# Rowbotham's Sinking Effect

• 96 Replies
• 18225 Views

#### Marcus Aurelius

• 4546
• My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
##### Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #90 on: October 06, 2008, 03:42:23 PM »
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 = 20*h = 60,000 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 miles would mean the sun would be way beyond the extent of the (flat) Earth.

Very interesting.

Quote
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.

I realize that, but the numbers that you have given are just more evidence to pile against that theory.  Thanks.

?

#### ghazwozza

• 942
##### Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #91 on: October 06, 2008, 03:45:49 PM »
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 = 20*h = 60,000 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 miles would mean the sun would be way beyond the extent of the (flat) Earth.

Very interesting.

Dammit! Very sorry, I missed a factor of 1000 in my calculations. I've revised the figures, they're even more ridiculous now!

#### Marcus Aurelius

• 4546
• My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
##### Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #92 on: October 06, 2008, 03:52:32 PM »
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?

If your going to do that experiment, could you also set up something similar to the experiment I outlined below?  I am not near any body of water large enough, nor do I have the equipment to document the results.

Quote
As for this vanishing point theory (objects Vanish when they get too far away).  Take this scenario, a person, lets call him Bob, is standing on a beach watching a ship sail towards the horizon.  Behind Bob is a raised tower or platform, where Tim is standing and watching the same ship sail towards the horizon.

Bob is closer to the ship, but Tim is at a higher altitude.  Why is it that when Bob looses sight of the ship over the horizon, or vanishing point, Tim will still be able to see it.  Assuming that both people have 20/20 vision and are using no visual magnifiers.  The Tower where Tim is standing is 10 feet behind Bob, the tower is 25 feet tall.  Also, assume that the beach where both Bob and the tower are standing is exactly 1 ft above sea level.  Both Bob and Tim are 6 ft tall.

Take the same situation with Bob and Tim, only instead of them watching a ship sail towards the horizon, they are simply watching the sunset.  When Bob sees the sunset disappear below the horizon, Tim, who is further away from the horizon, will still be able to see the sun for quite some time before it finally sinks below the horizon from his perspective.

Please do not give me the "Atmospheric Density" argument for your reply.  Tim is 25 feet higher than Bob, and his view of the sun would last a long time after Bob lost his view, 25 feet would not make a noticeable difference.

how does this support the vanishing point theory?

#### Marcus Aurelius

• 4546
• My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
##### Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #93 on: October 06, 2008, 03:55:13 PM »
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 = 20*h = 60,000 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 miles would mean the sun would be way beyond the extent of the (flat) Earth.

Very interesting.

Dammit! Very sorry, I missed a factor of 1000 in my calculations. I've revised the figures, they're even more ridiculous now!

Holy Crap!  60 million miles?  That sun must be traveling pretty fast huh .  Question, what does 2E4 mean?

#### Marcus Aurelius

• 4546
• My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
##### Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #94 on: October 06, 2008, 03:59:12 PM »
Doh! Never mind the question.  Brain fart, its been 8 years since Ive done any real math.

#### Marcus Aurelius

• 4546
• My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
##### Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #95 on: October 07, 2008, 06:25:14 AM »
^bump

Really?  Nobody wants to keep this one going?  Shall we call it a victory for RE then?

#### ﮎingulaЯiτy

• Arbitrator
• Planar Moderator
• 9074
• Resident atheist.
##### Re: Rowbotham's Sinking Effect
« Reply #96 on: October 08, 2008, 05:49:51 AM »
Still at least they managed to drag it out to 5 pages.
A long duration isn't even a small success, if you are having the shit kicked out of you.
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.