Rowbotham's sinking effect

  • 84 Replies
  • 20469 Views
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Rowbotham's sinking effect
« on: December 01, 2007, 01:00:40 PM »
I never received a reply in Celestial Gears but considering it was off topic I am starting a new thread. Perspective can logically be determined and supported by simply examining the aspects of sight.



Consider a room. The far wall appears rectangular whereas the lines defining the edges of the other walls, ceiling, and floor converge toward the center. Why does perspective behave this way? It's because the further portions of the wall appear smaller as all approach the vanishing point. Examining the concept of converging lines for a moment, one might question why object appear smaller based only their distance. The answer is simple: The further away an object is, the smaller the angle an object has when meeting the eye, or a smaller percentage of your vision detects that objects.

Basically, the greater the distance an object is, the smaller the angle it is perceived. The smaller the angle it is perceived, the smaller the object appears. As the blue box in the picture approaches infinity, the angle approaches zero degrees.


CRAPPY DRAWING BUT GOOD FOR CONCEPT.

Therefore, without other influences on your vision, an object would be visible at all distances. The resolution of the eye, variance in particles, temperature related atmospheric distortions, pollution and particulate matter, etc. all place limits on the vision preventing the eye from seeing objects an infinite distance away. I do think it is important to stress however, that there is no reason for perspective to selectively cut portions of vision out. The sinking ship effect, explained by Rowbotham, quotes a source that notes the limitations of the human eye and how an object no longer becomes visible after a certain distance. He immediately classifies these limitations as a law of perspective.

Rowbotham then claims, without a shred of evidence, that perspective naturally creates the effect that portions of objects become indistinguishable to the eye due to great distance. Besides the obvious flaw that perspective shouldn't account for obstacles and imperfections, the notion that only the lower half of an object vanishes as it moves away is ridiculous. Even though the object as a whole has supposedly reached this magic distance, selectively cutting out only the bottom section within your vision disobeys all reason. This fails to include the fact that the ground and area above this region remain unaffected.



This is a sketch Rowbotham included to illustrate the effect on objects as distance increases. It is based solely on Rowbotham's version of perspective and allows me to illustrate my questions. Compare the wheels to the shape (much like a half circle) on top of the locomotive. Might I ask why distance, the alleged direct cause of the disappearing effect) causes the wheels to vanish but not the shape above? Might I ask why has no one else discovered this phenomenon? Might I ask why I cannot observe it when I test it?

The truth is that perspective doesn't behave this way, nor does it have any reason to. Rowbotham fabricated his physics, experiments, and results in order to arrive at his predetermined conclusion of a Flat Earth. I personally believe it was a elaborate joke that people like TB fell for.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2007, 01:06:02 PM »
Simple, you cannot observe it because it is a pile of steaming fictional nonsense. Perspective cannot explain it, the object would only appear smaller as it moves further away, it wouldn't appear to vanish from the bottom up.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2007, 01:13:59 PM »
part of rowbotham's argument relies on dark wooden hulls becoming increasingly harder to see against the dark ocean, the farther away it gets, while the brilliant white billowy sails stand out in high contrast.  ...which of course doesn't apply in today's world, where most sailboats have a brilliant white gelcoat.  plus, the white sails don't really stand out that much against a sky that usually looks white toward the horizon due to moisture and particles in the air. 

so, that argument is pretty much worthless.  i've pointed that out several times and have yet to hear anything at all about it from bishop or the other two more sincere fe believers.

i don't want to get this off-topic though - i'd rather see the broader question above answered.  consider this an addendum to singularity's argument.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2007, 01:23:05 PM »
Well, there are two answers. The first is the easy answer, "It doesn't work, there is no answer"; the second is the FE explanation which will never come. Your choice.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2007, 01:40:05 PM »
The front of the train would be smaller, because it is farther away.

The wheels will always be visible on a flat plane unless they are simply too small to see.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #5 on: December 01, 2007, 02:05:17 PM »
dig the new avatar.  you somehow strike me as more wise and all-knowing now.  that should really be thearchitect's though ;-)

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2007, 02:20:26 PM »
dig the new avatar.  you somehow strike me as more wise and all-knowing now.  that should really be thearchitect's though ;-)
Thank you. :D
I wasn't aware of anyone named thearchitect on these forums, but considering I almost never visit these forums outside debate and discussion, it's more than possible.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2007, 02:22:32 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #7 on: December 01, 2007, 02:21:58 PM »
Lol, now every time I read your post I just have the architects voice in my head, it's quite amusing. Neo.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2007, 02:30:10 PM »
Lol, now every time I read your post I just have the architects voice in my head, it's quite amusing. Neo.
Ergo, Concordantly.... vis-a-vis.  8)
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #9 on: December 01, 2007, 02:45:30 PM »
dig the new avatar.  you somehow strike me as more wise and all-knowing now.  that should really be thearchitect's though ;-)
Thank you. :D
I wasn't aware of anyone named thearchitect on these forums, but considering I almost never visit these forums outside debate and discussion, it's more than possible.

well of course, because i was actually thinking of theengineer - rather than what i wrote, the nonexistent thearchitect.  in which case what i wrote wouldn't (and doesn't) make any sense.  man it's a bad day memory-wise.  too many years of neurotoxins...

