Poll

Do you believe Rowbotham proved the earth is flat with his Bedford Level experiment, or do you believe light bends to create the illusion of a horizon?

Rowbotham proved earth is flat. There was no illusion.
5 (26.3%)
Light bends to create the illusion of a horizon.
14 (73.7%)

Total Members Voted: 19

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Down

Rowbotham vs Bendy Light

  • 183 Replies
  • 47911 Views
?

Sentient Pizza

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #30 on: June 30, 2009, 10:01:43 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on June 30, 2009, 08:42:56 AM
No, what I am referring to is a projection of a straight-line ray tangent to the Round Earth onto a Flat Earth. Allow me to illustrate:



Here the black circle is the Round Earth, the red line is a light ray tangent to its surface, the blue arc is a variable distance along the surface, and the green line is the apparent height of the light ray at that distance. If we project this onto the FE model, like so:



The curve produced is a secant curve - that is, it is of the shape obtained by plotting y = sec x, or y = 1 / cos x.
Perfect illustrations! I get what you were saying now. that is the real difference between the FE anf RE Light model in simplest form. For any FE Sun light to work light must behave like the 2nd illustration. Yes I am mixing up Gradiant and Curvature. My intent was to point out that at one mile from the observer there is a specific and predictable visual diference of 7.6-ish inches (Weather it is from bent light or curve of the earth) on the FE or RE. and it seems to me that number is far less than what it would take to make the FE sunlight model work. Again I say "seems like" and I know that is not a good leg to stand on in this kind of debate. I'll do some maths and see if I can work you model and my hunch together. it's possible we are debating to the same end.
Logged
Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?
?

With Honor

  • 57
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #31 on: June 30, 2009, 05:57:25 PM »
Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 08:55:36 AM
Rowbotham proved the world is flat

Wait wait wait. Stop right there.

In doing so, he consequently proved that he was functionally & mentally retarded. Meanwhile the world remained spherical. . .

Where is this going?
Logged
*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12960
  • +0/-0
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2009, 05:58:53 PM »
Quote from: With Honor on June 30, 2009, 05:57:25 PM
Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 08:55:36 AM
Rowbotham proved the world is flat

Wait wait wait. Stop right there.

In doing so, he consequently proved that he was functionally & mentally retarded. Meanwhile the world remained spherical. . .

Where is this going?
You are saying that man that was a PhD and a medical doctor was retarded?
Logged
?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #33 on: June 30, 2009, 06:29:09 PM »
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 30, 2009, 05:58:53 PM
You are saying that man that was a PhD and a medical doctor was retarded?

I see no evidence that he was either.
Logged
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.
(Thanks, Daniel.
*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12960
  • +0/-0
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2009, 06:29:52 PM »
Quote from: Skeptek on June 30, 2009, 06:29:09 PM
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 30, 2009, 05:58:53 PM
You are saying that man that was a PhD and a medical doctor was retarded?

I see no evidence that he was either.
Lurk moar/use the search function.
Logged
?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #35 on: June 30, 2009, 06:52:18 PM »
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 30, 2009, 06:29:52 PM
Quote from: Skeptek on June 30, 2009, 06:29:09 PM
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 30, 2009, 05:58:53 PM
You are saying that man that was a PhD and a medical doctor was retarded?

I see no evidence that he was either.
Lurk moar/use the search function.
PILLOW FIGHT!
(#8 on the "Tools of The Debate Impostor" list.)

Search reveals only a thread that confirms he was a fraud.

If you had anything, you'd have posted a link.  Impostor.
Logged
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.
(Thanks, Daniel.
*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12960
  • +0/-0
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #36 on: June 30, 2009, 06:55:11 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2007, 08:31:15 PM
you're calling historian Christine Garwood a liar and a poor historian. You're calling Rowbotham's family a bunch of liars who don't even know where he went to school. You wouldn't be convinced even if you saw Rowbotham's doctorate for yourself. It would be declared a "forgery."
Logged
?

Skeptek

  • 207
  • +0/-0
  • White Hats for Whirled Peas
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #37 on: June 30, 2009, 07:20:57 PM »
You are correct.  Lack of references does a poor historian make.

