Rowbotham's Sinking Effect

  • 96 Replies
  • 18228 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #60 on: October 03, 2008, 08:12:20 PM »
Quote
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.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us that the hull is not possible to bring back with a telescope on the seal. Dyno did his experiment on the sea, so Dyno is showing us EXACTLY WHAT SAMUEL BIRLEY ROWBOTHAM TOLD US WE'D SEE.

Quote
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.

Dyno placed his camera right near sea level. Any wave higher than the height of the camera, in even the slightest, will create an area upon which bodies in the background can hide behind.

The wave does not need to be as large as the body it is hiding. A penny does not need to be as large as an elephant to hide it. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #61 on: October 03, 2008, 11:51:23 PM »
Dyno placed his camera right near sea level. Any wave higher than the height of the camera, in even the slightest, will create an area upon which bodies in the background can hide behind.


and yet, when you take pictures from a height of 23 meters (76 feet), the legs of this platform, which are painted red, are not visible.  That seems to support Dyno's pictures and the original post.




At least you aren't trying to argue that it is waves obscuring the legs.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #62 on: October 04, 2008, 05:45:37 AM »
Quote
Are of which are long since dead.

Charles Darwin is also dead. Should we throw his work out the window too?
Couldn't hurt.

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #63 on: October 04, 2008, 06:08:56 AM »
Hmmm.

Glassy days on the ocean are few are far between here. Perth is one of the windiest places in the world.

I may have more luck on the Swan River during summer in a few months.

I can take some more images then. Maybe sooner. It's actually only about 5minutes from my house.

Are FEs suggesting that with a glassy surface, there should be no shoreline hidden from view?

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #64 on: October 04, 2008, 06:12:57 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.

Well these pictures about settle it. Earth is round. Bishop takes queen, check and mate.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #65 on: October 04, 2008, 06:21:57 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.


Evidence?

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #66 on: October 04, 2008, 06:32:41 AM »
Samuel Birley Rowbotham tells us that the hull is not possible to bring back with a telescope on the seal. Dyno did his experiment on the sea, so Dyno is showing us EXACTLY WHAT SAMUEL BIRLEY ROWBOTHAM TOLD US WE'D SEE.

Yes. We also saw EXACTLY WHAT R.E.T. PREDICTED WE WOULD. What's your point?

Dyno placed his camera right near sea level. Any wave higher than the height of the camera, in even the slightest, will create an area upon which bodies in the background can hide behind.

The wave does not need to be as large as the body it is hiding. A penny does not need to be as large as an elephant to hide it. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.

Dyno's camera was above the waves. It was near sea level, but still high enough to be above the waves. Proof: waves in the foreground do not obscure waves in the background. In this image the camera is clearly looking down on the waves.



This means that waves couldn't have obscured the base of the lighthouse. You explanation is wrong.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #67 on: October 04, 2008, 06:33:05 AM »
Quote
and yet, when you take pictures from a height of 23 meters (76 feet), the legs of this platform, which are painted red, are not visible.  That seems to support Dyno's pictures and the original post.

Take a picture of the body with a telescope next time as outlined in the Flat Earth Literature. The structure is lost to perspective.

Quote
Well these pictures about settle it. Earth is round. Bishop takes queen, check and mate.

Nope. One is taken right along the surface of the ocean. The other is taken on a hill.

Quote
Evidence?

I've already linked you guys to the observations where bodies have been restored on lakes about a dozen times already. Do I really need to do it again?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #68 on: October 04, 2008, 06:34:59 AM »
Quote
Dyno's camera was above the waves. It was near sea level, but still high enough to be above the waves.

No it wasn't. In his images his camera is right along the surface of the sea.

Quote
Proof: waves in the foreground do not obscure waves in the background. In this image the camera is clearly looking down on the waves.

You can't tell how far away those waves are, or how big the waves in the foreground are.

Quote
This means that waves couldn't have obscured the base of the lighthouse. You explanation is wrong.

Nope. The camera is right at sea level AS ADMITTED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #69 on: October 04, 2008, 06:37:28 AM »
Are FEs suggesting that with a glassy surface, there should be no shoreline hidden from view?