*

Gabe

  • 485
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #10 on: December 01, 2007, 04:12:59 PM »
The answer is simple:
Ships disappear over the horizon and curvature of the ocean because the Earth is CURVED. The next step for FE is to admit Rowbotham was wrong and that Earth is curved but flat. Like a shallow dome. That would be hilarious.  ;D
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #11 on: December 01, 2007, 04:51:37 PM »
dig the new avatar.  you somehow strike me as more wise and all-knowing now.  that should really be thearchitect's though ;-)
Thank you. :D
I wasn't aware of anyone named thearchitect on these forums, but considering I almost never visit these forums outside debate and discussion, it's more than possible.

well of course, because i was actually thinking of theengineer - rather than what i wrote, the nonexistent thearchitect.  in which case what i wrote wouldn't (and doesn't) make any sense.  man it's a bad day memory-wise.  too many years of neurotoxins...

I picture TheEngineer much the same, but with that ever-so-famous banning stick. Perhaps Q from Star Trek? The architect doesn't strike me as powerful..  :)
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #12 on: December 01, 2007, 05:21:41 PM »
bump.

"To the believer, no proof is necessary. To the non-believer, no proof is possible." - Derek Acorah
« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 04:46:59 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #13 on: December 01, 2007, 06:08:56 PM »
Bump
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2007, 09:28:20 AM »
I never received a reply in Celestial Gears but considering it was off topic I am starting a new thread. Perspective can logically be determined and supported by simply examining the aspects of sight.



Consider a room. The far wall appears rectangular whereas the lines defining the edges of the other walls, ceiling, and floor converge toward the center. Why does perspective behave this way? It's because the further portions of the wall appear smaller as all approach the vanishing point. Examining the concept of converging lines for a moment, one might question why object appear smaller based only their distance. The answer is simple: The further away an object is, the smaller the angle an object has when meeting the eye, or a smaller percentage of your vision detects that objects.

Basically, the greater the distance an object is, the smaller the angle it is perceived. The smaller the angle it is perceived, the smaller the object appears. As the blue box in the picture approaches infinity, the angle approaches zero degrees.


CRAPPY DRAWING BUT GOOD FOR CONCEPT.

Therefore, without other influences on your vision, an object would be visible at all distances. The resolution of the eye, variance in particles, temperature related atmospheric distortions, pollution and particulate matter, etc. all place limits on the vision preventing the eye from seeing objects an infinite distance away. I do think it is important to stress however, that there is no reason for perspective to selectively cut portions of vision out. The sinking ship effect, explained by Rowbotham, quotes a source that notes the limitations of the human eye and how an object no longer becomes visible after a certain distance. He immediately classifies these limitations as a law of perspective.

Rowbotham then claims, without a shred of evidence, that perspective naturally creates the effect that portions of objects become indistinguishable to the eye due to great distance. Besides the obvious flaw that perspective shouldn't account for obstacles and imperfections, the notion that only the lower half of an object vanishes as it moves away is ridiculous. Even though the object as a whole has supposedly reached this magic distance, selectively cutting out only the bottom section within your vision disobeys all reason. This fails to include the fact that the ground and area above this region remain unaffected.



This is a sketch Rowbotham included to illustrate the effect on objects as distance increases. It is based solely on Rowbotham's version of perspective and allows me to illustrate my questions. Compare the wheels to the shape (much like a half circle) on top of the locomotive. Might I ask why distance, the alleged direct cause of the disappearing effect) causes the wheels to vanish but not the shape above? Might I ask why has no one else discovered this phenomenon? Might I ask why I cannot observe it when I test it?

The truth is that perspective doesn't behave this way, nor does it have any reason to. Rowbotham fabricated his physics, experiments, and results in order to arrive at his predetermined conclusion of a Flat Earth. I personally believe it was a elaborate joke that people like TB fell for.

re-re-bump.  fe'ers, where are you.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2007, 02:40:24 PM »
I have directly attacked Rowbotham's claims. Failing to defend him is a direct failure for FE. If there is no counter argument for this, Flat Earth as a Theory fails.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2007, 02:45:34 PM »
I have directly attacked Rowbotham's claims. Failing to defend him is a direct failure for FE. If there is no counter argument for this, Flat Earth as a Theory fails.

LOL...
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2007, 02:48:56 PM »
I have directly attacked Rowbotham's claims. Failing to defend him is a direct failure for FE. If there is no counter argument for this, Flat Earth as a Theory fails.

LOL...

What's funny? The sinking effect is a foundation stone for FE. FET cannot exist without a solution to this problem whether it is revision or a substitution to the perspective effect.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2007, 02:51:31 PM »
What's funny? The sinking effect is a foundation stone for FE. FET cannot exist without a solution to this problem whether it is revision or a substitution to the perspective effect.

