Flawed FE Foundations

  • 94 Replies
  • 11997 Views
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Flawed FE Foundations
« on: January 31, 2008, 10:44:38 AM »
Every argument I have seen on these forums is dependent on previous conjecture. This is a good thing for any deductive argument but is irrevocably flawed in the case of FET. For instance, scientific findings or technology indicating a round earth are dismissed as faked or ultimately conceived by the conspiracy in the attempts to create the illusion of RE. If you follow the chain of logic back far enough for FE you wind up looking directly at Rowbotham's work. The average FE'ers stand might be "The conspiracy has to exist if the Earth is flat, and the shape of the Earth was proven to be flat by Rowbotham."

Arguing over the probability of a conspiracy, or the legitimacy of sources reporting Antarctic races, or the common misunderstandings on the part of astronomers worldwide, is ultimately unprovable. Establishing RE theory and disproving FE are completely different goals although one leads to the other. Proving RE requires taking on the work of all the professionals around the world and disproving FE involves finding fallacies in the theory that are necessary for FE to function. Therefore, I put Rowbotham's work under a microscope and chose one of his many arguments to disprove.

This is a previous argument I made against Rowbotham's claims a long time ago which, in the end, could not be countered:
___________________________________
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 this cannot be explained then there is no premise to believe in FE to begin with. I posted this in the hopes of getting a coherent logical response, not speculation. When one speculates on why this must be true without proof, especially when this is the only 'evidence' of FE, it only shows biases to FE. My challenge is simply provide sources 'proving' FE other than Rowbotham's flawed works, or show why Rowbotham was correct. The alternative is the collapse of your theory.
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.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2008, 10:47:09 AM »
Wow. Well done on the argument. Let's see what happens when the others arrive.
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2008, 10:51:05 AM »
Thank you. I don't expect theEngineer here because he argues points against differentiation between models, not the basis of the FE conclusions. (Equivalence Principal)
Unfortunately Tom Bishop is the only cover for FE foundations (that I know of) and so I urge him to continually respond in this thread instead of answering a couple times and then leaving when RE'ers dig too deep. I do hope Username joins us. I'll be back later.
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.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2008, 12:02:16 PM »
Bumped for a good post.
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

Chase_the_Bass

  • 170
  • Musical Master
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2008, 12:02:45 PM »
Nice. This is pretty much a post so that I can easily come back to this thread when the FErs get here.
A painter paints pictures on canvas.  But musicians paint their pictures on silence.  ~Leopold Stokowski

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2008, 12:03:53 PM »
Plus Rowbotham's explanations are based on his experiments based on a man-made canal which could exist as flat on a round earth.
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.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2008, 12:16:02 PM »
I was never really totally happy with Rowbotham's explanations for perspective.  I'd like to believe the sinking ship effect is a psychological phenomenon, but I can't really believe that either. 

Perhaps, and this is just a hunch/longshot, light falls faster towards the Earth than towards other things, for some reason.  This would also explain why the sun "sets" as it moves further away.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2008, 12:18:18 PM »
Erm...light falls faster? That's a condition of gravity...for that to happen, gravity must be stronger...I know you're throwing out ideas, but that one doesn't stick well...
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2008, 12:19:16 PM »
Gravity could not be the only thing that attracts photons towards the earth
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2008, 12:19:51 PM »
Gravity could not be the only thing that attracts photons towards the earth
Perhaps a giant vacuum cleaner?
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.

?

Chase_the_Bass

  • 170
  • Musical Master
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2008, 12:20:31 PM »
Maybe whatever the hell is under the Earth attracts the light.
A painter paints pictures on canvas.  But musicians paint their pictures on silence.  ~Leopold Stokowski

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2008, 12:21:34 PM »
What could? Magnetism? Doubtful...at the Earth's scale...Even the most powerful supermagnets have a negligible effect on light. Photon-Photon interactions are forbidden, so no go there. Electric...too weak. Weak force...hrm...the name implies it all, and strong force, too limited interaction range. Gravity is the best candidate, and it doesn't work.
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2008, 12:22:19 PM »
Maybe whatever the hell is under the Earth attracts the light.
You mean.... the ANTIMOON??? The greatest discovery of FES!
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.

?

Chase_the_Bass

  • 170
  • Musical Master
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2008, 12:23:06 PM »
Cake?
A painter paints pictures on canvas.  But musicians paint their pictures on silence.  ~Leopold Stokowski

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2008, 12:24:37 PM »
Erm...light falls faster? That's a condition of gravity...for that to happen, gravity must be stronger...I know you're throwing out ideas, but that one doesn't stick well...
Gravity does not affect light.  Gravitation does. 


