« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Crow's nest declared useless

  • 148 Replies
  • 35210 Views
?

AndersonG22

  • 195
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #60 on: August 28, 2011, 05:52:45 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 05:48:59 PM
Quote from: AndersonG22 on August 28, 2011, 04:48:24 PM
All that 1 guy does in enag is make claims and arguments, there have been no modern independent studies that support or back up his claims.

That wasn't a passage from Earth Not a Globe.

What I said about the author and his book is still true.
Logged
Ice wall ninja
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #61 on: August 28, 2011, 06:00:20 PM »
Quote from: pitdroidtech on August 28, 2011, 05:27:38 PM
Rowbotham's law of perspective has absolutely no basis in fact.

Incorrect. Half sunken ships have been restored with a telescope. This proves that the earth is not a globe, that ships are not really hiding behind a hill of water, and that it's little more than a perspective effect.

Quote
His "explicitly detailed accounts" are either lies or mistakes.  Where is the mathematical proof that shows how light travels in such a way as to obscure the ship from the bottom up?


Read Earth Not a Globe. Perspective is explained there.

Quote
In the above photos, my lens gave the camera an effective 8x magnification.  The view of the ship is quite clear and detailed - enough to overcome any "vanishing point" loss of detail.

Did you look at the ship through a telescope? If not, then you are seeing the same effects of perspective Rowbotham and Thomas Winship saw.

Quote
The only detail not observable is that which is too small for the lens (or my eyesight) to resolve.  The hull of the ship is well and truly large enough to resolve clearly.

Is that a digital camera? If you are zooming into a photo with a digital zoom then you should not expect anything to be restored. Digital zoom is not the same as looking at a body through a telescope. Not to mention that telescopes magnify with ratios much greater than 1:8.

A little camera lens is in no way equivalent to looking at a body with a telescope.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 06:05:23 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

pitdroidtech

  • 580
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #62 on: August 28, 2011, 06:27:21 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 06:00:20 PM

Is that a digital camera? If you are zooming into a photo with a digital zoom then you should not expect anything to be restored. Digital zoom is not the same as looking at a body through a telescope. Not to mention that a telescope magnify with a ratio much greater than 1:8.

A little camera lens is in no way equivalent to looking at a body with a telescope.
Please explain to me the optical difference between a telescope and a zoom lens?  The magnification is not important, since the details are sufficiently resolved to reveal the hull (if it weren't below the horizon).

Nautical telescopes, as would have been utilised in the examples given where the viewing takes place on a boat, usually have between 3-10 times magnification.  They are in effect as useful (or useless depending on the requirements) as medium strength binoculars.

Further, the observations mentioned are inconclusive.  Sanibel Light Visible 34 Miles, for example: The light of the lighthouse, at 98 feet high , would of course be visible from 34 miles away.  The actual globe producing the light, would not be visible.  The light they observed was refracting off the ocean surface.  Habrour mounted telescopes, provided for tourists, are typically 3x magnification. 

I say again, and challenge you to show me how and why a telescope magnification has some special properties that a camera lense magnification does not.







Logged
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "
?

pitdroidtech

  • 580
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #63 on: August 28, 2011, 06:31:28 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 06:00:20 PM

Is that a digital camera? If you are zooming into a photo with a digital zoom then you should not expect anything to be restored. Digital zoom is not the same as looking at a body through a telescope. Not to mention that telescopes magnify with ratios much greater than 1:8.

A little camera lens is in no way equivalent to looking at a body with a telescope.
You really aren't as good a troll as I thought you were.

I neve once mentioned a digital zoom.  I specifically mentioned that I had affixed to the camera a 400mm lens.  This infers a Digital SLR, not some toy compact camera.
Logged
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #64 on: August 28, 2011, 06:45:35 PM »
Quote
Please explain to me the optical difference between a telescope and a zoom lens?  The magnification is not important, since the details are sufficiently resolved to reveal the hull (if it weren't below the horizon).

Quote
I say again, and challenge you to show me how and why a telescope magnification has some special properties that a camera lense magnification does not.

Yes, the magnification is important. There is no way that a camera lens is equivalent to a telescope.

It's absurd to claim that a camera lens is the same as a telescope.
Logged
?

pitdroidtech

  • 580
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #65 on: August 28, 2011, 07:23:30 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 06:45:35 PM
Quote
Please explain to me the optical difference between a telescope and a zoom lens?  The magnification is not important, since the details are sufficiently resolved to reveal the hull (if it weren't below the horizon).

