Sinking Ship experiment Results

Quote from: jdoe on August 24, 2008, 11:40:48 PM

The second picture is wrong.  It's from altitude.  The correct picture from ground is http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9358005smallpc3.jpg.

The ship still appears sunk.

How do we know where the unzoomed image was taken from? Dyno doesn't leave any notes for us. We don't even know how powerful his telescope is.

Besides, Dyno's images are exactly consistent with what Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us we should experience.

From the chapter Perspective on the Sea from Earth Not a Globe we read the following:

"We have now to consider a very important modification of this phenomenon, namely, that whereas in the several instances illustrated by diagrams Nos. 71 to 84 inclusive, when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull at sea a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be."

Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us directly that a telescope will not be able to restore the hull on a sea due to the environ. Dyno used his telescope to look at the sea, so his being unable to restore the hull to any significant degree is exactly what Samuel Birley Rowbotham predicts.

The Winship and Teed experiments which restored the hulls of ships when viewed through a telescope, of which you are referring to, were conducted on calm bodies of water such as lakes: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

The problem with your argument Tom, is that in my viewing of his pics, he did restore the hull, and the surrounding environs as well, so I don't get what you're getting at... Did you want him to expose the part of the hull underwater as well?

His post proves Rowbotham wrong, and in the first page of this thread you basically say, well, that just proves that light curves up like people here at theflatearthsociety.org say, thanks for confirming that for me... You can't have it both ways Tom. Either you're for Rowbotham's theories, or the unconfirmed theories put forth by members of theflatearthsociety.org. No more flip-flopping. Pick a side and let it be recorded by all of us.

And it's people like you Tom, that make people like Dyno, and me, and others reluctant to do anything productive towards proving our side of the discussion. Dyno did this perfect in my opinion, and it's a shame that there are people like you to criticize him, and take him down a notch just because. Tom, can you state any research at all you're done for your cause, or do you really feel your place is to stand up and say all research done by others is meaningless since you were not there to witness? Others call you a bot, but that implies realistic direction and reasoning. You're just an opportunist, and you should be ashamed.

Nope.

Please stop making these useless posts in Debate & Discussion. If you want to debate, then go for it, but saying "Nope." to that doesn't give the discussion anywhere to go. I have warned you before about this, and if you continue I will simply delete any posts you make that don't contribute anything to the discussion.

Fair is fair...Tom does the same thing...give him the same warning.  "You're wrong", and "No", are his stock and trade a good deal of the time as well

Fair is fair...Tom does the same thing...give him the same warning.  "You're wrong", and "No", are his stock and trade a good deal of the time as well

I can't say I've seen him do so in the time I've been a mod. Next time I do, I shall indeed give him such warning.

Now, let's continue the discussion of the Sinking Ship experiment results.

Robosteve seems to be an RE'er who has put his blind faith into the RE model. He has not looked into the facts or looked into the data for his claim of "accuracy." Any claim of accuracy must first be proven.

Im really confused. Why is Robosteve a mod then? Who owns this forum? Where is the power, whos in charge?

Im really confused. Why is Robosteve a mod then? Who owns this forum? Where is the power, whos in charge?

Daniel is in charge. I am a mod because he chose to make me one.

Now please, enough of this off-topic banter.

Thank you, Steve...that's all I ask.

The Winship and Teed experiments which restored the hulls of ships when viewed through a telescope, of which you are referring to, were conducted on calm bodies of water such as lakes: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

Please define 'calm'. I dont know how much you know about sailing. But you cant really sail without any wind...

Tom and narc. You two are embarrasing yourself and FET. Robosteve, divito, theengineer and so on.. They keep this site pumping. Im looking forward to the completion of the bent light theory.

I definitely agree. Robosteve listens to other posters, adapts his opinion appropriately, and at least pretends to look into things further. Divito is the most fun you can have arguing with a self professed nihilist, and The Engineer at least tries to hold the party line while posing his own assertions and observations.

