Rowbotham's sinking effect

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.

you just touched on a, if not the, crux of the issue here.  (actually it's another issue and possibly ot for this thread.)  and that is: the same could be said for just about *all* of fe explanations for observed phenomenon.  (the only exception i can think of is the acceleration = our perception of gravity.)  but other than that, most fe explanations are so preposterous, and/or vastly more complex to explain the same phenomenon than re, and/or just don't adequately explain the phenomenon at all and conveniently ignore glaring and easily observed contradictions.  (e.g. these.) 

so how far do we go with this "just because explanation xyz is invalid doesn't mean fe theory is invalid" allowance?  especially when it's about 99% of the explanations?  how long do we wait for better explanations?

furthermore, the very foundations of the fe model are in constant flux.  and not just constant, but i have read more on-the-fly, out-of-the-ass fe explanations for newly pointed out observed phenomenon, than i have fingers.  and well also toes.  and i don't mean tinkerings of theory like scientists fiddling with the math to make the universe collapse or expand forever (which is a very obtuse and technologically difficult thing to deduce and by it's very nature is almost certainly prone to be wrong), every few years.  science is ever-correcting, that is true.  but it builds on itself (e.g. laws of thermodynamics), very rarely rewriting a supporting pillar now and then--but it doesn't rewrite itself from scratch with every forum post.  (the latter being another odd attribute of fe science--the latest incarnation of fe theory exists only in a forum...and not even the electronic faq is comprehensive or up-to-date).  i mean profound, fundamental platforms of existence, that can be easily explored and observationally tested.  such as: is the earth finite or infinite.  infinite mass, finite mass, or massless.  is the earth perfectly flat or slightly curved.  is the ice wall hundreds of feet, or tens of thousands.  i could go on, but i've written these before...

edit: i should also add that for fe to knee-jerk reply with "a vast global conspiracy [that we can't prove exists] prevents us from proving our claims with robust evidence" is the pinnacle of cowardice.

Time for some illustrations.

Mr. Robotham is wrong about the vanishing point.  The vanishing point is at eye level, which is 6 feet or so above the ground.

And because the vanishing point is an infinite distance away, unless there is a hill or wave or something that is at least at your eye level (AT LEAST.  It increases the further you move away.), some of the ship will ALWAYS be visible on a Flat Earth.

Ah, much better than my eye diagram. 

Why? FE'ers would do the same to RE'ers, but it just happens they can never find a hole in the RE theory.

There are loads of holes in RE theory.

But the number is significantly less when compared to FE theory

indeed. But there are many millions more people working on RE theory.

Bump. (Back to topic that Rowbotham is a pathological liar)

Bump.

Bump

I will join you.

Rowbotham was wrong, he was on drugs and was retarded and mental.
Bump.

That'll get their attention.

Quote from: paradiselost 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.

There are loads of holes in RE theory.

You know, I keep hearing that.  What are the holes?  What can't RE explain?

Quote from: paradiselost 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.

There are loads of holes in RE theory.

and sand is made of miniature golf balls.  just making a random assertion doesn't mean it's so.  care to give an example of a hole in re theory and back it up?

Holes in FE theory:
> How the FE sun actually works
> How the celestial bodies remain aloft above the earth without falling
> How gravitation applies to all matter in the universe except the earth.
> What is the shadow object, how come it is only visible during eclipses and doesn't block star light.
> The source of the UA
> How the Earth and universe formed.
> How magical laws of perspective and refraction work.
> Celestial "Gears"
There are more.

Holes in FE theory:
> How the FE sun actually works
> How the celestial bodies remain aloft above the earth without falling
> How gravitation applies to all matter in the universe except the earth.
> What is the shadow object, how come it is only visible during eclipses and doesn't block star light.
> The source of the UA
> How the Earth and universe formed.
> How magical laws of perspective and refraction work.
> Celestial "Gears"
There are more.

here's a longer list

Quote from: Agent Z ♫ on December 03, 2007, 02:30:35 AM

Quote from: paradiselost 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.

There are loads of holes in RE theory.

You know, I keep hearing that.  What are the holes?  What can't RE explain?

I believe they consider cutting edge theoretical physics to be holes in RE theory. Dark energy for instance isn't yet explained, but has little relevance to the shape of the earth, in RE at least. However, I would prefer if this topic was continued in a new thread.