Quote
I say again, and challenge you to show me how and why a telescope magnification has some special properties that a camera lense magnification does not.

Yes, the magnification is important. There is no way that a camera lens is equivalent to a telescope.

It's absurd to claim that a camera lens is the same as a telescope.
Explain how, since you are so sure of  it.

Nautical Telescope of 10x magnification = Zoom lens of 10x magnification (ignoring that in some cases the "experiments" that are eluded to utilise seaside penny telescopes that would be lucky to have 3x mag.)  You seem to be under the impression that all Telescopes, no matter how puny, have some magical power that high magnification glass lenses in other devices do not have.

Given the same level of magnification, how are the optical properties of a telescope different to that of a zoom lens (or binoculars for that matter)?
Logged
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #66 on: August 28, 2011, 08:01:04 PM »
Quote from: pitdroidtech on August 28, 2011, 07:23:30 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 06:45:35 PM
Quote
Please explain to me the optical difference between a telescope and a zoom lens?  The magnification is not important, since the details are sufficiently resolved to reveal the hull (if it weren't below the horizon).

Quote
I say again, and challenge you to show me how and why a telescope magnification has some special properties that a camera lense magnification does not.

Yes, the magnification is important. There is no way that a camera lens is equivalent to a telescope.

It's absurd to claim that a camera lens is the same as a telescope.
Explain how, since you are so sure of  it.

Nautical Telescope of 10x magnification = Zoom lens of 10x magnification (ignoring that in some cases the "experiments" that are eluded to utilise seaside penny telescopes that would be lucky to have 3x mag.)  You seem to be under the impression that all Telescopes, no matter how puny, have some magical power that high magnification glass lenses in other devices do not have.

Given the same level of magnification, how are the optical properties of a telescope different to that of a zoom lens (or binoculars for that matter)?

An average consumer astronomy telescope has an average of 300-500x magnification. Trying to claim that a 10x camera lens is the same is ridiculous.

You did not meet the requirements in Earth Not a Globe or Zetetic Cosmogony. You did not look at the ship through a telescope. You cannot say that those images do anything except verify what Samuel Birley Rowbotham and Thomas Winship saw over a hundred years ago.
Logged
?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #67 on: August 28, 2011, 08:14:42 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 08:01:04 PM
Quote from: pitdroidtech on August 28, 2011, 07:23:30 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 06:45:35 PM
Quote
Please explain to me the optical difference between a telescope and a zoom lens?  The magnification is not important, since the details are sufficiently resolved to reveal the hull (if it weren't below the horizon).

Quote
I say again, and challenge you to show me how and why a telescope magnification has some special properties that a camera lense magnification does not.

Yes, the magnification is important. There is no way that a camera lens is equivalent to a telescope.

It's absurd to claim that a camera lens is the same as a telescope.
Explain how, since you are so sure of  it.

Nautical Telescope of 10x magnification = Zoom lens of 10x magnification (ignoring that in some cases the "experiments" that are eluded to utilise seaside penny telescopes that would be lucky to have 3x mag.)  You seem to be under the impression that all Telescopes, no matter how puny, have some magical power that high magnification glass lenses in other devices do not have.

Given the same level of magnification, how are the optical properties of a telescope different to that of a zoom lens (or binoculars for that matter)?

An average consumer astronomy telescope has an average of 300-500x magnification. Trying to claim that a 10x camera lens is the same is ridiculous.

You did not meet the requirements in Earth Not a Globe or Zetetic Cosmogony. You did not look at the ship through a telescope. You cannot say that those images do anything except verify what Samuel Birley Rowbotham and Thomas Winship saw over a hundred years ago.

In case you didn't see this picture, I'll demonstrate why Rowbotham's perspective is incorrect. I repeat this picture due to the significance of its results to this thread's discussion:
Look at this photo. If a sphere is far away from you, and you look at it from two different heights under the same magnification, you claim you'll see different images, a circle from higher and a half circle from lower:

This is obviously untrue due the symmetry of the sphere. If nothing is blocking the lower half, it should be as visible from low point as from high one.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2011, 08:16:38 PM by momentia »
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #68 on: August 28, 2011, 08:28:29 PM »
Your image clearly isn't taking Rowbotham's rules of perspective into account. I suggest reading Earth Not a Globe before thinking that you are smarter than it.

