Rowbotham's Sinking Effect

  • 96 Replies
  • 18226 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #30 on: October 02, 2008, 07:28:46 PM »
Quote
I don't have a problem with the testimonies because they are dead. I have a problem with them because they have been proven wrong. Understand that repeatability is the issue here. If the testimonies were correct, the results would have been confirmed. There are not.

The results have already been confirmed multiple times by multiple observers. The first hand testimonials are all published and right there for you to see. I've already linked you to accounts from multiple observers on the last page. Multiple observers have put their telescopes to lakes and canals and have brought back half-sunken bodies., exactly what you requested.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham restores half-sunken bodies a great number of times in Earth Not a Globe. It's done on buildings, boats, marching bands, and things of all sorts. Cyrus Teed also restores hulls. William carpenter restores Lighthouses. In his book Thomas Winship had a sizable collection of accounts of restored bodies from multiple observers.

The effect is already confirmed and peer reviewed. Your plugging your ears and pretending that the accounts do not exist does not make them go away.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 07:31:00 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

no1uno

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #31 on: October 02, 2008, 07:41:37 PM »
Quote
I don't have a problem with the testimonies because they are dead. I have a problem with them because they have been proven wrong. Understand that repeatability is the issue here. If the testimonies were correct, the results would have been confirmed. There are not.

The results have already been confirmed multiple times by multiple observers. The first hand testimonials are all published and right there for you to see. I've already linked you to accounts from multiple observers on the last page. Multiple observers have put their telescopes to lakes and canals and have brought back half-sunken bodies., exactly what you requested.

...

The effect is already confirmed and peer reviewed. Your plugging your ears and pretending that the accounts do not exist does not make them go away.

Yes, but do you not complain that the accounts of astronomers are insufficient to believe RE? Was it you or someone else who asked for the actual math showing when an eclipse would next occur in Chicago based on a planetary model and not "pattern recognition"?

for heaven's sake this whole issue would be half resolved if someone would just find a long flat surface, other than the sea, and take the pictures themselves, magnified and not so. I say half-resolved b/c then whoever was on the losing end would say the pictures were forged.

speaking of lady Blount, the wikipedia article on the bedford experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment) acknowledges this and claims the explanation (if RE is assumed) is unknown.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 07:49:41 PM by no1uno »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #32 on: October 02, 2008, 07:44:08 PM »
Quote
Yes, but do you not complain that the accounts of astronomers are insufficient to believe RE? Was it you or someone else who asked for the actual math showing when an eclipse would next occur in Chicago based on a planetary model and not "pattern recognition"?

That was me. And yes, when you guys claim that the geometry of the solar system and the equations of gravity can predict the eclipse, the transit, and the position of the planets, then we would like to see the workable math for ourselves.

We already know that's not how the transits and eclipses are predicted. Those phenomenons are predicted based on historical charts and tables of previous astronomical occurrences. Those are phenomenons which come in patterns. Ever since the time of Aristotle astronomers have predicted the occurrences of the heavens based on carefully constructed historical charts of past occurrences. The prediction has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, geometry of the solar system, or equations for Gravity. It's a repeating pattern in the sky.

There's a good chapter in Zetetic Cosmogony on the subject.

See http://books.google.com/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA#PPA74,M1
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 07:51:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #33 on: October 02, 2008, 08:09:03 PM »
Quote
I don't have a problem with the testimonies because they are dead. I have a problem with them because they have been proven wrong. Understand that repeatability is the issue here. If the testimonies were correct, the results would have been confirmed. There are not.

The results have already been confirmed multiple times by multiple observers. The first hand testimonials are all published and right there for you to see. I've already linked you to accounts from multiple observers on the last page. Multiple observers have put their telescopes to lakes and canals and have brought back half-sunken bodies., exactly what you requested.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham restores half-sunken bodies a great number of times in Earth Not a Globe. It's done on buildings, boats, marching bands, and things of all sorts. Cyrus Teed also restores hulls. William carpenter restores Lighthouses. In his book Thomas Winship had a sizable collection of accounts of restored bodies from multiple observers.

The effect is already confirmed and peer reviewed.
Are any of them modern repeats, or were they all subscribing to the same beliefs?

It's easier to lie about what you see before cameras are invented. Suddenly, when the option to provide ideal evidence of something is available lying becomes so much harder. Not one photo has been taken nor presented that depicts this phenomenon. Modern technology allows much more insight to the truth.
Quote
Your plugging your ears and pretending that the accounts do not exist does not make them go away.
I do not subscribe to the notion that the accounts don't exist. Merely that they are inaccurate based on current findings.  ::)
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 #34 on: October 02, 2008, 09:26:58 PM »
Why is this experiment always done on water? There are many high rise buildings located 5-9 miles appart and roughly the same size. Couldn't a flat ground experiment work better as there would be no waves to block the line of sight?