Bump 

Bump

My God FE'ers. Defend the manhood of your theory. Bump.

My God FE'ers. Defend the manhood of your theory. Bump.

The manhood of our theory is the "shadow object" it is large and blocks out the sun. It doesn't need defending.

Holes in FE theory:
> How the FE sun actually works

Unknown.

> How the celestial bodies remain aloft above the earth without falling

UA?

> How gravitation applies to all matter in the universe except the earth.

It doesn't apply to the Earth? Since when?

> What is the shadow object, how come it is only visible during eclipses and doesn't block star light.

Perhaps the stars are in front of this object?

> The source of the UA

Source of gravity for RE?

> How the Earth and universe formed.

Big Bang.

> How magical laws of perspective and refraction work.

Perspective is now magical?

> Celestial "Gears"

That's a Tom-exclusive.

Thank you for your reply, but ultimately the premise of the thread lies within the first post, not Archbishop Bishop's. When I asked for a response it was regarding this:

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.

Perspective in and of itself doesn't behave the way Rowbotham describes. The sinking ship effect is still inadequately explained. There is no need for bumps to which there is no current answer.

You're the first to admit there is no answer. 

You're the first to admit there is no answer. 

Maybe recently, but it's been said many times before, including by me. It is a shame that there is no explanation right now though.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 05, 2007, 10:14:47 AM

You're the first to admit there is no answer. 

Maybe recently, but it's been said many times before, including by me. It is a shame that there is no explanation right now though.

No reason for perspective, or no reason for an RE phenomenon in general? I have not seen a confession to flawed FE perspective before although there has been a fair share of "we give up" and "no clue"'s in other topics........

No reason for perspective, or no reason for an RE phenomenon in general? I have not seen a confession to flawed FE perspective before although there has been a fair share of "we give up" and "no clue"'s in other topics........

No adequate explanation other than a spherical Earth has been given to explain why things appear to "sink."

Quote from: Gabe on December 05, 2007, 10:21:13 AM

No reason for perspective, or no reason for an RE phenomenon in general? I have not seen a confession to flawed FE perspective before although there has been a fair share of "we give up" and "no clue"'s in other topics........

No adequate explanation other than a spherical Earth has been given to explain why things appear to "sink."

Then it is reasonable to have FE'ers exclude Rowbotham's Sinking Effect when citing sources. 

Quote from: divito the truthist on December 05, 2007, 10:24:49 AM

Quote from: Gabe on December 05, 2007, 10:21:13 AM

No reason for perspective, or no reason for an RE phenomenon in general? I have not seen a confession to flawed FE perspective before although there has been a fair share of "we give up" and "no clue"'s in other topics........

No adequate explanation other than a spherical Earth has been given to explain why things appear to "sink."

Then it is reasonable to have FE'ers exclude Rowbotham's Sinking Effect when citing sources. 

Tom Bishop's really the only one who constantly cites it.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 06, 2007, 05:35:19 PM

Quote from: divito the truthist on December 05, 2007, 10:24:49 AM

Quote from: Gabe on December 05, 2007, 10:21:13 AM

No reason for perspective, or no reason for an RE phenomenon in general? I have not seen a confession to flawed FE perspective before although there has been a fair share of "we give up" and "no clue"'s in other topics........

No adequate explanation other than a spherical Earth has been given to explain why things appear to "sink."

Then it is reasonable to have FE'ers exclude Rowbotham's Sinking Effect when citing sources. 

Tom Bishop's really the only one who constantly cites it.

Therefore his attention is required here. I suppose I can only bump it when he has just cited it and redirect him. (If he doesn't ignore it)

Quote from: Ferruccio on December 04, 2007, 08:47:22 AM

Quote from: Agent Z ♫ on December 03, 2007, 02:30:35 AM

Quote from: paradiselost 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.

There are loads of holes in RE theory.

You know, I keep hearing that.  What are the holes?  What can't RE explain?

I believe they consider cutting edge theoretical physics to be holes in RE theory. Dark energy for instance isn't yet explained, but has little relevance to the shape of the earth, in RE at least. However, I would prefer if this topic was continued in a new thread.

Ironic, the shadow object has little to do with the shape of the Earth yet FE'ers are supposed to explain it, why is that?