitely complex and we simply cannot achieve 100% accuracy...hence we approximate.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #4 on: May 29, 2007, 06:11:35 AM »
They can also be disproved by any half decent surveyor equipped with  a dumpy level or an automatic level and measuring staff.

Rowbotham used a theodalite which is an instrument for angular measurements, hence not the best tool for the job. A dumpy/automatic level is far more accurate and will measure the height of land to the millimetre. Even a 'perfectly level' car park will infact have small bumps and valleys caused through a variety of effects (such as settlement of aggregate layers, heat expansion etc)

Rowbotham just looks and says 'hrm, it looks like the tops of those flags are flat' whereas a true surveyor, using a level and staff will note rises and falls in millemetres if by some bizzarre twist of fate the land Rowbotham was using was almost perfectly level.

To conclude, the instrument he used was ill suited to the task, he seemed to assume a perfectly flat piece of ground which is almost impossible, and used his instument over too great distances

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #5 on: May 29, 2007, 09:04:30 AM »
Quote
To conclude, the instrument he used was ill suited to the task, he seemed to assume a perfectly flat piece of ground which is almost impossible, and used his instument over too great distances

It does not matter what observational tool Rowbotham uses. He could be using a telescope, a set of binoculars, or a theodolite. In each of his experiments, Dr. Rowbotham is simply observing an object which should not be visible on a spherical earth. Rowbotham is simply using the theodolite as an enhanced telescope. There's no inaccuracy that could spring up doing that - Rowbotham is simply observing point B from point A.

While the horizontal axes on a theodolite used in determining the vertical angle might become inaccurate over large distances, it simply does not matter. Dr. Rowbotham is not measuring arcsecs in his experiments. He's observing things which should not be visible at all on a Round Earth.

Additionally, he does not assume in his experiments that the ground is level. In the flag experiment along the Bedford Canal he is studying the convexity of water, not the convexity of the land. Rowbotham is placing the flags into the shallow water to a certain hight and leveling the flags with a plumbline.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2007, 09:19:03 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #6 on: May 29, 2007, 09:06:42 AM »
And of course, the conspiracy intervened.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #7 on: May 29, 2007, 09:27:34 AM »
of course it matters  he measured the tops of the flags and said  they should get lower as they moved away from the theodalite, he clearly didnt think there could be a rise in the ground

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #8 on: May 29, 2007, 09:32:05 AM »
So, in conclusion, the FE model is correct.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #9 on: May 29, 2007, 09:45:50 AM »
Quote
of course it matters  he measured the tops of the flags and said  they should get lower as they moved away from the theodalite, he clearly didnt think there could be a rise in the ground

Read through the experiment again. Dr. Rowbotham isn't sticking the flags into the ground, he's sticking the flags into the water.

Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2007, 10:16:05 AM »
Quote
of course it matters  he measured the tops of the flags and said  they should get lower as they moved away from the theodalite, he clearly didnt think there could be a rise in the ground

Read through the experiment again. Dr. Rowbotham isn't sticking the flags into the ground, he's sticking the flags into the water.
Read again yourself. He stuck the flags into the ground under the waters of a canal, a canal that has a gradient. He should have at least used a body of water that doesn't flow--at any time.

TomB, as long as this guy is your only "scientific" source, you're not going to impress anyone.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #11 on: May 30, 2007, 12:51:17 AM »
Hydrographic Surveying is more difficult and often innaccurate than ordinary land surveying, especially with equipment at the time. So he stuck flags into the loose silt and mud of a canal and expected them to be level? Rowbotham had some good ideas about experimenting but bo-where near the level of competency in the field to convingly prove one way or the other.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #12 on: May 30, 2007, 09:26:59 AM »
Quote
Hydrographic Surveying is more difficult and often innaccurate than ordinary land surveying, especially with equipment at the time. So he stuck flags into the loose silt and mud of a canal and expected them to be level?

Rowbotham took a ruler to the flags before the experiment, made a mark a three feet or so upwards from the base of each flag. He would then hammer the flags into the water, aligning the mark with the water's surface. Finally, Dr. Rowbotham would align the flags with a plumbline on his way back.

It's a rather simple experiment conducted along a long stretch of still water. There is little margin of error involved.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2007, 09:39:08 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #13 on: May 30, 2007, 09:34:36 AM »
Quote
Hydrographic Surveying is more difficult and often innaccurate than ordinary land surveying, especially with equipment at the time. So he stuck flags into the loose silt and mud of a canal and expected them to be level?

