Disproving old Rowbatham

• 24 Replies
• 5014 Views
?

socialaztec

• 92
Disproving old Rowbatham
« on: August 05, 2006, 02:47:57 AM »

After finally being bothered to read Rowbotham's experiments, I found a fatal flaw in his logic. As you well know, the atmosphere gets thinner the further up you go. You may also know that when light enters a less dense medium, it bends away from the normal. The defraction caused by the atmosphere would not be able to keep up with the curvature of the earth but it would easily make up for about a 15 mile view of an object.

?

KamikazeFish

• 67
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2006, 02:50:57 AM »
that makes sense to me, if it's true then that is a real kick in the balls to the people that use this guy as reasoning for their beliefs.
img]http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/Kamikazefish.png[/img]

?

qwerty789

• 329
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2006, 06:44:04 AM »
If you're referring to this:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm

Then you're absolutely wrong.  Please do some math, instead of, "Oh, it probably curves enough"

?

socialaztec

• 92
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2006, 06:53:02 AM »
The maths is absolutely unnecessary, the curve of the earth over a 6km distance would be so small, refraction would easily make up for it.

?

socialaztec

• 92
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2006, 06:53:52 AM »
Miles*

?

qwerty789

• 329
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2006, 06:57:50 AM »
Quote from: "socialaztec"
The maths is absolutely unnecessary, the curve of the earth over a 6km distance would be so small, refraction would easily make up for it.

Try the math, see how stupid you are in silence afterwards.  If on the other hand you just admit you have no clue as to how TO DO the math, I'll post it for you.

?

KamikazeFish

• 67
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2006, 07:02:35 AM »
Quote from: "qwerty789"
Quote from: "socialaztec"
The maths is absolutely unnecessary, the curve of the earth over a 6km distance would be so small, refraction would easily make up for it.

Try the math, see how stupid you are in silence afterwards.  If on the other hand you just admit you have no clue as to how TO DO the math, I'll post it for you.

woah less hostility please, where in any of his posts did he call you stupid.
img]http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/Kamikazefish.png[/img]

?

socialaztec

• 92
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2006, 07:03:48 AM »
Post me the formulae necessary for calculating angle change with respect to change in density and the figures for the density diminishment of the atmosphere with respect to increase in distance from the centre of the earth and then I'll do your maths for you.

?

qwerty789

• 329
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2006, 07:08:10 AM »
Quote from: "socialaztec"
Post me the formulae necessary for calculating angle change with respect to change in density and the figures for the density diminishment of the atmosphere with respect to increase in distance from the centre of the earth and then I'll do your maths for you.

Just admit you have no clue what you're talking about then if you need all that.  Your statement of 'Oh, it curves enough', was just a guess and a poor one at that.

?

socialaztec

• 92
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2006, 07:11:12 AM »
I love how you reject all viable and correct disproving of your theory, it keeps me chuckling away and it's what keeps me on these forums.

?

KamikazeFish

• 67
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2006, 07:14:57 AM »
i would like proof of why this qwerty789 guy knows what he's talking about when he says socialaztec has no clue whatsoever and yet does not back it up or tell us why he's wrong
img]http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/Kamikazefish.png[/img]

?

socialaztec

• 92
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2006, 07:26:35 AM »
Read the Wikipedia take on my suggestion and I think you'll find it makes sense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction.

?

melonflavour

• 16
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2006, 07:36:12 AM »
dear o dear, where did you study dear qwerty?

You might also want to look at how sky waves (radio waves) reach their targets.

I agree with kamikazefish and social aztec

That is unless you can show me your own mathematical reasonings...

There are lots of FEers on this forum that appreciate the fact that we show mathematical reasoning and sympathetic understanding to people who believe the earth is flat, and we are prepared to civilly debate the ideas.

Why is it so hard for you to show the same courtesy back to us?
Let the world stop turning, let the sun stop burning..."

?

qwerty789

• 329
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2006, 07:54:49 AM »
Quote from: "socialaztec"
I love how you reject all viable and correct disproving of your theory, it keeps me chuckling away and it's what keeps me on these forums.

You've given me nothing but a opinion that I can mathematically prove wrong. Since you can't seem to stay stupid in silence, I'll give you the start you want.

Angle change: n1*sin(theta1) = n2*sin(theta2)

n1 = index of refraction of material 1
n2 = index of refraction of material 2
theta1 =  angle to normal of incident beam
theta2 = angle to normal of refracted beam

Index of refraction based on air density:  1 + 0.000292*density/1.225

Desnity here is in kg/m^3.  This step will probably clue you in as to why you're wrong, but I want to see the math. Also, there are many other factors to consider with air refractive indices, such as humidity, but density is really the major one.

Density of air according to height: new density = 1.225e^(-(height above earth's surface)/7000)

Heigh above earth's surface: Use meters

Again, this is a generalization since the actual air isn't this continous in density, but for now it works.

?

qwerty789

• 329
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2006, 07:58:39 AM »
Quote from: "socialaztec"
Read the Wikipedia take on my suggestion and I think you'll find it makes sense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction.