The way Dyno was railroaded in this thread by Tom though made me mad at all the FE hardliners. If that's the way all RET proponents can be expected to be treated, then why shouldn't we all just leave and leave all the FET proponents to their own devices?

I can tell you why I'm here though, and why I think most others are here. I'm here because I love to argue, regardless of the cause. And this cause somehow struck me as a cause I could enjoy arguing. And now I'm hooked and can't leave, so you're all stuck with me for the time being.

I definitely agree. Robosteve listens to other posters, adapts his opinion appropriately, and at least pretends to look into things further. Divito is the most fun you can have arguing with a self professed nihilist, and The Engineer at least tries to hold the party line while posing his own assertions and observations.

I suppose I could take that as a compliment.

Quote from: AmatureAstronomer on August 25, 2008, 07:00:24 AM

I definitely agree. Robosteve listens to other posters, adapts his opinion appropriately, and at least pretends to look into things further. Divito is the most fun you can have arguing with a self professed nihilist, and The Engineer at least tries to hold the party line while posing his own assertions and observations.

I suppose I could take that as a compliment.

I meant it as a compliment, if that matters. You piss me off to a degree I don't think you understand, but you do make me think.

Just out of curiousity, that's Light in your avatar right?

Fantastic. I can't say I don't want to piss people off, but I want to do it in such a way that motivates them to either learn or at least consider my proposition and side of the argument; to make them think, as you put it.

And yes, that's Light in my avatar. Good of you to notice, I'm impressed.

How do we know where the unzoomed image was taken from? Dyno doesn't leave any notes for us. We don't even know how powerful his telescope is.

He is a regular poster on these forums, I am sure that he would be happy to answer your questions about his equipment and the method that he used.  Of course, the week before these photos were taken, there was a multi-page thread about what the conditions of the experiment should be (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21115.0).  I don't remember you making any protests about his methods at that time.

...The Winship and Teed experiments which restored the hulls of ships when viewed through a telescope, of which you are referring to, were conducted on calm bodies of water such as lakes: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

Winship in his book Zetetic Cosmology says...

Both of those examples are of observations of ships at sea.

If you are in plane you see that your bending light theory suxx big time.

If the earth was flat and you are look just right into the ground beneath you you would see a lot of things at the similiar place if the earth would be flat and light would curve up.

So start thinking first and then try to be a scientist.

If you are in plane you see that your bending light theory suxx big time.

If the earth was flat and you are look just right into the ground beneath you you would see a lot of things at the similiar place if the earth would be flat and light would curve up.

So start thinking first and then try to be a scientist.

Classiest illustration to date!

To your thoughts. The light is not bent more than it creates the same effect as the curvature on RE. So I think the visual effect would be the same as RE.

If light bends as FE says it does, then shouldn't the boat appear higher than the water?

Sometimes things do seem to float above the water, but that would be a fata morgana.

A "fata morgana" indeed.

If light bends as FE says it does, then shouldn't the boat appear higher than the water?

Hm.. But light from the boat emits in all directions.
Try to change the illustration but draw the lightpaths that hits the viewers eye.

Classiest illustration to date!

To your thoughts. The light is not bent more than it creates the same effect as the curvature on RE. So I think the visual effect would be the same as RE.

You guys are really scary.

How the hell is a 40Mm x 40 Mm plate ever supposed to look like a 6Mm radius sphere by simply bending light. You guys really didnt think that through.
What is supposed to happen with the stuff thats more than 1/2*Pi*6Mm away? On a globe you cant see it anymore, because the earth isnt translucent and 6Mm is the turning point of the curve.
If you want to represent that your light has to be straight at a horizontal distance of 1/2*Pi*6Mm. But then you would have the problem i have drawn at exactly 1/2*Pi*6Mm.

Proof me wrong.

Quote from: Zetetic Cosmology

Quote from: Zetetic Cosmology

Both of those examples are of observations of ships at sea.

The first quote doesn't even tell us where the observation was conducted, while the second quote tells us that Winship's observation was made in a bay. Inland bays are very often calmer in nature than the open ocean.