Rowbotham took a ruler to the flags before the experiment, made a mark a three feet or so upwards from the base of each flag. He then would hammer the flag into the water, aligning the mark with the water's surface. Finally Dr. Rowbotham would aligned the flag with a plumbline, make any necessary angular adjustments and go on to the next flag.

It's a rather simple experiment conducted along a long stretch of still water. There is little margin of error involved.
"Still" is not level. A canal flows. A canal has a gradient. A canal doesn't follow the curvature of the Earth closely. BIG ERROR! Oh, and fix your tags.

Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #14 on: May 30, 2007, 03:29:16 PM »
Of course he edits his post, but fails to respond to a challenge. Good job, Gully!
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2007, 01:10:06 AM »
Quote
little margin of error involved.

no mergin of error? ok, deep breath

as Gulliver said, a river/canal is inclined on a gradient, therefore the marks lineup with water surface will not be level beause it flows downhill, if the Earth were perfectly level she shouldn't have seen the flags as level anyway unless he was using an innaccurate instrument. Sorry, Tom it's a nice idea for an experiment but poorly executed, accept it.

It's not to scale or accurate but it demonstrates the point

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2007, 12:56:19 AM »
and all's quiet on the western front...is that an admission of defeat Tom, or am I now to expect more garbled nonsense copy/pasted from ENAG and the internet? ;)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2007, 09:46:08 AM »
Quote
and all's quiet on the western front...is that an admission of defeat Tom, or am I now to expect more garbled nonsense copy/pasted from ENAG and the internet?

I didn't bother typing up a response because, quite frankly, you are absolutely wrong.

If we take a glass half filled with water and tilt it 20 degrees, does the water's surface incline with the glass, or does it stay level and parallel to the ground?

If we take a bucket half filled with water and incline it 20 degrees, does the water's surface incline with the bucket, or does it stay level and parallel to the ground?

If we take a bathtub half filled with water and incline it 20 degrees, does the water's surface incline with the bathtub, or does it stay level and parallel to the ground?

It takes no stretch of critical thinking to realize that the surface of the water will stay parallel to the ground in each of the above situations. No matter what angle the container is tilted at, no matter the orientation of the container, the surface of the water will be parallel to the ground until it spills out. Even a "caveman" like Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham could plainly see that.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2007, 09:49:15 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65295
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #18 on: June 01, 2007, 09:47:16 AM »
Quote
and all's quiet on the western front...is that an admission of defeat Tom, or am I now to expect more garbled nonsense copy/pasted from ENAG and the internet?

I didn't bother typing up a response because quite frankly, you're absolutely wrong.


He's wring?

Damn you edited it
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #19 on: June 01, 2007, 10:29:00 AM »
Quote
and all's quiet on the western front...is that an admission of defeat Tom, or am I now to expect more garbled nonsense copy/pasted from ENAG and the internet?

I didn't bother typing up a response because, quite frankly, you are absolutely wrong.

If we take a glass half filled with water and tilt it 20 degrees, does the water's surface incline with the glass, or does it stay level and parallel to the ground?

If we take a bucket half filled with water and incline it 20 degrees, does the water's surface incline with the bucket, or does it stay level and parallel to the ground?

If we take a bathtub half filled with water and incline it 20 degrees, does the water's surface incline with the bathtub, or does it stay level and parallel to the ground?

It takes no stretch of critical thinking to realize that the surface of the water will stay parallel to the ground in each of the above situations. No matter what angle the container is tilted at, no matter the orientation of the container, the surface of the water will be parallel to the ground until it spills out. Even a "caveman" like Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham could plainly see that.
All good points. They validate the RE impugning of the experiment quite well. Once you tilt an body of water, it becomes parallel to the tilting Earth, and not rounded by its curvature.

It's nice to have you on the RE side when you don't realize it, but please stay on the FE side. You're just too helpful over there looking stupid and dishonest.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #20 on: June 01, 2007, 10:40:44 AM »
Quote
and all's quiet on the western front...is that an admission of defeat Tom, or am I now to expect more garbled nonsense copy/pasted from ENAG and the internet?

I didn't bother typing up a response because, quite frankly, you are absolutely wrong.

If we take a glass half filled with water and tilt it 20 degrees, does the water's surface incline with the glass, or does it stay level and parallel to the ground?

If we take a bucket half filled with water and incline it 20 degrees, does the water's surface incline with the bucket, or does it stay level and parallel to the ground?

