An interesting question about Samuel Birley Rowbotham?

His pseudonym is Parallax.

Does he understand what parallax mean and that if we use the parallax method to determine distance (which we already do) of stars then he himself is a contradicting his theory about the stars, sun, and moon being approximately 3,100 miles away.

I think FET'ers have totally mistaken the work of a brilliant man. I think in the sense that we readily agree with what science teaches us without question, Rowbotham's FET was a metaphorically fiction book based on certain scientific facts designed to get us to think outside of the box. To not readily accept what is spoonfed to us in modern day society. That other possibilities exist. An alternative thought to the norm. Which is perfectly acceptable. 

This is my theory of course. I have a new found respect for FET'ers in the sense that they do not accept everything and they question everything that is told to them. Albeit a little crazy with the conspiracy, I think other more substantial theories could replace the conspiracy theory. With a little bit more reasoning, mathematics, and logic there is a chance for FET'ers to have a more core to their theory.

Does he understand what parallax mean and that if we use the parallax method to determine distance (which we already do) of stars then he himself is a contradicting his theory about the stars, sun, and moon being approximately 3,100 miles away.

Astronomical parallax relies on the shape of the earth. Rowbotham used astronomical parallax under the assumption of a flat earth to triangulate the sun and stars to be very close to the surface of the earth.

Under the assumption of a globular earth, the sun and stars are triangulated to be millions of miles away.

Astronomical parallax relies on the shape of the earth. Rowbotham used astronomical parallax under the assumption of a flat earth to triangulate the sun and stars to be very close to the surface of the earth.

No it does not. Tom do you just come up with these answers?

Distance measurement by parallax is a special case of the principle of triangulation, which states that one can solve for all the sides and angles in a network of triangles if, in addition to all the angles in the network, the length of at least one side has been measured. Thus, the careful measurement of the length of one baseline can fix the scale of an entire triangulation network. In parallax, the triangle is extremely long and narrow, and by measuring both its shortest side (the motion of the observer) and the small top angle (always less than 1 arcsecond,[3] leaving the other two close to 90 degrees), the length of the long sides (in practice considered to be equal) can be determined.

Assuming the angle is small (see derivation below), the distance to an object (measured in parsecs) is the reciprocal of the parallax (measured in arcseconds): d(pc) = 1 / p(arcsec). For example, the distance to Proxima Centauri is 1/0.772=1.29 parsecs (4.2 ly).

It's the triangulation. It works on a FET just as it works on an RET model. The base that is measured is extremly small which makes the triangles long and narrow.

Your rebuttal sir?

Christine Garwood seems to think that Rowbotham was in it for the lulz. The fact that this tradition of trolling for attention continues today is testament to the power of Rowbotham's idiotic ideas.

Garwood is the author of the new book explaining FET ideology and history of it correct?

No it does not. Tom do you just come up with these answers?

Distance measurement by parallax is a special case of the principle of triangulation, which states that one can solve for all the sides and angles in a network of triangles if, in addition to all the angles in the network, the length of at least one side has been measured. Thus, the careful measurement of the length of one baseline can fix the scale of an entire triangulation network. In parallax, the triangle is extremely long and narrow, and by measuring both its shortest side (the motion of the observer) and the small top angle (always less than 1 arcsecond,[3] leaving the other two close to 90 degrees), the length of the long sides (in practice considered to be equal) can be determined.

Assuming the angle is small (see derivation below), the distance to an object (measured in parsecs) is the reciprocal of the parallax (measured in arcseconds): d(pc) = 1 / p(arcsec). For example, the distance to Proxima Centauri is 1/0.772=1.29 parsecs (4.2 ly).

It's the triangulation. It works on a FET just as it works on an RET model. The base that is measured is extremly small which makes the triangles long and narrow.

Your rebuttal sir?

Nope. The legs of the triangles on an RE wouldn't be on a level surface. Read more.

Quote

No it does not. Tom do you just come up with these answers?

Distance measurement by parallax is a special case of the principle of triangulation, which states that one can solve for all the sides and angles in a network of triangles if, in addition to all the angles in the network, the length of at least one side has been measured. Thus, the careful measurement of the length of one baseline can fix the scale of an entire triangulation network. In parallax, the triangle is extremely long and narrow, and by measuring both its shortest side (the motion of the observer) and the small top angle (always less than 1 arcsecond,[3] leaving the other two close to 90 degrees), the length of the long sides (in practice considered to be equal) can be determined.