I'm not saying the effect doesn't happen. I'm saying do the math and realize how miniscule it is.

?

qwerty789

• 329
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #15 on: August 05, 2006, 08:00:48 AM »
Quote from: "melonflavour"
dear o dear, where did you study dear qwerty?

You might also want to look at how sky waves (radio waves) reach their targets.

I agree with kamikazefish and social aztec

That is unless you can show me your own mathematical reasonings...

There are lots of FEers on this forum that appreciate the fact that we show mathematical reasoning and sympathetic understanding to people who believe the earth is flat, and we are prepared to civilly debate the ideas.

Why is it so hard for you to show the same courtesy back to us?

You're a bigger idiot than the other two combined. At least aztec realizes that the refraction doesn't overcome the curvature of the earth.  This is what you're thinking of with radio waves:

?

KamikazeFish

• 67
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #16 on: August 05, 2006, 08:06:51 AM »
why am i an idiot?

is it because i asked you to not insult people and be curteous to others like they are being to you?

i don't see how those two fit together?

oh i understand now, requesting manners must mean im stupid, how obvious how did i not see this before, probably due to my stupidity.
img]http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/Kamikazefish.png[/img]

?

melonflavour

• 16
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2006, 08:09:41 AM »
Seriously, why do you have to be so hostile? I'm trying to be polite and properly debate with you and all I get is a smarmy reply that doesn't even consider the other person's opinion. Yes ok, I have been brought up to believe that the Earth is round, and yes popular belief has been wrong in the past, but just because it HAS been doesn't mean it is now. In fact with more people's knowledge combined it is more likely to be correct. Are you really so arrogant as to not be able to accept the idea that there might be a tiny flaw in your logic?

I accept that there are theories that support the idea that the Earth is flat, but there is also evidence on the other side of the argument. I'm prepared to debate this if you're prepared to accept that there are certain flaws to your thinking, as I accept there are some flaws to mine.

And I'm surprised you condone anything that talks of an ionoSPHERE

You might as well be a Scientologist

My intent isn't to offend or ridicule but to fuel the debate. There is no possible way either of us can claim to know everything about the Earth
Let the world stop turning, let the sun stop burning..."

?

melonflavour

• 16
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2006, 08:13:20 AM »
btw, that wikipedia article proves nothing
Let the world stop turning, let the sun stop burning..."

?

socialaztec

• 92
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2006, 08:34:28 AM »
Well since the pressure in the troposphere is reduced by 9/10th's, light is bent dramatically due to what is known as the tropopause which affects electromagnetic radiation so here's your maths.

n1/n2=sin(theta2)/sin(theta1)

1/10=sin85/sinx

x=5.7803 (to 4 d.p.)

Note that x is measured from the line perpendicular to the normal (tangent to the ROUND earth) due to ease of calculation.

Therefor the curvature in this case is easily made up for by the refraction due to the tropopause. The reason longer distances objects cannot be seen is due to the temperature change in the various districts of the atmosphere.

Oh and we are talking to you like adults, show the same courtesy back and stop trying to insult people.

?

KamikazeFish

• 67
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #20 on: August 05, 2006, 08:49:34 AM »
Quote from: "socialaztec"

Oh and we are talking to you like adults, show the same courtesy back and stop trying to insult people.

yeah qwerty you bastard!

:cry:
img]http://card.mygamercard.net/lastgame/Kamikazefish.png[/img]

?

qwerty789

• 329
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2006, 05:38:16 PM »
Quote from: "socialaztec"

1/10=sin85/sinx

LOL, what? You're claiming the index of refraction of something is 10? Oh jolly is that way wrong. I see you're incapable of doing simple math. I gave you all you needed, then you bring this nonsense.  I'll post the proper math.

?

qwerty789

• 329
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2006, 05:43:41 PM »
Quote from: "KamikazeFish"
Quote from: "socialaztec"

Oh and we are talking to you like adults, show the same courtesy back and stop trying to insult people.

yeah qwerty you bastard!

:cry:

Okay, fine, I'm sorry.  I didn't know people actually take much seriously around here.  I'm don't personally believe in flat earth, but it sure is a good time waster to argue the insaner points of it.  I'm all up for some debate on it, but I'll be damned if I can't use some colorful language.  8-)

I'll keep it civil from this point forward though, on this thread at least, let's see how it goes from now.

?

qwerty789

• 329
Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2006, 05:55:42 PM »
Quote from: "melonflavour"
btw, that wikipedia article proves nothing

?

qwerty789

• 329
Re: Disproving old Rowbatham
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2006, 06:01:49 PM »
Quote from: "socialaztec"

After finally being bothered to read Rowbotham's experiments, I found a fatal flaw in his logic. As you well know, the atmosphere gets thinner the further up you go. You may also know that when light enters a less dense medium, it bends away from the normal. The defraction caused by the atmosphere would not be able to keep up with the curvature of the earth but it would easily make up for about a 15 mile view of an object.

This is probably a good place to restart the thread for me at least.  What did the experiment actually claim, that you say refraction can explain?  Was it something along the lines of a 6 ft tall person still being visible after he walked 15 miles away, but should be invisible due to the earth's curvature?