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2008, 12:24:49 PM »
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.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2008, 12:41:23 PM »
What could? Magnetism? Doubtful...at the Earth's scale...Even the most powerful supermagnets have a negligible effect on light. Photon-Photon interactions are forbidden, so no go there. Electric...too weak. Weak force...hrm...the name implies it all, and strong force, too limited interaction range. Gravity is the best candidate, and it doesn't work.
I'd have to read up more on it.  Is there some way that there is a fifth fundamental force? Hrm.  Yeah just throwing out ideas, I'll have to look more into it.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2008, 12:47:01 PM »
I'm pretty sure there's only electroweak, strong, and gravity now. That's all that's known. And of course, we're trying to make there only one fundamental force, since that seems to be the thread of physics.
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2008, 12:50:00 PM »
I'm pretty sure there's only electroweak, strong, and gravity now. That's all that's known. And of course, we're trying to make there only one fundamental force, since that seems to be the thread of physics.
I'm not sure if "thread" was a pun or not.    Just because we are trying to make it one doesn't mean there aren't more to throw into the bunch that we don't know about yet.


Eh something for me to mess with with im not busy with my other junk :P

Quantum Ab Hoc

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #19 on: January 31, 2008, 12:55:37 PM »
No pun, actually, I didn't notice that one until now :D

There could be more, just like the strong force and so on, but the reason new forces were allowed was because they were outside normal detection capability, and were discovered when we got there. For this to happen, all light would have to bend at an extra amount over distance, which is not observed. This ought to be...
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2008, 12:58:43 PM »
Well if this is indeed the case, then it is observed.  It is observed in the sinking ship effect and sunsets. 

Perhaps only the earth has whatever gives off this force.   It could very well be undetectable too and this still be the case.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2008, 01:00:42 PM »
No, no, it must apply consistently. Over a shorter distance, a smaller extra drop isn't observed(they have sophisticated labs that they used to check Einstein's prediction that light would bend slightly towards Earth, and Einstein was as good as their instruments could measure). So why is a larger drop observed only during a long distance? Strange force indeed.
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #22 on: January 31, 2008, 01:06:23 PM »
No, no, it must apply consistently. Over a shorter distance, a smaller extra drop isn't observed(they have sophisticated labs that they used to check Einstein's prediction that light would bend slightly towards Earth, and Einstein was as good as their instruments could measure). So why is a larger drop observed only during a long distance? Strange force indeed.

The force applies curvature to motion of photons.
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2008, 01:22:11 PM »
You're not following me. A smaller drop over a shorter distance is NOT observed, so why does this force only apply over a longer distance?
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2008, 01:23:23 PM »
Well if this is indeed the case, then it is observed.  It is observed in the sinking ship effect and sunsets. 

Perhaps only the earth has whatever gives off this force.   It could very well be undetectable too and this still be the case.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy
I posted this in the hopes of getting a coherent logical response, not speculation. When one speculates on why this must be true without proof, especially when this is the only 'evidence' of FE, it only shows biases to FE.

Anything more concrete?..
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: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #25 on: January 31, 2008, 01:24:38 PM »
Well if this is indeed the case, then it is observed.  It is observed in the sinking ship effect and sunsets. 

Perhaps only the earth has whatever gives off this force.   It could very well be undetectable too and this still be the case.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy
I posted this in the hopes of getting a coherent logical response, not speculation. When one speculates on why this must be true without proof, especially when this is the only 'evidence' of FE, it only shows biases to FE.

Anything more concrete?..
What, like evidence? By 708 posts I'd have thought you knew better.
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.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #26 on: January 31, 2008, 01:30:49 PM »
You're not following me. A smaller drop over a shorter distance is NOT observed, so why does this force only apply over a longer distance?

Erm part of my post got deleted on accident.

It could be photons have an amount of resistance that must be overcome

Many things effect other things differently depending on the scale
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

Germanicus

  • 485
  • Ave, Caesar, morituri te salutant
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #27 on: January 31, 2008, 01:34:17 PM »
Another flaw is Tom's calculation of how much a sphere should drop after six miles. The six miles would be on the edge of the circle, not on a tangent.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #28 on: January 31, 2008, 01:35:43 PM »
Another flaw is Tom's calculation of how much a sphere should drop after six miles. The six miles would be on the edge of the circle, not on a tangent.
You're only making Tom more broken!
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: Flawed FE Foundations
« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2008, 01:37:01 PM »
What, like evidence? By 708 posts I'd have thought you knew better.
Its called the Socratic Method. I'm using questions to elicit responses which acts to guide them toward the truth. Secondary to this is the opportunity for them to reveal any evidence if they actually had any.
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.