I also read some where that a 6 foot person would be able to see a 6 foot person stand 6 miles away (using binoculars to realigh the light) But the individuals would disappear after that. If the earth is not round, why wouldn't i beable to see them?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #35 on: October 02, 2008, 09:27:46 PM »
I also read some where that a 6 foot person would be able to see a 6 foot person stand 6 miles away (using binoculars to realigh the light) But the individuals would disappear after that. If the earth is not round, why wouldn't i beable to see them?

Light bends upwards as it travels.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #36 on: October 02, 2008, 09:36:07 PM »
what? no it doesn't.
Light travels in straight lines. It requires a force to make it bend? Why would it bend?
Edit: a force isn't technically required. something has to make it bend. What's bending it?
« Last Edit: October 02, 2008, 09:40:56 PM by Daybreak »

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #37 on: October 02, 2008, 09:39:56 PM »
what? no it doesn't.
Light travels in straight lines. It requires a force to make it bend? Why would it bend?

Dark Energy makes it bend. It bends upwards in a parabolic arc. Search "Electromagnetic Accelerator".
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #38 on: October 02, 2008, 11:47:28 PM »
Light bends upwards as it travels.

Evidence from a controlled experiment that demonstrates this please?

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #39 on: October 03, 2008, 12:30:11 AM »
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #40 on: October 03, 2008, 12:54:56 AM »
Light bends upwards as it travels.

Evidence from a controlled experiment that demonstrates this please?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0

But I thought DE doesn't enter in the Earth, that we were "protected". In the case of it entering in the world. Why only light feels it if it is strong enough to push the earth up?
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #41 on: October 03, 2008, 01:06:02 AM »
Quote
Care to explain these first-hand, dcumented observations?

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 am ocean due to the waves and swells in the way. 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 Teed experiments which restored the hulls of ships when viewed through a telescope were conducted on calm bodies of water such as lakes:

So if Dyno had done his experiment on a lake, or if someone did so in the future, it would be conclusive?

What we need really, is video. If any RE'ers have a camcorder and a telescopic lens, the next time you're near a big lake do us all a solid...

Also, your first post in Dyno's thread said that his post proved bendy light theory. Now you're quoting Rowbotham. Do you intend to go back to bendy light if Rowbotham fails to explain future experiments? Us RE'ers here have to deal with a number of viewpoints from a number of people. It doesn't seem fair that you can go back and forth as you see fit.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
That was me. And yes, when you guys claim that the geometry of the solar system and the equations of gravity can predict the eclipse, the transit, and the position of the planets, then we would like to see the workable math for ourselves.

We already know that's not how the transits and eclipses are predicted. Those phenomenons are predicted based on historical charts and tables of previous astronomical occurrences. Those are phenomenons which come in patterns. Ever since the time of Aristotle astronomers have predicted the occurrences of the heavens based on carefully constructed historical charts of past occurrences. The prediction has nothing to do with the shape of the earth, geometry of the solar system, or equations for Gravity. It's a repeating pattern in the sky.

There's a good chapter in Zetetic Cosmogony on the subject.

The prediction may have nothing to do with the shape of the earth, or the geometry of the solar system, but the configuration does. With RET the earth will always be directly between the sun and the moon. You've made claims that selenelions or selenehelions have been visible well above the horizon. Can you show proof, or reference of that?
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #42 on: October 03, 2008, 01:12:38 AM »
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0

That isn't evidence of the light bending; that looks more like evidence of a curved earth to be to me.  I am looking for something like a scientific paper, maybe a description on wikipedia, some 18th century book like Rowbotham's.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #43 on: October 03, 2008, 01:28:22 AM »



I saw that image. The camera's view through that telescope looks very close to the level of the sea to me. A foot lower and that camera is going to be touching water.

So the "foreground waves" are not tall enough to block the buoy in the foreground, but they are high enough to obscure the buildings and a significant portion of the hill?


Quote
There's a bunch of waves or swells on the ocean higher than the camera's height obscuring the bottoms of distant bodies.

We've been over this already. It's exactly what Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us we should experience when looking across something as turbulent as an ocean.

Of course, even when he increases elevation, we are still not able to observe the beach and the base of the houses on that beach.



Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #44 on: October 03, 2008, 02:06:38 AM »
I also read some where that a 6 foot person would be able to see a 6 foot person stand 6 miles away (using binoculars to realigh the light) But the individuals would disappear after that. If the earth is not round, why wouldn't i beable to see them?

Light bends upwards as it travels.