There is an online copy available in my signature links.
Logged
?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #69 on: August 28, 2011, 08:40:59 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 08:28:29 PM
Your image clearly isn't taking Rowbotham's rules of perspective into account. I suggest reading Earth Not a Globe before thinking that you are smarter than it.

There is an online copy available in my signature links.
I've read the relevant chapter. That diagram shows exactly what Rowbatham predicts for a distant sphere. Under certain magnifications, an object's bottom half disappears, but gaining elevation restores it, under the same magnification. So I drew this. I don't see how I got it wrong.
Logged
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8738
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #70 on: August 28, 2011, 09:15:29 PM »
It does not, because as he clearly states, the lines do not converge at the same rate. Your inability to understand the point Dr. Rowbotham is trying to convey in no way discredits him.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #71 on: August 28, 2011, 09:43:04 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 08:01:04 PM
An average consumer astronomy telescope has an average of 300-500x magnification. Trying to claim that a 10x camera lens is the same is ridiculous.

Telescopes for astronomy are generally not suitable for observing ships at sea.  A cursory google search shows that nautical telescopes are generally in the range of 12x-40x.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 08:01:04 PM
You did not meet the requirements in Earth Not a Globe or Zetetic Cosmogony. You did not look at the ship through a telescope. You cannot say that those images do anything except verify what Samuel Birley Rowbotham and Thomas Winship saw over a hundred years ago.

Since Rowbotham and Winship generally didn't document the specifications of their telescopes beyond claiming that the telescopes should be of "good quality", it's hard to know exactly what those requirements should be.
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.
?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #72 on: August 28, 2011, 09:46:04 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 28, 2011, 09:15:29 PM
It does not, because as he clearly states, the lines do not converge at the same rate. Your inability to understand the point Dr. Rowbotham is trying to convey in no way discredits him.

Perhaps you want to draw the difference seen between a sphere seen from close to the water, and from high?

I quote ENaG:
"Those who believe that the earth is a globe have often sought to prove it to be so by quoting the fact that when the ship's hull has disappeared, if an observer ascends to a higher position the hull again becomes visible. But this, is logically premature; such a result arises simply from the fact that on raising his position the eye-line recedes further over the water before it forms the angle of one minute of a degree, and this includes and brings back the hull within the vanishing point, as shown in fig. 84."

He says that when the hull (the lower part of the sphere) has disappeared, "if an observer ascends to a higher position the hull [the lower part of the sphere] again becomes visible." He does not dispute this, and tries to argue that this is, in fact, true.

So, I drew the sphere as seen from the lower vantage point, with the bottom missing, and from a higher vantage point, when the lower portion of the sphere is restored.
Do you agree with this drawing? Because it is EXACTLY what rowbotham claims.

Please do not tell me to read ENaG. Instead, give me a different drawing than mine of how you would see the distant sphere at different altitudes in the FE model under the same magnification or accept this drawing as what you would see.

Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #73 on: August 28, 2011, 10:05:43 PM »
There are numerous diagrams in Earth Not a Globe which shows how perspective works. It does not work like that.

I suggest reading the source material your own self instead of coming here begging us to read to you before bed.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #74 on: August 28, 2011, 10:29:09 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 10:05:43 PM
There are numerous diagrams in Earth Not a Globe which shows how perspective works. It does not work like that.

I suggest reading the source material your own self instead of coming here begging us to read to you before bed.
Logged
?

momentia

  • 425
  • Light abhors a straight line.
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #75 on: August 28, 2011, 10:42:21 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 10:05:43 PM
There are numerous diagrams in Earth Not a Globe which shows how perspective works. It does not work like that.

I suggest reading the source material your own self instead of coming here begging us to read to you before bed.

Please show how it works Tom, by replacing my two views with your two views.
I'm beginning to doubt you understand Rowbotham.
All you need to do is show that you can do more than parrot him.
Apply some thought.
Fill in these two different altitude views of the sphere.


Otherwise, I, and anyone else you want to convince of FE, will find it (more, if possible,) difficult to take your claims seriously at all.
Logged
?

AndersonG22

  • 195
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #76 on: August 28, 2011, 10:44:35 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 10:29:09 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 10:05:43 PM
There are numerous diagrams in Earth Not a Globe which shows how perspective works. It does not work like that.

I suggest reading the source material your own self instead of coming here begging us to read to you before bed.