Didn't you say something about him being retarded too?
Logged
When do we all drink the Kool-Aid?
Enjoy my posts?  Learn more here:
Not just another Flat Earth website... All are welcome.
(Thanks, Daniel.
?

Sentient Pizza

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #38 on: June 30, 2009, 07:31:22 PM »
 
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 30, 2009, 06:55:11 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on June 11, 2007, 08:31:15 PM
you're calling historian Christine Garwood a liar and a poor historian. You're calling Rowbotham's family a bunch of liars who don't even know where he went to school. You wouldn't be convinced even if you saw Rowbotham's doctorate for yourself. It would be declared a "forgery."

It is fair.

Since every piece of universally accepted science and witness for RE is thrown categorically out the window, alleging that Rowbotham (who largely did not understand the things he was making observations and predictions about. The grandfather of FET who could not get his Bedford level experiment to be confirmed or duplicated by anyone ever) was maybe not the scholar some claim him to be is pretty much in line with the standard FE defense tactic. To rely heavily on early industrial revolution era ideas as the main piece of supporting evidence, while outright dismissing all modern science as basic as circumnavigation of the globular earth, seems pretty outrageous. To discredit a scientist who was alone on most of his ideas in an era full of crazy unsubstantiated ideas, seems.... mundane.

Personally I dont doubt that the guy was a scholar of some sort and genuinely sought to better his understanding of the world around him. I also don't need to see his actual degree's or talk to a historian. His credibility is not suspect to me for his schooling. To me his credibility is suspect because no one has ever been able to duplicate his findings.
Logged
Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?
*

Benjamin Franklin

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12960
  • +0/-0
  • The dopest founding father.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #39 on: June 30, 2009, 07:33:52 PM »
You realize that Lady Anne Blount peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
Logged
?

Sentient Pizza

  • 281
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #40 on: June 30, 2009, 08:08:08 PM »
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 30, 2009, 07:33:52 PM
You realize that Lady Anne Blount peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
In the re-created experiment there wer many factors which make the findings in-conclusive at best, and RE evidence at worst.

1- 6 miles of distance from the observer will only create a 3.8' drop on the horizon based on the actual circumference of the earth. Their calculations predicted a much more significat drop. They predicted a 16' drop if I rmemeber properly.

2 - The observers lense was 24" from the water level. Increased elevation means increased distance to the horizon. This means that the bottom of the sheet used as a back drop had to only be 21.6" from the waters surface to be fully visible to the observer.

3 - In the report they calin that the sheet was "near" the surface of the water. Even if the sheet was 3" off the water or 36" inces off the water, the sheet would still appear to be at the waters surface and seen as a whole. There was no contrasting colors or markers to veryfy elevation under the sheet or how much of the sheet was visible.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2009, 07:53:31 AM by Sentient Pizza »
Logged
Your god was nailed to a cross. Mine carries a hammer...... any questions?
?

With Honor

  • 57
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #41 on: June 30, 2009, 08:55:11 PM »
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 30, 2009, 05:58:53 PM
Quote from: With Honor on June 30, 2009, 05:57:25 PM
Quote from: cdenley on June 29, 2009, 08:55:36 AM
Rowbotham proved the world is flat

Wait wait wait. Stop right there.

In doing so, he consequently proved that he was functionally & mentally retarded. Meanwhile the world remained spherical. . .

Where is this going?
You are saying that man that was a PhD and a medical doctor was retarded?

What the fuck does that mean? Aren't you the same queer that was bitching about proper grammar on some other thread--and even more ridiculously (if possible), correlating grammar with affluence?

What the fuck does: "[...]man that was a PhD" mean?

How the fuck can you "be a PhD"?

Did you try to say he had a PhD?

Even still, that's a retarded thing to say. What did he have PhD in? You don't just have "a PhD" with no fucking specificity. No, you don't get a PhD for being "cool", sorry. Good god.



On topic: Yes. Yes, I was calling him retarded. He espoused FE theory in a non-joking fashion. By definition, he was fucking hopelessly retarded. Sorry. I don't make the rules.