Stop talking like you know the answer. You only have an unsubstantiated theory that for some reason light bends upwards. FE'ers don't all agree with you.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #45 on: October 03, 2008, 03:27:27 AM »
I also read some where that a 6 foot person would be able to see a 6 foot person stand 6 miles away (using binoculars to realigh the light) But the individuals would disappear after that. If the earth is not round, why wouldn't i beable to see them?

Light bends upwards as it travels.

Stop talking like you know the answer. You only have an unsubstantiated theory that for some reason light bends upwards. FE'ers don't all agree with you.

FET is steeped in unsubstantiated theories. Tom, in his very first post to Dyno's thread said, and I quote.
This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards. Thanks dyno.

He seems to have regressed back to Rowbotham during the course of that thread and those that followed, and that's what he's pushing now, but I'm not sure what he really believes. If you wanted to know my beliefs you need only pick up a few science textbooks and read. To know all facets of FE theory you'd have to read every thread here, and re-read every day to catch opinions as they change...

What I want to know definitively though is by Rowbotham standards, if this was done on a lake, would Rowbotham rules still be in effect? Since a telescope could supposedly restore the hull on a lake, would photos or video with telescopic resolutions similar to, or greater than those available to SR and CT be taken seriously?

Or should any thread that could show proof of the RE expected curvature expect to be innodated with bendy light theorists, and bendy light theorists who were previously Zetetic theorists, and who will return to Zetetic theory at the first sign of weakness in their bendy light theory? Are FE theorists allowed to have their cake, and eat it too?

As long as FET has dissent within their ranks, as long as they don't know what to put forth as their definitive truths, they cannot possibly expect us to debate them or put forth proofs or counter arguments.


I have a sibling who has an HD camcorder with zoom capabilities close to what I require. I'm only about an hour's drive from a lake that has the widths I require. I cold make a holiday of the whole thing. The only thing I don't have is any kind of proof that any excursion on my part wouldn't be a waste of my time.
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #46 on: October 03, 2008, 03:33:36 AM »
I have a sibling who has an HD camcorder with zoom capabilities close to what I require. I'm only about an hour's drive from a lake that has the widths I require. I cold make a holiday of the whole thing. The only thing I don't have is any kind of proof that any excursion on my part wouldn't be a waste of my time.

If it isn't too difficult to do, you should get the data.  At the least, it would be interesting to see how they deflect the evidence that it provides.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #47 on: October 03, 2008, 03:58:39 AM »
The only thing I don't have is any kind of proof that any excursion on my part wouldn't be a waste of my time.

Be thorough about the whole thing. Take pictures of the lake surface to guage the height of the waves and swell. Take photos/videos from lots of different altitudes.

I know it'll be a hassle, but it's the only way to convince these people.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #48 on: October 03, 2008, 04:59:53 AM »
I have a sibling who has an HD camcorder with zoom capabilities close to what I require. I'm only about an hour's drive from a lake that has the widths I require. I cold make a holiday of the whole thing. The only thing I don't have is any kind of proof that any excursion on my part wouldn't be a waste of my time.

If it isn't too difficult to do, you should get the data.  At the least, it would be interesting to see how they deflect the evidence that it provides.

The only thing I don't have is any kind of proof that any excursion on my part wouldn't be a waste of my time.

Be thorough about the whole thing. Take pictures of the lake surface to guage the height of the waves and swell. Take photos/videos from lots of different altitudes.

I know it'll be a hassle, but it's the only way to convince these people.

I'll float the idea to my family, and see if I can make it happen.

I'm not sure how much help gauging the height of the waves would do though... The height of the waves in Dyno's pics make apparent they're not swells swallowing up the frame, but Tom pounced on him anyway...

Even with the lower images closeness to the ocean I see waves receding back to the horizon in both images, and all other images Dyno shared. With each receding meter the horizon is pushed back, Toms penny argument holds less and less credence. Accounting for just the distances the waves fall back in both images, the swells would have to have great height to conceal that much horizon. 
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #49 on: October 03, 2008, 08:09:12 AM »
Quote
So if Dyno had done his experiment on a lake, or if someone did so in the future, it would be conclusive?

Dyno did his experiment exactly in an environment where Samuel Birley Rowbotham said that a ship could not be restored. If, instead he did it on a lake or canal or other calm body body of water, he would have been able to restore the ship's hull.

Quote
Even with the lower images closeness to the ocean I see waves receding back to the horizon in both images, and all other images Dyno shared. With each receding meter the horizon is pushed back, Toms penny argument holds less and less credence. Accounting for just the distances the waves fall back in both images, the swells would have to have great height to conceal that much horizon.

Nope. The waves don't need to have great height. They just need to be a little higher than the camera's original position, which Dyno admits was very close to the surface of the sea.