If we take a bathtub half filled with water and incline it 20 degrees, does the water's surface incline with the bathtub, or does it stay level and parallel to the ground?

It takes no stretch of critical thinking to realize that the surface of the water will stay parallel to the ground in each of the above situations. No matter what angle the container is tilted at, no matter the orientation of the container, the surface of the water will be parallel to the ground until it spills out. Even a "caveman" like Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham could plainly see that.
You are right, the water will be parallel to the ground.  Just like the picture shows.  Your argument only helps them. 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #21 on: June 01, 2007, 10:42:13 AM »
Quote
All good points. They validate the RE impugning of the experiment quite well. Once you tilt an body of water, it becomes parallel to the tilting Earth, and not rounded by its curvature.

The water will be parallel to the earth at all points along its surface. Any child of five could see that.

If water were simply parallel to the local shape of the terrain, the shape of its container, then the water of every lake and pond would be seen to dip downwards and become concave as the local terrain below changes shape. This does not happen, clearly. Water is always level and 90 degrees parallel to the earth at all points along its surface.

Quote
You are right, the water will be parallel to the ground.  Just like the picture shows.  Your argument only helps them.

IF the earth is a globe, and is 24,900 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches.

In his experiments along the still water of the 20 mile long Old Bedford Canal Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham finds that there is no such arc.

Quote
It's nice to have you on the RE side when you don't realize it, but please stay on the FE side. You're just too helpful over there looking stupid and dishonest.

Is this an admission that water is not convex?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2007, 11:28:09 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #22 on: June 01, 2007, 10:44:21 AM »
Ooooh...

What now...

Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #23 on: June 01, 2007, 11:40:17 AM »
Quote
All good points. They validate the RE impugning of the experiment quite well. Once you tilt an body of water, it becomes parallel to the tilting Earth, and not rounded by its curvature.

The water will be parallel to the earth at all points along its surface. Any child of five could see that.

If water were simply parallel to the local shape of the terrain, the shape of its container, then the water of every lake and pond would be seen to dip downwards and become concave as the local terrain below changes shape. This does not happen, clearly. Water is always level and 90 degrees parallel to the earth at all points along its surface.

Have you ever seen Niagara Falls, TomB? Any child of five will see water moving nearly vertically, hardly parallel to the Earth. That's an extreme case. There are many situations. Take a rain gutter off the average house. Tilt it at 1 (or most any degree from 1 to 89) degree from horizontal. Run water into the high end with a garden hose. The water will flow parallel to the gutter, not the Earth.

What you claim is true for standing water, but not water in a canal. Your hero screwed up yet again.

TomB, think before you post. You're just looking silly!

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #24 on: June 01, 2007, 11:46:51 AM »
Quote
What you claim is true for standing water, but not water in a canal. Your hero screwed up yet again.

TomB, think before you post. You're just looking silly!

If you had actually read Earth Not a Globe before typing your ignorance you would have read this from the first page of the second chapter:

    "In the county of Cambridge there is an artificial river or canal, called the "Old Bedford." It is upwards of twenty miles in length, and (except at the part referred to at page 16) passes in a straight line through that part of the Fens called the "Bedford Level." The water is nearly stationary--often completely so, and throughout its entire length has no interruption from locks or water-gates of any kind; so that it is, in every respect, well adapted for ascertaining whether any or what amount of convexity really exists."

As you can see, Dr. Rowbotham does indeed perform his experiment on standing water.

Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #25 on: June 01, 2007, 11:53:23 AM »
Quote
What you claim is true for standing water, but not water in a canal. Your hero screwed up yet again.

TomB, think before you post. You're just looking silly!

If you had actually read Earth Not a Globe before typing your ignorance you would have read this from the first page of the second chapter:

    "In the county of Cambridge there is an artificial river or canal, called the "Old Bedford." It is upwards of twenty miles in length, and (except at the part referred to at page 16) passes in a straight line through that part of the Fens called the "Bedford Level." The water is nearly stationary--often completely so, and throughout its entire length has no interruption from locks or water-gates of any kind; so that it is, in every respect, well adapted for ascertaining whether any or what amount of convexity really exists."

As you can see, Dr. Rowbotham does indeed perform his experiment on standing water.
BUZZ! You are responding to Mr. Rowbotham like a dog to a whistle. You should know that "nearly stationary" proves my point. Just because, he couldn't measure the flow on a given day, just means that it was below the threshold of his weak measurements. He just looked at the water. You can't tell just by looking. A canal, by definition, flows.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #26 on: June 01, 2007, 12:13:36 PM »
Quote
A canal, by definition, flows.