How do I resize pics?
Logged
Ice wall ninja
?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #77 on: August 28, 2011, 10:46:38 PM »
After the "img" in the first bracket, add a space, than "height= (a number)"
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 24, 2008, 05:25:31 PM
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.
?

AndersonG22

  • 195
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #78 on: August 28, 2011, 10:54:09 PM »
Quote from: thefireproofmatch on August 28, 2011, 10:46:38 PM
After the "img" in the first bracket, add a space, than "height= (a number)"

Thanks

The top 1 is FET, the bottom is reality.


Logged
Ice wall ninja
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #79 on: August 28, 2011, 11:03:20 PM »
Quote from: momentia on August 28, 2011, 10:42:21 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 10:05:43 PM
There are numerous diagrams in Earth Not a Globe which shows how perspective works. It does not work like that.

I suggest reading the source material your own self instead of coming here begging us to read to you before bed.

Please show how it works Tom, by replacing my two views with your two views.
I'm beginning to doubt you understand Rowbotham.
All you need to do is show that you can do more than parrot him.
Apply some thought.
Fill in these two different altitude views of the sphere.


Otherwise, I, and anyone else you want to convince of FE, will find it (more, if possible,) difficult to take your claims seriously at all.

Human perspective ends at the vanishing point.

On the sinking ship, Rowbotham describes a mechanism by which the hull is hidden by the angular limits of the human eye - the ship will appear to intersect with the vanishing point and become lost to human perception as the hull's increasingly shallow path creates a tangent beyond the resolving power of the human eye. The ship's hull gets so close to the surface of the water as it recedes that they appear to merge together. Where bodies get so close together that they appear to merge to human eyesight is called the Vanishing Point. The Vanishing Point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree. Hence, this effectively places the vanishing point a finite distance away from the observer.

Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:



However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:



This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to shrink into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point from the bottom up. As the boat recedes into the distance its hull is gradually and perceptively appearing closer and closer to the surface of the sea, until they are so close together that they appear to merge.

While the sails of the ship may still be visible while the hull is perceptively merged, it's only a matter of time before it too shrinks into the vanishing point which rests on the surface of the sea and becomes indiscernible from the surface.

We know that this explanation is true because there are reports of half sunken ships restored by looking at it through a telescope.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 06:17:59 AM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

Agnostic

  • 682
  • Sylvain P. - French Engineer & Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #80 on: August 28, 2011, 11:10:15 PM »
I second this.

The fact is that the human cannot perceive an infinite amount of information, and also because there is not an infinite amount of information that can be conveyed by light through atmosphere.

Imagine that the atmosphere is a giant zone of memory between you and the horizon.

There is a limited amount of information that can be stored in such memory, in such area. There can't be an infinitude of light waves. So, there is a loss of information.

This number of maximum information defines the horizon, and the perspective.

Also, there is an interpolation of light waves coming from the different angles of the horizon from any object at equal distances.

Such interpolation creates a single light wave from multiple light wave. This also means loss of information.

Horizon = loss of information.
Logged
"The earth is flat indeed. Saying it is a sphere was the worst mistake of our modern science." 1893. Pr. Orlando Ferguson, Academy of Science

"The world is flat." 2005. Thomas Friedman
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #81 on: August 28, 2011, 11:14:58 PM »
Quote from: Agnostic on August 28, 2011, 11:10:15 PM
Horizon = loss of information.

Correct, Agnostic.
Logged
?

AndersonG22

  • 195
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #82 on: August 28, 2011, 11:31:58 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 11:14:58 PM
Quote from: Agnostic on August 28, 2011, 11:10:15 PM
Horizon = loss of information.

Correct, Agnostic.

Aww how cute, troll on troll love, take it under a bridge guys.
Logged
Ice wall ninja
?

Agnostic

  • 682
  • Sylvain P. - French Engineer & Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #83 on: August 29, 2011, 12:11:10 AM »
When all your Microsoft Paint evidences failed against the Flat Earth Theory, the only solution remaining is performing personal attacks.
Logged
"The earth is flat indeed. Saying it is a sphere was the worst mistake of our modern science." 1893. Pr. Orlando Ferguson, Academy of Science

"The world is flat." 2005. Thomas Friedman
?

pitdroidtech

  • 580
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #84 on: August 29, 2011, 01:27:12 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 08:01:04 PM
Trying to claim that a 10x camera lens is the same is ridiculous.
Now yes, in Rowbotham's time no.