In that same chapter in paragraphs four and five Winship reports looking at a ship at sea with a telescope and being unable to restore its hull. Wiship also reports looking at a ship sailing parallel alongside his own for a number of days - he reports sometimes being able to restore the hull and sometimes being unable to restore the hull, proving that the sinking ship on the ocean has more to do with the nature of the waves and the present atmospheric conditions more than anything.

So the environment of the ocean somehow prohibits one from restoring a ship with a telescope?  I can't believe this.  This is how FEers respond to evidence of RE?  Just make up new laws of perspective?

Rowbotham specifically tells us from experiment and experience that the ship's hull on the sea is not brought back with a telescope. Samuel Birley Rowbotham told us exactly what Dyno would experience in his experiment 150 years ago.

I'll post the quote again for you. From the chapter Perspective on the Sea from Earth Not a Globe we read the following:

"We have now to consider a very important modification of this phenomenon, namely, that whereas in the several instances illustrated by diagrams Nos. 71 to 84 inclusive, when the lower parts of the objects have entered the vanishing point, and thus disappeared to the naked eye, a telescope of considerable power will restore them to view; but in the case of a ship's hull at sea a telescope fails to restore it, however powerful it may be."

See that bolded part? It means that we shouldn't expect to restore the hull of a ship at sea with a telescope. Later on in the chapter it describes how the chaotic nature of the ocean surface prevents a person at ground level from peering through the waves the ship shrinks behind as it recedes into the distance.

The OP has specifically done his experiment where Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us a ship's hull cannot be restored. If he had done the experiment on a lake, a pond, a canal, or some other body of water there would be no issue. The blame is on the OP for not reading the material before preforming the experiment.

Just look at the OP's ground image of the cargo ship:

http://img501.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9393020smallhg9.jpg

We can clearly see that the waves are obscuring the view between observer and ship. We can also see that the waves at that ground angle are obscuring the tiny hull of the distant sailboat in the distance.

When the OP goes to a higher altitude and sees the cargo ship restored there's a waterline from the waves in the restored area, marking exactly how much of the ship was hidden at ground level:

http://img503.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc9410028smallkj9.jpg

Samuel Birley Rowbotham's work remains accurate time and time again. This thread just demonstrates how correct Rowbotham is.

Tom. Please post photos from Rowbotham's experiments for us to compare.

The theory of light curvating upward benefits RE mostly. Because it renders objects farther away to appear higher than they actually are, proving that any such observance of a flat earth to be purely illusory.

The first quote doesn't even tell us where the observation was conducted, while the second quote tells us that Winship's observation was made in a bay. Inland bays are very often calmer in nature than the open ocean.

Youre in a corner and you fight bravely but youre in a desperate position. Thats why you keep guessing and inventing as you go along.

Do you know what a bay is? Do you know what a barque is? Do you know where Table Bay is?

Tom. Please post photos from Rowbotham's experiments for us to compare.

Rowbotham would have had a hard time taking photographs at the time of his experiment.

Do you know where Table Bay is?

I sure do.

http://www.capespirit.com/Table%20Bay.jpg

You know why hulls at sea can't be fully restored Tom? A lot lies beneath the water.

Optics have nothing to do with it.

The first quote doesn't even tell us where the observation was conducted, while the second quote tells us that Winship's observation was made in a bay. Inland bays are very often calmer in nature than the open ocean.

You aren't going to watch a ship sail out of sight bound for another port and have it still be in the harbor.

In that same chapter in paragraphs four and five Winship reports looking at a ship at sea with a telescope and being unable to restore its hull. Wiship also reports looking at a ship sailing parallel alongside his own for a number of days - he reports sometimes being able to restore the hull and sometimes being unable to restore the hull, proving that the sinking ship on the ocean has more to do with the nature of the waves and the present atmospheric conditions more than anything.

I don't suppose it is to strong to think that maybe refraction takes a hand in whether something is visible at a distance? 

