Rowbotham's Sinking Effect

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.

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"?

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.

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?

what? no it doesn't.
Light travels in straight lines. It requires a force to make it bend? Why would it bend?

Light bends upwards as it travels.

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 02, 2008, 09:27:46 PM

Light bends upwards as it travels.

Evidence from a controlled experiment that demonstrates this please?

Quote from: Rig Navigator on October 02, 2008, 11:47:28 PM

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 02, 2008, 09:27:46 PM

Light bends upwards as it travels.

Evidence from a controlled experiment that demonstrates this please?

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

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

Quote from: Daybreak on October 02, 2008, 09:26:58 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.

Quote from: Osama  bin Laden on October 02, 2008, 09:27:46 PM

Quote from: Daybreak on October 02, 2008, 09:26:58 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.

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.

This seems to be further evidence that light bends upwards. Thanks dyno.

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.

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.

Quote from: AmateurAstronomer on October 03, 2008, 03:27:27 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.

Quote from: AmateurAstronomer on October 03, 2008, 03:27:27 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

"...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."

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.

Quote from: Daybreak on October 02, 2008, 09:26:58 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.

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.

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.

singularity that picture makes no sense. prove it works.

singularity that picture makes no sense. prove it works.

Ermm, that is a discussion best left to other threads, Rowbotham's perspective is the issue I was hoping to cover here.