What is funny is that you think a lack of explanation means something is a failure.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2007, 02:59:38 PM »
I think it would be a good habit of REers to stop constantly declaring victory whenever FE doesn't respond :P

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2007, 03:01:11 PM »
What's funny? The sinking effect is a foundation stone for FE. FET cannot exist without a solution to this problem whether it is revision or a substitution to the perspective effect.

What is funny is that you think a lack of explanation means something is a failure.
Failure does not mean incorrect. (Although FET is incorrect)
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2007, 03:04:27 PM »
I think it would be a good habit of REers to stop constantly declaring victory whenever FE doesn't respond :P
When did I declare victory? A flawed theory is simply a failing attempt at a theory. Theories require more than observation but also causes. FET fails if it finds no cause for its inherent effects. That does not mean the Flat Earth cannot exist, nor that the Earth is round.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2007, 03:05:59 PM »
What's funny? The sinking effect is a foundation stone for FE. FET cannot exist without a solution to this problem whether it is revision or a substitution to the perspective effect.

What is funny is that you think a lack of explanation means something is a failure.

i'd say that a lack of an adequate rebuttal to a direct, comprehensive challenge to a theory, *does* mean it is a failure.  which may or may not be funny depending on your perspective.  (you are lucky divito, you win no matter who loses...which is why i wonder what entertainment value or intellectual stimulation you get out of this forum...but to each his own.  the same could probably be asked of me...or anyone here...)

notice i have made no claims as to the validity of the direct, comprehensive challenge.  i have merely pointed out that one has ben made that seems to me to be direct and comprehensive.  i may or may not choose to engage on this one when and if a legitimate response comes in, depending on my own critereon for engagement (which is usually along the lines of "i cant believe that retard just said that").  nor do i need to--singularity has his own argument covered for team earth.  i would just like to see engagement from a serious fe'er (which is certainly not bishop...perhaps username) and watch the outcome.

if not, they forfeit, and lose.  we would need verification that the would-be rebutters are in fact consciously forfeiting rather than hiding, ignoring, sidestepping, etc.  which might be the bigger challenge here.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2007, 03:09:59 PM »
Correct. Not only is lack of cause make FET a failure as a theory, but also ignoring contrary evidence constitutes as illegitimate science.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #24 on: December 02, 2007, 03:11:39 PM »
i'd say that a lack of an adequate rebuttal to a direct, comprehensive challenge to a theory, *does* mean it is a failure.  which may or may not be funny depending on your perspective.  (you are lucky divito, you win no matter who loses...which is why i wonder what entertainment value or intellectual stimulation you get out of this forum...but to each his own.  the same could probably be asked of me...or anyone here...)

notice i have made no claims as to the validity of the direct, comprehensive challenge.  i have merely pointed out that one has ben made that seems to me to be direct and comprehensive.  i may or may not choose to engage on this one when and if a legitimate response comes in, depending on my own critereon for engagement (which is usually along the lines of "i cant believe that retard just said that").  nor do i need to--singularity has his own argument covered for team earth.  i would just like to see engagement from a serious fe'er (which is certainly not bishop...perhaps username) and watch the outcome.

if not, they forfeit, and lose.  we would need verification that the would-be rebutters are in fact consciously forfeiting rather than hiding, ignoring, sidestepping, etc.  which might be the bigger challenge here.

I don't really win no matter who loses. I can still be wrong and such. I just take to my probabilities and am able to be as neutral as I think most people should be.

Based on using Rowbotham's explanations, FE doesn't stand up to criticism in that area of the theory. A revised idea for the sinking ship will have to be formulated. That's not so much a failure of FE as it is, there aren't that many people devoted to devising one. As you said, Username is possibly someone in which we can rely on for an idea, unless I find time to work something out.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #25 on: December 02, 2007, 03:14:25 PM »
I think it would be a good habit of REers to stop constantly declaring victory whenever FE doesn't respond :P
When did I declare victory? A flawed theory is simply a failing attempt at a theory. Theories require more than observation but also causes. FET fails if it finds no cause for its inherent effects. That does not mean the Flat Earth cannot exist, nor that the Earth is round.

I wasn't referring to that.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #26 on: December 02, 2007, 03:16:13 PM »
I wasn't referring to that.
What were you referring to?
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2007, 03:22:55 PM »
Perhaps, since semantics is being argued, I should reword it.

I think it would be a good habit of REers to stop constantly declaring failure for FE whenever FE doesn't respond.

Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2007, 03:24:43 PM »
Why? FE'ers would do the same to RE'ers, but it just happens they can never find a hole in the RE theory.
Dumbshoe

Re: Rowbotham's sinking effect
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2007, 03:35:01 PM »
Because in doing so, FEers will argue over how you define a victory, instead of the topic at hand.  It gives them something else to pay attention to.