That is indeed what they are suggesting.

Some refinements to consider...

A series of pictures as you move up the hill all of the same object.  The lighthouse on the far shore seems ideal.

Have someone you know with a boat move directly toward and away from you while shooting images from both vantage points.

Waiting for a windless day could be tough, but hey, they say that will be definitive (for now ;) ).

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #70 on: October 04, 2008, 06:39:11 AM »
Quote
and yet, when you take pictures from a height of 23 meters (76 feet), the legs of this platform, which are painted red, are not visible.  That seems to support Dyno's pictures and the original post.

Take a picture of the body with a telescope next time as outlined in the Flat Earth Literature. The structure is lost to perspective.

Quote
Well these pictures about settle it. Earth is round. Bishop takes queen, check and mate.

Nope. One is taken right along the surface of the ocean. The other is taken on a hill.

Quote
Evidence?

I've already linked you guys to the observations where bodies have been restored on lakes about a dozen times already. Do I really need to do it again?
1. And guess what? The objects were still obscured from view.
2. Yes

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #71 on: October 04, 2008, 06:40:55 AM »
Quote
Dyno's camera was above the waves. It was near sea level, but still high enough to be above the waves.

No it wasn't. In his images his camera is right along the surface of the sea.

Quote
Proof: waves in the foreground do not obscure waves in the background. In this image the camera is clearly looking down on the waves.

You can't tell how far away those waves are, or how big the waves in the foreground are.

Quote
This means that waves couldn't have obscured the base of the lighthouse. You explanation is wrong.

Nope. The camera is right at sea level AS ADMITTED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

The camera was as close to sea level as I could get it. I clearly stated the minimum elevation was about 1m. The telescope was mounted on a tripod after all and the sand I was on was somewhat higher than the water.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #72 on: October 04, 2008, 06:44:25 AM »
Quote
Dyno's camera was above the waves. It was near sea level, but still high enough to be above the waves.
No it wasn't. In his images his camera is right along the surface of the sea.

You're starting to look foolish. Not only can you see above the wave in the pictures, the photos of the experimental setup show that the camera is far above the sea.




The camera is over a metre above seas level, and the sea itself is very calm. The waves are definitely not above the camera height. Please stop this ridiculous line of argument.

Quote
Proof: waves in the foreground do not obscure waves in the background. In this image the camera is clearly looking down on the waves.

You can't tell how far away those waves are, or how big the waves in the foreground are.

If the waves were above camera heigt, ALL that could be seen would be ONE wave breaking on the shore. In the photos, many wave tops can be seen.

Quote
This means that waves couldn't have obscured the base of the lighthouse. You explanation is wrong.

Nope. The camera is right at sea level AS ADMITTED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER.

Where? I saw this:

Ground height ~ 1.5 metres including the beach and scope.

The photographer is not saying the camera was at sea level. The photographer was saying the camera was 1.5m (5ft) above sea level. It was a calm day, so waves were below camera height.

If you're going to start making stuff up, I won't continue to debate with you.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #73 on: October 04, 2008, 06:47:00 AM »
Quote
The camera was as close to sea level as I could get it. I clearly stated the minimum elevation was about 1m. The telescope was mounted on a tripod after all and the sand I was on was somewhat higher than the water.

Waves and swells on the open ocean regularly get higher than 1m. The fact that the camera was so close to the ocean's surface leaves it open to capturing waves higher than it which bodies can shrink behind.

Quote
The camera is over a metre above seas level, and the sea itself is very calm. The waves are definitely not above the camera height. Please stop this ridiculous line of argument.

Really? How do you know how high those waves, swells, and tides are?

Quote
The photographer is not saying the camera was at sea level. The photographer was saying the camera was 1.5m (5ft) above sea level. It was a calm day, so waves were below camera height.

If you're going to start making stuff up, I won't continue to debate with you.

1.5m is RIGHT ALONG THE SURFACE OF THE SEA and is BELOW THE HEIGHT OF TIDES, SWELLS, AND LARGE WAVES.