Rowbotham specifically tells us from experiment and experience that the ship's hull on the sea is not brought back with a telescope. Samuel Birley Rowbotham told us exactly what Dyno would experience in his experiment 150 years ago.

Except he wasn't able to restore the hull like Winship or Rowbotham were.  Because of the presence of the bulker in the picture, we are able to use it to determine the height of the waves by seeing the wetted area at the waterline.  Since each of those white marks is 10 cm (4") and the major divisions are 1 m (3'), we can safely say that the seas (combined swells and waves) are less than 0.5 meters (1') in height.

Even if we double the height of the seas to 1 meter (3'), that doesn't account for the fact that half of the spinnaker (bow sail) isn't visible.


I'll post the quote again for you. From the chapter Perspective on the Sea from Earth Not a Globe we read the following:

See that bolded part? It means that we shouldn't expect to restore the hull of a ship at sea with a telescope. Later on in the chapter it describes how the chaotic nature of the ocean surface prevents a person at ground level from peering through the waves the ship shrinks behind as it recedes into the distance.

Amazing how the model breaks down once you increase your field of vision to tens of miles.  Have you ever noticed that in all of Rowbotham's observations about how the tops of lighthouses are visible at times when they shouldn't, he never mentions that he can see the bottom of those lighthouses?  It always mentions the light or the top mark.

The OP has specifically done his experiment where Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us a ship's hull cannot be restored. If he had done the experiment on a lake, a pond, a canal, or some other body of water there would be no issue. The blame is on the OP for not reading the material before preforming the experiment.

We can clearly see that the waves are obscuring the view between observer and ship. We can also see that the waves at that ground angle are obscuring the tiny hull of the distant sailboat in the distance. [/quote]

Except it isn't a "tiny" sailboat, and I explained the size of the seas above.

When the OP goes to a higher altitude and sees the cargo ship restored there's a waterline from the waves in the restored area, marking exactly how much of the ship was hidden at ground level:

Well, the wetted area at the waterline shows us how high the waves were, but the increased area of visibility was much greater than that.  See the scrapes in the paint on the bulbous portion of the bow where the anchor chain rubs?  That area is now much higher over the "horizon" than the height of the seas that we are supposedly now "seeing over."

Samuel Birley Rowbotham's work remains accurate time and time again. This thread just demonstrates how correct Rowbotham is.

That is apparently a matter of interpretation.

If light bends as FE says it does, then shouldn't the boat appear higher than the water?

As opposed to under the water? We aren't discussing submarines here, you know. Boats float in water.

Quote

Tom. Please post photos from Rowbotham's experiments for us to compare.

Rowbotham would have had a hard time taking photographs at the time of his experiment.

Exactly.
Thats why I suggest that you go out and make the exact same experiments as Rowbotham. Be sure to take pictures.

Quote

Do you know where Table Bay is?

I sure do.
http://www.capespirit.com/Table%20Bay.jpg

Good boy. Now please explain how you know this bay was without waves or swells at the time of the experiment. Once again, define your sense of 'calm'.

Quote

Tom. Please post photos from Rowbotham's experiments for us to compare.

Rowbotham would have had a hard time taking photographs at the time of his experiment.

Can you post the Lady Blount pictures?  I can't seem to find those either.  That might help if we could see those.

I sure do.

OK Tom, posting a photo of the place does not provide proof of familiarity.

That picture was taken from Table Mountain and is looking toward the northeast and doesn't show the mouth of the harbor.

Here is a chart of the bay...


Unfortunately, Winship doesn't tell where in Cape Town he made his observations.  Most likely place that he would have observed both a northbound ship (Lilla) and the southbound ship (La Querida) would have been in the vicinity of Green Point where the land starts curving toward the south.  This site has the advantage of being elevated above the water, has easy access from the city and gives views of approaching and departing ships.  It also means that your observations are going to be made over open water.  There is also the issue that Table bay is notorious for its exposure to westerly swells.  This means that even observations made within the bay will probably have waves or swells.