Assuming the angle is small (see derivation below), the distance to an object (measured in parsecs) is the reciprocal of the parallax (measured in arcseconds): d(pc) = 1 / p(arcsec). For example, the distance to Proxima Centauri is 1/0.772=1.29 parsecs (4.2 ly).

It's the triangulation. It works on a FET just as it works on an RET model. The base that is measured is extremly small which makes the triangles long and narrow.

Your rebuttal sir?

Nope. The legs of the triangles on an RE wouldn't be on a level surface. Read more.

You'd be dealing with Riemannian geometry. However, in cases of small distances (less than a thousand miles on the round earth), the curvature would not be noticeably far off. You also claimed on the .net that the angles of a triangle vary with scale, which suggests that you did not pass the high school geometry level.

Nope. The legs of the triangles on an RE wouldn't be on a level surface. Read more.

Tom, in order for parallax to work, you have to have a perfectly level/straight base. Which means the involvement of the curvature of the earth will cause the base not to be level or straight. Which means, if you were a RET, you have to rule out the curvature (which is minimal since we're not talking a long base). In essence, adopting FET of a flat earth would be better here. And you'd still get a distance longer than 3,100 miles.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2008, 03:16:09 PM

Nope. The legs of the triangles on an RE wouldn't be on a level surface. Read more.

Tom, in order for parallax to work, you have to have a perfectly level/straight base. Which means the involvement of the curvature of the earth will cause the base not to be level or straight. Which means, if you were a RET, you have to rule out the curvature (which is minimal since we're not talking a long base). In essence, adopting FET of a flat earth would be better here. And you'd still get a distance longer than 3,100 miles.

You can have a base level enough on a round earth, since the base should be small for parallaxes to work. You would not be almost a hundred million miles off from curvature.

Quote

Does he understand what parallax mean and that if we use the parallax method to determine distance (which we already do) of stars then he himself is a contradicting his theory about the stars, sun, and moon being approximately 3,100 miles away.

Astronomical parallax relies on the shape of the earth. Rowbotham used astronomical parallax under the assumption of a flat earth to triangulate the sun and stars to be very close to the surface of the earth.

Do you have any data to back up your claims?

Quote

No it does not. Tom do you just come up with these answers?

Distance measurement by parallax is a special case of the principle of triangulation, which states that one can solve for all the sides and angles in a network of triangles if, in addition to all the angles in the network, the length of at least one side has been measured. Thus, the careful measurement of the length of one baseline can fix the scale of an entire triangulation network. In parallax, the triangle is extremely long and narrow, and by measuring both its shortest side (the motion of the observer) and the small top angle (always less than 1 arcsecond,[3] leaving the other two close to 90 degrees), the length of the long sides (in practice considered to be equal) can be determined.

Assuming the angle is small (see derivation below), the distance to an object (measured in parsecs) is the reciprocal of the parallax (measured in arcseconds): d(pc) = 1 / p(arcsec). For example, the distance to Proxima Centauri is 1/0.772=1.29 parsecs (4.2 ly).

It's the triangulation. It works on a FET just as it works on an RET model. The base that is measured is extremly small which makes the triangles long and narrow.

Your rebuttal sir?

Nope. The legs of the triangles on an RE wouldn't be on a level surface. Read more.

An interesting thing about stellar parallax on an FE - the farther apart the legs of the triangle, the closer the object will be.  However, if you move the legs of the triangle closer, then that exact same object will be farther away.  An interesting paradox that FET has yet to resolve.

Quote

Does he understand what parallax mean and that if we use the parallax method to determine distance (which we already do) of stars then he himself is a contradicting his theory about the stars, sun, and moon being approximately 3,100 miles away.

Astronomical parallax relies on the shape of the earth. Rowbotham used astronomical parallax under the assumption of a flat earth to triangulate the sun and stars to be very close to the surface of the earth.

Under the assumption of a globular earth, the sun and stars are triangulated to be millions of miles away.

Tom, if you are correct in your assumptions about parallax (and you are not), then Robotham would have had to violate his own methodology. As Robotham is a Zetetic, and the Zetetic Method requires you not to have initial assumptions, then he has violated his own methodology by having the assumption that they Earth was flat to begin with.

There is a word that describes someone who claims to be one way, but when it is inconvenient for them they violate that claim, it is called  Hypocrite.