The photographer has put his camera right near the surface of the sea and has captured waves and swells higher than it which obscures background bodies.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2008, 06:49:46 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

dyno

  • 562
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #74 on: October 04, 2008, 06:48:50 AM »
Quote
The camera was as close to sea level as I could get it. I clearly stated the minimum elevation was about 1m. The telescope was mounted on a tripod after all and the sand I was on was somewhat higher than the water.

Waves and swells on the open ocean regularly get higher than 1m. The fact that the camera was so close to the ocean's surface leaves it open to capturing waves higher than it which bodies can shrink behind.

Quote
The camera is over a metre above seas level, and the sea itself is very calm. The waves are definitely not above the camera height. Please stop this ridiculous line of argument.

Really? How do you know how high those waves, swells, and tides are?

So why wasn't  the bouy hidden?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #75 on: October 04, 2008, 06:52:46 AM »
Quote
So why wasn't  the bouy hidden?

The buoy was close to the observer and not behind any significant bulges upon the ocean's surface at the time. But if it was I'm sure you guys would be mumbling about the curvature of the earth.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #76 on: October 04, 2008, 06:57:01 AM »
Quote
The camera was as close to sea level as I could get it. I clearly stated the minimum elevation was about 1m. The telescope was mounted on a tripod after all and the sand I was on was somewhat higher than the water.

Waves and swells on the open ocean regularly get higher than 1m. The fact that the camera was so close to the ocean's surface leaves it open to capturing waves higher than it which bodies can shrink behind.

The camera was 1.5m above sea level. This means that waves and swells of "just" 1.5m would have no effect. They would have to be more like 2m.

Quote
The camera is over a metre above seas level, and the sea itself is very calm. The waves are definitely not above the camera height. Please stop this ridiculous line of argument.

Really? How do you know how high those waves, swells, and tides are?

1-2m waves mean the sea is very rough and choppy indeed. The sea looks calm in the pictures.
Secondly, I've never seen swells 2m high out to sea. Remember, waves and swells are much smaller far out to sea than they are close to shore.

Tides do not produce localised "hills" of water. They raise the sea level of the whole area.

Quote
The photographer is not saying the camera was at sea level. The photographer was saying the camera was 1.5m (5ft) above sea level. It was a calm day, so waves were below camera height.

If you're going to start making stuff up, I won't continue to debate with you.

1.5m is RIGHT ALONG THE SURFACE OF THE SEA and is BELOW THE HEIGHT OF TIDES, SWELLS, AND LARGE WAVES.

The photographer has put his camera right near the surface of the sea and has captured waves and swells higher than it which obscures background bodies.

1.5m is not "right along the surface of the sea". 0m is. 1.5m is not. Important difference.

1.5m is higher than the waves and swells. You can see this in the photos, and you can see it by common sense.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #77 on: October 04, 2008, 06:58:01 AM »
The buoy was close to the observer and not behind any significant bulges upon the ocean's surface at the time.

But if it was waves obscuring a much larger object behind the buoy, then the waves would have to have been higher than the buoy.


Quote
But if it was I'm sure you guys would be mumbling about the curvature of the earth.

We are already saying the blocking of the line of sight is due to the curvature of the Earth, you are the one that keeps saying it isn't.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #78 on: October 04, 2008, 08:14:11 AM »
Quote
The camera was as close to sea level as I could get it. I clearly stated the minimum elevation was about 1m. The telescope was mounted on a tripod after all and the sand I was on was somewhat higher than the water.

Waves and swells on the open ocean regularly get higher than 1m. The fact that the camera was so close to the ocean's surface leaves it open to capturing waves higher than it which bodies can shrink behind.

Yes they can get higher than 1 meter, but they are not in these pictures. As I have said before, and I will say again, waves become increasingly more pronounced as the wash into shore. The shore is nearly dead calm. To illustrate my point, lets consider the most powerful of waves: Tsunamis.