Oh and how about I pull the "FET stunt":
ZOMG LULZ U SED HES A MD DOCTER BUT U DIDNT SHOW PROOF SO THEREFORE UR LYING LOLOL




That is all.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45100
  • +87/-126
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #42 on: June 30, 2009, 08:59:01 PM »
Chill dude.  All of that anger isn't good for you.
Logged
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.
*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #43 on: June 30, 2009, 09:49:37 PM »
Keep it civil in the discussion fora, please.
Logged
?

With Honor

  • 57
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #44 on: June 30, 2009, 09:52:25 PM »
Quote from: markjo on June 30, 2009, 08:59:01 PM
Chill dude.  All of that anger isn't good for you.


I'm pretty chill. I just enjoy owning people when I have the opportunity.  :-*



Especially when said people post things like "people who believe in RE have bad grammar, and thus, are poor". Come on.
Logged
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45100
  • +87/-126
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #45 on: June 30, 2009, 10:00:58 PM »
Quote from: With Honor on June 30, 2009, 09:52:25 PM
Quote from: markjo on June 30, 2009, 08:59:01 PM
Chill dude.  All of that anger isn't good for you.


I'm pretty chill. I just enjoy owning people when I have the opportunity.  :-*



Especially when said people post things like "people who believe in RE have bad grammar, and thus, are poor". Come on.

Then really impress us by owing FET without resorting to indiscriminate use of the F bomb.
Logged
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.
?

With Honor

  • 57
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #46 on: June 30, 2009, 10:21:36 PM »
Quote from: markjo on June 30, 2009, 10:00:58 PM
Quote from: With Honor on June 30, 2009, 09:52:25 PM
Quote from: markjo on June 30, 2009, 08:59:01 PM
Chill dude.  All of that anger isn't good for you.


I'm pretty chill. I just enjoy owning people when I have the opportunity.  :-*



Especially when said people post things like "people who believe in RE have bad grammar, and thus, are poor". Come on.

Then really impress us by owing FET without resorting to indiscriminate use of the F bomb.

But my post wouldn't have been as hurtful without use of "the F bomb".

As for owning FET: Why would I want to? That would be like beating up a 12-year-old domestic-crime victim; it's already been done, probably thousands of times, and continuing to do so has no lasting or new effect.

« Last Edit: June 30, 2009, 10:28:02 PM by With Honor »
Logged
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #47 on: June 30, 2009, 11:43:47 PM »
Rowbotham had one apparent degree in medicine. This does NOT mean he was a scientist and looking at all the evidence (correspondence between each other) Eistein thought he was an idiot too.
He did NOT have a PhD and he did NOT have 20 degrees like some claim. All universities keep records of this stuff so it wouldn't be hard to find out and back up your claims but there is no evidence to support that he was more than a nutter.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2009, 06:27:27 AM by danwood »
Logged
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #48 on: July 01, 2009, 03:50:15 AM »
"Bendy light", as far as I know, was a notion literally pulled out of thin air within the last two years or so. I don't believe that it explains any phenomena any better, and its proponents apparently think the Bedford Level Experiment concludes in favour of the Round Earth, a point which I heavily dispute. Count me out of the "Bendy light" lobby. From what I know of it, I reckon that it is pseudoscience of the highest degree.
Logged
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901
?

cdenley

  • 296
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #49 on: July 01, 2009, 06:24:02 AM »
Quote from: Waste of Mind on June 30, 2009, 07:33:52 PM
You realize that Lady Anne Blount peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
You realize that Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Yule Oldham peer-reviewed the Bedford Level experiment, right?
http://books.google.com/books?id=GPE4AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA725&dq=%22YULE+OLDHAM%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1900&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1903&as_brr=0
Logged
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #50 on: July 01, 2009, 06:40:42 AM »
Quote from: Dogplatter on July 01, 2009, 03:50:15 AM
"Bendy light", as far as I know, was a notion literally pulled out of thin air within the last two years or so. I don't believe that it explains any phenomena any better, and its proponents apparently think the Bedford Level Experiment concludes in favour of the Round Earth, a point which I heavily dispute.