We can correct this, by assuming both a flat Earth and a Round Earth and making the calculations for both. The one that best fits reality (checked by other methods) is the one that we should accept. This is Zetetic method as well as scientific method. And if You (and Rowbotham) are Zetetics then you should accept the results produced from the Zetetic Method.

Well, one way we can resolve this is to check if the Earth is Flat be a method that would absolutely distinguish between them. As both Flat Earth and Round Earth both say that looking out a window will show you something that looks flat, this method can not distinguish between them.

However, Geodesics would allow us to distinguish between a Flat Earth and a Round Earth. And, furthermore, as Zetetic Philosophy states that you ahve to look at all the evidence, then this must also be considered by Zetetics.

Measurements of geodesics for the surface of the Earth mathematically require it to be round. So no longer is it an assumption that the Earth's surface be round, but it is a mathematical imperative. To prove this wrong you have to prove the measurements wrong (do the measurement yourself), or prove that Geometry is wrong (as Geometry is a logical extension of Mathematics which is itself a branch of logic, Geometry can be shown to be logically self consistent and that it matches with reality).

This is the big one. No FEer has explained why the geodesics measured for the Earth's surface state, mathematically, that it is Round. Why would this be so if the Earth is really Flat?

The differences between the assumption of a Flat Earth and a Round Earth on the base line for the measurement of Parallax is not that great. It is difficult to see how in a linear system (measuring parallax) how such a small variation could lead to such a large difference (a few thousand kilometres for FET as compared to 106,506,900,000,000 km for RET - that is the rough distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star other than the sun under RET).

I would suggest that you provide the data with which Robotham used to derive the distances to the Stars. If the base data matches what is measured then we can verify the data he used to make his calculation. If however, his base data is inaccurate, then we can conclude that the calculations he did got the result he did because he had bad data.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2008, 01:46:25 PM

Quote

Does he understand what parallax mean and that if we use the parallax method to determine distance (which we already do) of stars then he himself is a contradicting his theory about the stars, sun, and moon being approximately 3,100 miles away.

Astronomical parallax relies on the shape of the earth. Rowbotham used astronomical parallax under the assumption of a flat earth to triangulate the sun and stars to be very close to the surface of the earth.

Under the assumption of a globular earth, the sun and stars are triangulated to be millions of miles away.

Tom, if you are correct in your assumptions about parallax (and you are not), then Robotham would have had to violate his own methodology. As Robotham is a Zetetic, and the Zetetic Method requires you not to have initial assumptions, then he has violated his own methodology by having the assumption that they Earth was flat to begin with.

There is a word that describes someone who claims to be one way, but when it is inconvenient for them they violate that claim, it is called  Hypocrite.

If you at least skim through ENAG, then you will see that Rowbotham goes through is "proofs" that the earth is indeed flat before he calculates his distance to the sun.  Therefore, his book does build a foundation for his parallax calculations.  Granted, his foundation is wrong but he does have one.

Quote from: Edtharan on December 04, 2008, 06:56:37 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2008, 01:46:25 PM

Quote

Does he understand what parallax mean and that if we use the parallax method to determine distance (which we already do) of stars then he himself is a contradicting his theory about the stars, sun, and moon being approximately 3,100 miles away.

Astronomical parallax relies on the shape of the earth. Rowbotham used astronomical parallax under the assumption of a flat earth to triangulate the sun and stars to be very close to the surface of the earth.

Under the assumption of a globular earth, the sun and stars are triangulated to be millions of miles away.

Tom, if you are correct in your assumptions about parallax (and you are not), then Robotham would have had to violate his own methodology. As Robotham is a Zetetic, and the Zetetic Method requires you not to have initial assumptions, then he has violated his own methodology by having the assumption that they Earth was flat to begin with.

There is a word that describes someone who claims to be one way, but when it is inconvenient for them they violate that claim, it is called  Hypocrite.

If you at least skim through ENAG, then you will see that Rowbotham goes through is "proofs" that the earth is indeed flat before he calculates his distance to the sun.  Therefore, his book does build a foundation for his parallax calculations.  Granted, his foundation is wrong but he does have one.

Ahh, I hadn't read that far into it yet.

So because we know due to the geodesics that have been measured (and can easily be measured by anyone, so no government or other organisation could cover that up via a conspiracy) the Surface must be round, we can conclude that Robotham had bad data.

If his experimental error is that great for the distance to the stars, it calls into question anything else that he has got through experimentation. At least enough doubt to reject his work and look for other sources of data.