Any small area higher than the camera's height can block vast swaths of land where receding bodies can hide behind. For example, if the Statue of Liberty is close to the wave maybe it's only her foot which is obscured. But if she is a great distance from the wave then she is small enough that the entire wave would obscure her entirely. The farther back she gets the more of her can be hidden by the waves and swells in the foreground.

It's a fact that smaller bodies can obscure bigger bodies. When I hold out a penny to obscure an elephant a distance away, the penny is not as big as the elephant. Under no pretense does an obscuring body need to be as large as the body it obscures.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #50 on: October 03, 2008, 09:10:01 AM »
If, instead he did it on a lake or canal or other calm body body of water, he would have been able to restore the ship's hull.

We have yet to see proof of this.

Nope. The waves don't need to have great height. They just need to be a little higher than the camera's original position, which Dyno admits was very close to the surface of the sea.

[...]

It's a fact that smaller bodies can obscure bigger bodies. When I hold out a penny to obscure an elephant a distance away, the penny is not as big as the elephant. Under no pretense does an obscuring body need to be as large as the body it obscures.

No-one's disagreeing. However, your argument is irrelevant because the camera was above the wavetops. We can see in the pictures that the camera is looking down on the waves.

Also, those pictures were taken through a strong zoom lens. A wave close to the camera would be very blurred and out of focus.



As you can see, only the waves at the very bottom of the picture are just starting to come out of focus. The waves that are obscuring the disyant shore are a great distance from the camera.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #51 on: October 03, 2008, 09:36:04 AM »
according to Lady Bount account:
Quote
"...I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

This person was clearly inexperienced in optics, and stated in her alternative theory, light does bend especially over a curvature.  This process can be observed using a prosm.
Quote from: Raist
One thing we have learned is don't fuck around in Africa. It leads to bad.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #52 on: October 03, 2008, 11:00:51 AM »
I am missing something.  How much closer to the island is the second picture?  If I was to just pop up on this post, I would think that the zoom lens restored the island.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #53 on: October 03, 2008, 04:04:37 PM »
I am missing something.  How much closer to the island is the second picture?  If I was to just pop up on this post, I would think that the zoom lens restored the island.

In the second picture the photographer simply climbed to a higher elevation. He did not move closer or further away, and usd the same zoom lens for both pictures.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #54 on: October 03, 2008, 04:12:32 PM »
I also read some where that a 6 foot person would be able to see a 6 foot person stand 6 miles away (using binoculars to realigh the light) But the individuals would disappear after that. If the earth is not round, why wouldn't i beable to see them?

Light bends upwards as it travels.

Ermm, that is a discussion best left to other threads, Rowbotham's perspective is the issue I was hoping to cover here.  :-\
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 #55 on: October 03, 2008, 04:22:22 PM »
Quote
So if Dyno had done his experiment on a lake, or if someone did so in the future, it would be conclusive?

Dyno did his experiment exactly in an environment where Samuel Birley Rowbotham said that a ship could not be restored. If, instead he did it on a lake or canal or other calm body body of water, he would have been able to restore the ship's hull.

Calm water was needed. Dyno can testify to the violence or lack thereof of the water, since waves become more and more pronounced as they approach land.

Quote
Quote
Even with the lower images closeness to the ocean I see waves receding back to the horizon in both images, and all other images Dyno shared. With each receding meter the horizon is pushed back, Toms penny argument holds less and less credence. Accounting for just the distances the waves fall back in both images, the swells would have to have great height to conceal that much horizon.

Nope. The waves don't need to have great height. They just need to be a little higher than the camera's original position, which Dyno admits was very close to the surface of the sea.
Higher than the camera at sea would mean higher than the camera when reaching land.

Quote
It's a fact that smaller bodies can obscure bigger bodies. When I hold out a penny to obscure an elephant a distance away, the penny is not as big as the elephant. Under no pretense does an obscuring body need to be as large as the body it obscures.

But it must fall above the minimum line of obstruction. That line is from the eye of the observer to the point of the ship you are trying to see. This would typically be the point right above the surface of the water. As a wave is closer it would have to be increasingly higher for it to obstruct the view. Granted, dyno was slightly lower, but nonetheless this rule still applies.
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.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #56 on: October 03, 2008, 04:31:12 PM »
singularity that picture makes no sense. prove it works.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
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 #58 on: October 03, 2008, 05:29:54 PM »
singularity that picture makes no sense. prove it works.

I agree with Singularity.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #59 on: October 03, 2008, 08:03:57 PM »
Ermm, that is a discussion best left to other threads, Rowbotham's perspective is the issue I was hoping to cover here.  :-\

Fine by me. I think both hypotheses have their merits.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.