The Bedford Level Experiment prooved that the earth had a curvature (Henry Yule Oldham experiment), this has been repeated many times with the same result.
I am fairly sure we were given a demonstration of this experiment in secondary school (dont remember where though).

The problem is that everyone has a bias, unfortunatly for you and any children you may have this is in favour of a flat earth.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #51 on: July 01, 2009, 06:44:26 AM »
Quote from: danwood on July 01, 2009, 06:40:42 AM
The problem is that everyone has a bias, unfortunatly for you and any children you may have this is in favour of a flat earth.

Why would his children necessarily have the same bias he does?
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

cdenley

  • 296
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #52 on: July 01, 2009, 07:01:40 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 01, 2009, 06:44:26 AM
Quote from: danwood on July 01, 2009, 06:40:42 AM
The problem is that everyone has a bias, unfortunatly for you and any children you may have this is in favour of a flat earth.
Why would his children necessarily have the same bias he does?
Probably the same reason children tend to have the same religious beliefs as their parents. Children believe anything a parent tells them, and once they accept it as fact, they have a bias. Of course, not all parents feel the need to indoctrinate their children with their own beliefs.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #53 on: July 01, 2009, 07:14:08 AM »
Quote from: cdenley on July 01, 2009, 07:01:40 AM
Probably the same reason children tend to have the same religious beliefs as their parents. Children believe anything a parent tells them, and once they accept it as fact, they have a bias. Of course, not all parents feel the need to indoctrinate their children with their own beliefs.

Yes, and you're assuming he is the sort to do so, which may not be a valid assumption.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #54 on: July 01, 2009, 07:29:49 AM »
Quote from: Eddy Baby on July 01, 2009, 07:26:06 AM
Why would you teach your child something you do not believe?

Why would you need to indoctrinate your child with any belief at all?
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

cdenley

  • 296
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #55 on: July 01, 2009, 07:32:14 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 01, 2009, 07:14:08 AM
Quote from: cdenley on July 01, 2009, 07:01:40 AM
Probably the same reason children tend to have the same religious beliefs as their parents. Children believe anything a parent tells them, and once they accept it as fact, they have a bias. Of course, not all parents feel the need to indoctrinate their children with their own beliefs.

Yes, and you're assuming he is the sort to do so, which may not be a valid assumption.
I assumed nothing of that sort. I was merely attempting to clarify what I believe danwood's arguments was, also noting that not all parents do that.

Now lets stop discussing parenting in this thread, as it is very irrelevant.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #56 on: July 01, 2009, 07:34:18 AM »
Quote from: cdenley on July 01, 2009, 07:32:14 AM
Now lets stop discussing parenting in this thread, as it is very irrelevant.

Yes, I agree. That's exactly what I was pointing out.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
?

danwood

  • 102
  • +0/-0
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #57 on: July 01, 2009, 08:06:09 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 01, 2009, 06:44:26 AM
Why would his children necessarily have the same bias he does?

Typical robosteve.
Another useless comment on something that is obvious.

I agree this is off topic but parents teach their childeren about the world, therefore also parents teach children about their beliefs.
Logged
*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • +0/-0
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #58 on: July 01, 2009, 08:20:04 AM »
Quote from: Robosteve on July 01, 2009, 07:34:18 AM
Quote from: cdenley on July 01, 2009, 07:32:14 AM
Now lets stop discussing parenting in this thread, as it is very irrelevant.

Yes, I agree. That's exactly what I was pointing out.

Actually you started the and continued the off topic discussion based on an off the cuff remark that clearly had no impact to this thread and was not intended to have any when written down in the first instance. Stop stirring shit you child.
Logged
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36019
  • +0/-0
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Rowbotham vs Bendy Light
« Reply #59 on: July 01, 2009, 08:22:18 AM »
Quote from: julianmartin on July 01, 2009, 08:20:04 AM
Actually you started the and continued the off topic discussion based on an off the cuff remark that clearly had no impact to this thread and was not intended to have any when written down in the first instance. Stop stirring shit you child.

No. If I see someone write something that makes no sense, I will call them out on it.
Logged
Quote from: Ævan on August 11, 2013, 01:18:20 PM
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7   Go Up
« previous next »