He might have been right with other experimental data, but because of the magnitude of this error we need to recheck all his data before we can accept it as being valid. This is according to his own Zetetic method, as it requires empirical data.

Actually it also means that we can't just rely on one source for the data for RET either, and as we don't have just one source and it has been independently checked (ie amateur astronomers with good, back yard telescopes can do this and thus removes any conspirator manipulations) we can be more confident of RE data than Robotham's (a single person with a motive).

Ahh, I hadn't read that far into it yet.

So because we know due to the geodesics that have been measured (and can easily be measured by anyone, so no government or other organisation could cover that up via a conspiracy) the Surface must be round, we can conclude that Robotham had bad data.

If his experimental error is that great for the distance to the stars, it calls into question anything else that he has got through experimentation. At least enough doubt to reject his work and look for other sources of data.

He might have been right with other experimental data, but because of the magnitude of this error we need to recheck all his data before we can accept it as being valid. This is according to his own Zetetic method, as it requires empirical data.

Actually it also means that we can't just rely on one source for the data for RET either, and as we don't have just one source and it has been independently checked (ie amateur astronomers with good, back yard telescopes can do this and thus removes any conspirator manipulations) we can be more confident of RE data than Robotham's (a single person with a motive).

Edtharan, very well written. My hats off to you. However, according to FETs, there are no credible sources for measurements. The devices we use, perhaps even a ruler(I hope I'm exaggerating), is in question. As silly as it may seem, I have a list of modern day technology that is considered unreliable that no FET has disagreed with yet. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25210.0

The only instruments you may use are the ones approved by Rowbotham himself.

Quote from: Edtharan on December 04, 2008, 07:20:14 AM

Ahh, I hadn't read that far into it yet.

So because we know due to the geodesics that have been measured (and can easily be measured by anyone, so no government or other organisation could cover that up via a conspiracy) the Surface must be round, we can conclude that Robotham had bad data.

If his experimental error is that great for the distance to the stars, it calls into question anything else that he has got through experimentation. At least enough doubt to reject his work and look for other sources of data.

He might have been right with other experimental data, but because of the magnitude of this error we need to recheck all his data before we can accept it as being valid. This is according to his own Zetetic method, as it requires empirical data.

Actually it also means that we can't just rely on one source for the data for RET either, and as we don't have just one source and it has been independently checked (ie amateur astronomers with good, back yard telescopes can do this and thus removes any conspirator manipulations) we can be more confident of RE data than Robotham's (a single person with a motive).

Edtharan, very well written. My hats off to you. However, according to FETs, there are no credible sources for measurements. The devices we use, perhaps even a ruler(I hope I'm exaggerating), is in question. As silly as it may seem, I have a list of modern day technology that is considered unreliable that no FET has disagreed with yet. http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=25210.0

The only instruments you may use are the ones approved by Rowbotham himself.

Theodolites can't on that list (well sort of - but as Rowbotham used them they should be fine). Actually there is a system of surveying that has been around since Roman times (the Romans knew the Earth was round and their aqueducts relied on this fact as they were long enough to be effected by the curvature of the Earth) and I proposed a method that could be done based on that.

The only tools you need are a horizontal measure (a spirit level, or a plum bob with a right angle horizontal line - as horizontal is at 90 degrees to vertical), a protractor, paper and pencil and a knowledge of geometry (and Rowbotham relied on geometry, this should be allowed).

Using these you can make a crude theodolite, and because they can construct this themselves they can be assured that there has been no tampering. You can even determine altitude (from a base reference point - ie sea level) with this system.

As Rowbotham must have used surveying techniques in his experiments, then those self same techniques must be acceptable by FEers (or they need to dismiss Rowbotham's experiments). However, using the same types of equipment, and the same techniques, you can measure the geodesic for Earth (and have been done since well before Rowbotham) and these indicate a Round and not Flat Earth.

If his experimental error is that great for the distance to the stars, it calls into question anything else that he has got through experimentation. At least enough doubt to reject his work and look for other sources of data.

What makes you think that the error is on Rowbotham's end?

In RE the distance astronomical unit changes on a regular basis.  On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.

Quote

If his experimental error is that great for the distance to the stars, it calls into question anything else that he has got through experimentation. At least enough doubt to reject his work and look for other sources of data.

What makes you think that the error is on Rowbotham's end?

In RE the distance astronomical unit changes on a regular basis.  On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.

Thank you Tom for agreeing with me. Oh, but you didn't think you were? 