In anycase, a telescope makes things appear in proportion, it doesn't make a missing hull appear out from underneath an existing (and visible) part of the superstructure.   It enlarges things in two dimensions; for Rowbotham's theory of perspective to be accurate the telescope would have to enlarge the vertical dimension at a much faster rate than the horizontal dimension.


Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 28, 2011, 08:01:04 PM
You did not meet the requirements in Earth Not a Globe or Zetetic Cosmogony. You did not look at the ship through a telescope. You cannot say that those images do anything except verify what Samuel Birley Rowbotham and Thomas Winship saw over a hundred years ago.
And what magnification telescope was Rowbotham using? 

I can almost gaurantee that most of the eye witness accounts he quotes, people at see or at the seaside, are using tourists telescopes or nautical telescopes (quite a different thing from an Astronomical telescope), certainly Rownbotham has provided no evidence of the equipment they used so these third party accounts are completely inadmissable.
Logged
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "
?

pitdroidtech

  • 580
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #85 on: August 29, 2011, 01:43:33 AM »
Further, Rowbotham's theory of perspective, constructed in order give an explanation to an observed occurance other than it's logical assumption, only works in one dimension.  What he is saying is that; as objects disappear into the vanishing point, the mast, which is narrow, has not disappeared because it is high, yet the hull, which is much broader than the mast, has disappeared because it is is shallow  (yet not as shallow as the mast is narrow).

Sorry but Rowbotham was an idiot plain and simple.....
Logged
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "
?

PenguinLover

  • 15
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #86 on: August 29, 2011, 02:06:48 AM »
I had a telescope with me sometime ago near the sea, and although I mostly used it to watch nightsky, I sometimes looked at the other side of the gulf, and guess what, I didnt see any of the ground, only the tower tops. Note that without the telescope I couldnt see a besides a hilltop here and there. Also, I have to note that the sky was pretty clear those days, even saw some fireworks through telescope, but never, ever did I spot the coastline over on the other side of gulf.
That ofcourse is not evidence or proof anyhow, but hey, the FE'ers told me that if you observe you will see the Earth flat. I did, and I found out someone is having illusions or is lying, because I see it curved, like most people do.
Logged
?

Agnostic

  • 682
  • Sylvain P. - French Engineer & Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #87 on: August 29, 2011, 03:56:33 AM »
Quote from: pitdroidtech on August 29, 2011, 01:43:33 AM
Sorry but Rowbotham was an idiot plain and simple.....

Robowtham did the experiments, and went to his own conclusions.

When is the last time you did an experiment and got your own conclusions?
Logged
"The earth is flat indeed. Saying it is a sphere was the worst mistake of our modern science." 1893. Pr. Orlando Ferguson, Academy of Science

"The world is flat." 2005. Thomas Friedman
?

pitdroidtech

  • 580
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #88 on: August 29, 2011, 04:14:17 AM »
Quote from: Agnostic on August 29, 2011, 03:56:33 AM
Quote from: pitdroidtech on August 29, 2011, 01:43:33 AM
Sorry but Rowbotham was an idiot plain and simple.....

Robowtham did the experiments, and went to his own conclusions.

When is the last time you did an experiment and got your own conclusions?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pitdroidtech/sets/72157627536447220/

Logged
First human spacewalker, Cosmonaut Alexei Leonov: “Lifting my head I could see the curvature of the Earth's horizon. ’So the world really is round,’ I said softly to myself, as if the words came from somewhere deep in my soul. "
?

Agnostic

  • 682
  • Sylvain P. - French Engineer & Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Crow's nest declared useless
« Reply #89 on: August 29, 2011, 04:37:25 AM »
Yes I saw these pictures.

But they do not prove anything. How can a picture be a proof?

This way of reasoning is not serious science.

For example, how do your pictures explain atmosphere reflection?

Do you know that many UFOs sightings were boats spotted as UFOS because their light was reflected onto the atmosphere?

What you should do is take the pictures with a CCD camera, and see if the light waves are homogeneous or heterogenous at the horizon level. This way your picture can tell you something. Otherwise it's just a mix of pixels.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2011, 04:57:44 AM by Agnostic »
Logged
"The earth is flat indeed. Saying it is a sphere was the worst mistake of our modern science." 1893. Pr. Orlando Ferguson, Academy of Science

"The world is flat." 2005. Thomas Friedman
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
« previous next »