Quote from: Wikipedia
While everyday wind waves have a wavelength (from crest to crest) of about 100 m (300 ft) and a height of roughly 2 m (7 ft), a tsunami in the deep ocean has a wavelength of about 200 km (120 miles). This wave travels at well over 800 km/h (500 mph), but due to the enormous wavelength the wave oscillation at any given point takes 20 or 30 minutes to complete a cycle and has an amplitude of only about 1 m (3 ft). This makes tsunamis difficult to detect over deep water. Their passage usually goes unnoticed by ships.

As the tsunami approaches the coast and the waters become shallow, the wave is compressed due to wave shoaling and its forward travel slows below 80 km/h (50 mph). Its wavelength diminishes to less than 20 km (12 miles) and its amplitude grows enormously, producing a distinctly visible wave. Since the wave still has a wavelength on the order of several km (a few miles), the tsunami may take minutes to ramp up to full height, with victims seeing a massive deluge of rising ocean rather than a cataclysmic wall of water. Open bays and coastlines adjacent to very deep water may shape the tsunami further into a step-like wave with a steep breaking front.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_shoaling
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 #79 on: October 04, 2008, 08:18:35 AM »
Do you have a video of the sinking ship effect? If not, then shove off. You don't know whether the ship shrinks proportionally or appears to sink.

A-HA. You're now asking for a video.  There's seems to be pattern to all this.  The bits of ships do not suddenly "enter the vanishing point".  A "vanishing point" is just a drawing aid for artists.  More importantly, "bits" of the ship do no disappear due to perspective.


Tom, Rotherham's perceptive geometry is wrong, and you are unable to show us a single shred of modern evidence which suggests it is.

Quoted for Truth and Relevance. This is off the last thread.
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.

*

AmateurAstronomer

  • 234
  • Rouge Scholar
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #80 on: October 05, 2008, 05:43:29 AM »
Quote
The camera was as close to sea level as I could get it. I clearly stated the minimum elevation was about 1m. The telescope was mounted on a tripod after all and the sand I was on was somewhat higher than the water.

Waves and swells on the open ocean regularly get higher than 1m. The fact that the camera was so close to the ocean's surface leaves it open to capturing waves higher than it which bodies can shrink behind.

Quote
The camera is over a metre above seas level, and the sea itself is very calm. The waves are definitely not above the camera height. Please stop this ridiculous line of argument.

Really? How do you know how high those waves, swells, and tides are?

Quote
The photographer is not saying the camera was at sea level. The photographer was saying the camera was 1.5m (5ft) above sea level. It was a calm day, so waves were below camera height.

If you're going to start making stuff up, I won't continue to debate with you.

1.5m is RIGHT ALONG THE SURFACE OF THE SEA and is BELOW THE HEIGHT OF TIDES, SWELLS, AND LARGE WAVES.

The photographer has put his camera right near the surface of the sea and has captured waves and swells higher than it which obscures background bodies.



If you were to view a straight line across an FE bay at a height of 1.5 meters, and had swells 1 meter high obstructing your view, you would see most of the far shore, regardless of the distance. If you were to view a straight line across an FE bay at a height of 1.5 meters, and had swells 1.5 meters high obstructing your view, those swells would only be able to obstruct 1.5 meters of the other side, regardless of the distance..



A point I've been trying to make here is that the further away from the camera the subject is, the higher the obstruction must be... That is my counter to Tom's penny argument. He don't seem to get it though...


It doesn't take much on the front end, true, but it's not hard to estimate the mean variance. Tom says "The waves can be higher than a meter." What is the highest height Tom thinks a calm ocean can crest to? 2 meters? More? Whatever height Tom says, we can always add some height to our before pics, and be beyond that influence. You get what I'm saying Dyno? Add a 3 meter pic when you go next time.

I want to attempt a lake experiment similar to what Dyno did, but I'm a bit lacking on the parts I need. The camcorder I wanted to use has been sold, and the only other camcorder I have access to only has 10x optical zoom. I'm not sure that would be sufficient. I'll see if I can't find a better camera, but in the meantime  I've been thinking about this a bit more... I'm guessing that even lake images would still get cries of "waves" and "swell".