Well, it is because the data from one source was found to be incorrect, that science looked to other source to confirm or disprove the results. It is the fact that there were inconsistencies, that the numbers were revised. Because there were  errors, the did not accept the original data that they thought might be bad.

This is exactly what I am proposing we do for Rowbotham's data.

Because there are inconsistencies, we need to look at the data again. If you really did read my post, you will see that I said that we should also do this for RE data as well. Because there are inconsistencies, all the data (even Rowbotham's) must be considered suspect. To consider one set of data more reliable than the other without supplementary data, is to violate both the Scientific Principal and the Zetetic Principal.

Tom, because you persist in violating Zetetic principals, yet claim to be a Zetetic, I am beginning to think that you are a being dishonest (mostly with yourself) and that you really don't follow the Zetetic Principal and are just using it as an excuse to hold your views on Faith alone.

Because there are inconsistencies, we need to look at the data again.

We already did peer review Rowbotham's work. Take a look at one of the sixty-or-so other pieces of Flat Earth Literature published after Earth Not a Globe. References can be found in my signature link.

Quote

Because there are inconsistencies, we need to look at the data again.

We already did peer review Rowbotham's work. Take a look at one of the sixty-or-so other pieces of Flat Earth Literature published after Earth Not a Globe. References can be found in my signature link.

They are all just as bad.

They are all just as bad.

Really? Did you read them? How can you make a judgement call like that without even reading the material?

And you guys call us close minded...

Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 07, 2008, 01:01:53 AM

They are all just as bad.

Really? Did you read them? How can you make a judgement call like that without even reading the material?

And you guys call us close minded...

I read most of it.

Quote

Because there are inconsistencies, we need to look at the data again.

We already did peer review Rowbotham's work. Take a look at one of the sixty-or-so other pieces of Flat Earth Literature published after Earth Not a Globe. References can be found in my signature link.

As you continually violate the principals laid out in Earth Not a Globe, I don't think you are qualified to peer review that work.

You really, really have no idea what "peer review" means do you Tom?

Yep. It means the re-performing and verification of past experiments by an unconnected third party. There's plenty of that in the Flat Earth Literature published after Earth Not a Globe.

What unconnected third-party re-performed and verified NASA's experiments and claims?

Quote from: goldstein on December 07, 2008, 03:32:38 AM

You really, really have no idea what "peer review" means do you Tom?

Yep. It means the re-performing and verification of past experiments by an unconnected third party. There's plenty of that in the Flat Earth Literature published after Earth Not a Globe.

What unconnected third-party re-performed and verified NASA's experiments and claims?

Where have you re-performed Rowbotham's experiments? I have done the telescope restoration experiment numerous times and the result is consistent: a powerful telescope will not restore a anything that is partially occluded by the horizon.

No it means a review performed by peers. Equals. People with the brains, training and lack of bias to assess something with a level of criticality.

Sure sounds like the literature in my link fits the bill then.

You've been given links showing that NASAs work is peer reviewed. Search here or on the internet.

Really? When was NASA peer reviewed by an unconnected third party?

Quote

No it means a review performed by peers. Equals. People with the brains, training and lack of bias to assess something with a level of criticality.

Sure sounds like the literature in my link fits the bill then.

No, that's called fiction.

Quote

No it means a review performed by peers. Equals. People with the brains, training and lack of bias to assess something with a level of criticality.

Sure sounds like the literature in my link fits the bill then.

Tom, please tell me how this book from your link supports Rowbotham's assertion of a flat earth:

http://www.dianacopperwhite.com/catalogues.html

Tom, please tell me how this book from your link supports Rowbotham's assertion of a flat earth:

It's a collection of works.

Quote from: markjo on December 08, 2008, 01:07:08 PM

Tom, please tell me how this book from your link supports Rowbotham's assertion of a flat earth:

It's a collection of works.

Tom Bishop lets his most deceitful vein emerge when quoting the work of others. Of course, Diana Copperwhite is a painter and talks of a flat Earth as a metaphor, and Tom Bishop knows it.

Expressing a belief in a scientific hypothesis is the right of everyone. Telling flat-out lies is not.

Tom Bishop lets his most deceitful vein emerge when quoting the work of others. Of course, Diana Copperwhite is a painter and talks of a flat Earth as a metaphor, and Tom Bishop knows it.

Nope. It's not a collection of paintings. It's a collection of high-res detailed photographs of the horizon taken by Jacqui McIntosh.