A canal is just a ditch filled with water. A canal does not "flow by definition." Open up a dictionary before making imbecilic statements. It is simply an artificial waterway which may or may not flow.

Quote
You should know that "nearly stationary" proves my point. Just because, he couldn't measure the flow on a given day, just means that it was below the threshold of his weak measurements.

One can measure the flow of water by placing a leaf onto the surface and observing its movements. It takes no great effort to tell whether or not there is a flow of water.

Dr. Rowbotham studies the Old Bedford Canal for a number of months:

    "The above-named experiments were first made by the author in the summer of 1838, but in the previous winter season, when the water in the "Old Bedford" Canal was frozen, he had often, when lying on the ice, with a good telescope observed persons skating and sliding at known distances of from four to eight miles. He lived for nine successive months within a hundred yards of the canal, in a temporary wooden building, and had many opportunities of making and repeating observations and experiments, which it would only be tedious to enumerate, as they all involved the same principle, and led to the same conclusions as those already described."

Even if there was a minuscule flow undetected to Rowbotham, that flowing water would still have to obey the convexity of the earth. To do otherwise is an affront to all common sense, to all reason and logic. It entirely violates your "gravity." Even the water in a gutter, however inclined, must form a slight arc.

But then again, you are beyond all reason, Gulliver. You are comparing horizontal standing water to water flowing off the edge of Niagara Falls? How completely sappy, shallow, and oblivious of you!

Feel free to enlighten us with additional pictures of Dark Matter and Black Holes. We're all interested in seeing them.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2007, 12:41:40 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65295
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #27 on: June 01, 2007, 12:26:04 PM »
Quote
A canal, by definition, flows.

A canal is just a ditch filled with water. A canal does not "flow by definition." Open up a dictionary before making imbecilic statements. It is simply an artificial waterway which may or may not flow.

I was gonna mention that but I didn't want to be rude.
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #28 on: June 01, 2007, 12:44:58 PM »
Quote
A canal, by definition, flows.

A canal is just a ditch filled with water. A canal does not "flow by definition." Open up a dictionary before making imbecilic statements. It is simply an artificial waterway which may or may not flow.

Quote
You should know that "nearly stationary" proves my point. Just because, he couldn't measure the flow on a given day, just means that it was below the threshold of his weak measurements.

One can measure the flow of water by placing a leaf onto the surface and observing its movements. It takes no great effort to tell whether or not there is a flow of water.

Dr. Rowbotham studies the Old Bedford Canal for a number of months:

    "The above-named experiments were first made by the author in the summer of 1838, but in the previous winter season, when the water in the "Old Bedford" Canal was frozen, he had often, when lying on the ice, with a good telescope observed persons skating and sliding at known distances of from four to eight miles. He lived for nine successive months within a hundred yards of the canal, in a temporary wooden building, and had many opportunities of making and repeating observations and experiments, which it would only be tedious to enumerate, as they all involved the same principle, and led to the same conclusions as those already described."

Even if there was a minuscule flow undetected to Rowbotham, that flowing water would still have to obey the convexity of the earth. To do otherwise is an affront to all common sense, to all reason and logic. It entirely violates your "gravity." Even the rapidly flowing water at Niagara Falls must form a slight arc.

But then again, you are beyond all reason, Gulliver. Feel free to enlighten us with additional pictures of Dark Matter and Black Holes. We're all interested in seeing them.

Please reference: Wikapedia
    The Bedford Level Experiment was a series of observations carried out along a six-mile length of the Bedford Level (the Old Bedford River), Norfolk, England, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was an attempt to demonstrate that the Earth was flat. Early results seemed to prove this contention, but most later attempts to reproduce the observations firmly supported the conventional view that the earth is a sphere.

The Bedford Canal, by definition a channelized river, is still a river.

Oh, and how goes documenting your view across the bay? I've put money on my belief that you're lying, again.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Factors Rowbotham didn't take into account
« Reply #29 on: June 01, 2007, 12:48:19 PM »
Quote
and all's quiet on the western front...is that an admission of defeat Tom, or am I now to expect more garbled nonsense copy/pasted from ENAG and the internet?

I didn't bother typing up a response because, quite frankly, you are absolutely wrong.



So... the only times you ever type a response is when you know the other person is right?  ???
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?