I have a new idea for both ocean and lake experiments that may get around all the wave and swell arguments. Wait till it freezes. A test on an early winter lake would be conclusive, would it not? Mid and late winter would show buckles and swells, but early winter ice is the flattest plane that could be utilized, right?


« Last Edit: October 05, 2008, 07:30:08 AM by AmateurAstronomer »
Reality becomes apparent to the patient observer. Or you can learn a thing or two if you're in a hurry.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #81 on: October 05, 2008, 04:54:05 PM »
Its been a while since Tom posted. I guess he realized he can't win.  :-\
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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39118
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #82 on: October 05, 2008, 07:25:45 PM »
Nah.  His AI is probably down for maintenance.  That and he seems to have some odd hours on line any ways, especially on the weekends.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #83 on: October 05, 2008, 11:33:54 PM »
he is trying to figure out how to build the "ship pushing fish" into his world view. ;)

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #84 on: October 06, 2008, 11:17:42 AM »
How would a wave, a few feet above the sea, obscure the sun, which is according to FE 3000 miles above sea level.  Even with perspective, how far behind the wave would the sun have to be in order to be obscured by lets say a 10 foot wave?

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #85 on: October 06, 2008, 11:22:59 AM »
How would a wave, a few feet above the sea, obscure the sun, which is according to FE 3000 miles above sea level.  Even with perspective, how far behind the wave would the sun have to be in order to be obscured by lets say a 10 foot wave?

A good point. It seems that according to Tom's FET the sun will never set as long as you satnd more than 10 feet above the water.

From personal experience I know that waves will need to be regularly more than about 100 feet high if this is the case.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #86 on: October 06, 2008, 11:31:51 AM »
We have the formulas right?  I am not good at this sort of thing, there are a lot of math cone heads on this site.  Would one of you like to calculate this for us?  The question is this.  If a 10 foot wave is viewed at the horizon by somebody on the beach, how far behind the wave would the sun have to be if it was to be obscured by this wave?  Assuming the Sun is 3000 miles above sea level.  I think that would reveal an interesting answer.  Any takers?

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #87 on: October 06, 2008, 11:38:03 AM »
We have the formulas right?  I am not good at this sort of thing, there are a lot of math cone heads on this site.  Would one of you like to calculate this for us?  The question is this.  If a 10 foot wave is viewed at the horizon by somebody on the beach, how far behind the wave would the sun have to be if it was to be obscured by this wave?  Assuming the Sun is 3000 miles above sea level.  I think that would reveal an interesting answer.  Any takers?

Firstly, it's a moot point. For someone whose eye-level was above 10 feet, the sun would never set.

Secondly, your question is ill-defined. You say the wave is at the horizon, but how far away id that? Remember, in FET the horizon isn't very well defined.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #88 on: October 06, 2008, 11:43:41 AM »
Not sure where the horizon is even matters, lets say the wave is 15 miles out, and the person viewing from the beach is veiwing from exactly 6 ft above sea level.

As for the first part, obviously not true, the sun sets no matter what altitude you are standing on earth.  I presume you are not the one suggesting that.

Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #89 on: October 06, 2008, 12:09:47 PM »
Not sure where the horizon is even matters, lets say the wave is 15 miles out, and the person viewing from the beach is veiwing from exactly 6 ft above sea level.

The vertical difference between the top of the wave and the man's eyes is a bit more than 4 feet, we'll call it 1.25m, the horizontal difference is about 25 km.

The sun is h = 4800 km up.

By similar triangles:

25000 / 1.25 = x / h
=> x = 2E4*h = 60,000,000 miles

You can substitute your own value for h if you want, some say its 3,100 miles. It should be noted that 60,000,000 miles would mean the sun would be way, way beyond the extent of the (flat) Earth.
Like I say, there's nothing special about these numbers, if the person was 5 feet higher the sun would never set, no matter how far away it went.

As for the first part, obviously not true, the sun sets no matter what altitude you are standing on earth.  I presume you are not the one suggesting that.

I mean that this would be the case if TB's theory was correct. Clearly it's not the case in real life.

Basically, Tom's theory can't explain sunsets.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2008, 03:46:17 PM by ghazwozza »