Taken from CHAPTER XII: THE CAUSE OF TIDES.
1.) Rowbotham doesn't understand the definition of flood tide.
"1st. Spread out on a table a sheet of paper of any size, to represent a body of water; place an object or mark at each edge of the paper, to represent the shores. Now draw the paper gently upwards in the centre, and notice the effect upon the objects or marks, and the edge of the paper."
The author cites this as proof that the moon pulling on the ocean cannot cause the flood tide.
"flood tide also flood·tide (fldtd)
n.
1. The incoming or rising tide; the period between low water and the succeeding high water.
2. A climax or high point: a flood tide of fears."
Important point: The period BETWEEN LOW water and the succeeding HIGH water.
In order for the paper experiment to be accurate the paper must start in a downward drawn state. Then, the experimenter pulls the paper upward as described. The experimenter will observe that as the paper passes from a concave state to a convex state the marked edges or "shores" will expand and contract demonstrating the flood tide.
2.) Rowbotham doesn't fully understand his own thought experiment
"Facts 8, 9, 11, 12, and 16, show results that must necessarily follow this fluctuation of the earth. The velocity of the flood is greatest as it approaches land. If the waters were put in motion by the moon, the velocity would be greatest where the altitude was greatest or nearest the moon, and least the farthest from it or nearest the shores. The reverse is the case in nature."
This statement is 100% false and can be disproven using the paper thought experiment.
The higher velocity has to do with the fact that if you take something concave and press down on the center (in order to make it flat) the edges of the concavity move away from the center faster than any other part.
Take the paper example that the author uses. Make the paper convex, then slowly press down on it. You can easily see that the center of the paper moves in the direction of the force you are applying (namely, down) and has zero perpendicular velocity. You can also see that at the edges of the paper have 0 downward velocity and that all of the movement is perpendicular to the applied force. This means that the horizontal velocity of the object (paper, water, ooz) increases the further away the part you are observing is from the center.
3.) Rowbotham doesn't understand proportionality of gravity.
"In fact 15 we see what could not be possible if the moon were the cause of tidal action by lifting the waters underneath her from their normal position. If the moon's attraction operates in one place, what can possibly prevent its action in all other places when and where the relative positions are the same? No direct explanatory answer has yet been given."
Gravitational interaction is based on mass of interacting objects. None of the lakes on earth are large enough to have tides, in terms of the mass of their contained water.
Biggest lake in the world: Caspian Sea with an area of 371,000 km˛ (371,000,000 meters). Average depth= 187 m
Smallest ocean: Arctic Ocean area of 13,990,000 km˛ (13,990,000,000 meters). Average depth = 1,038 m
Volume of Caspian Sea: 69,377,000,000 meters cubed
Volume of Arctic ocean: 14,521,620,000,000 meters cubed
1 cubed meter of water has a mass of 1,000 kg
Mass of Caspian Sea: 69,377,000,000 kg
Mass of Arctic ocean: 14,521,620,000,000,000 kg
Arctic ocean has a mass that is 209314.6144 times larger than the Caspian Sea.
Highest recurring tide = approx. 16.3 meters
Gravity is proportional mass.
If the same gravitational force that produced this tide is applied to the Caspian Sea it results in a tide of .000077873 meters or 77.873 micrometers
Your author proves nothing by fact 15 above except that he doesn't actually understand gravitation.
Another problem I noticed:
CHAPTER III: THE EARTH NO AXIAL OR ORBITAL MOTION
4.)"Let the ball be thrown upwards from the mast-head of a stationary ship, and it will fall back to the mast-head, and pass downwards to the foot of the mast. The same result would follow if the ball were thrown upwards from the mouth of a mine, or the top of a tower, on a stationary earth. Now put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two....."
In this and the train example the object being thrown is subject to air resistance which dampens its horizontal velocity. In RE the atmosphere rotates with the Earth which means that a thrown object would not be subject to air resistance unless it is a windy day. These are not accurate representations of a rotating Earth model.
5.)"A strong cast-iron cannon was placed with the muzzle upwards. The barrel was carefully tested with a plumb line, so that its true vertical direction was secured; and the breech of the gun was firmly embedded in sand up to the touch-hole, against which a piece of slow match was placed. The cannon had been loaded with powder and ball, previous to its position being secured. At a given moment the slow match at D was fired, and the operator retired to a shed. The explosion took place, and the ball was discharged in the direction A, B. In thirty seconds the ball fell back to the earth, from B to C; the point of contact, C, was only 8 inches from the gun, A."
This doesn't prove that the Earth is stationary. The cannon ball will not lose horizontal velocity unless something opposes that velocity. Since the atmosphere moves with the Earth in RE, the only thing available to affect horizontal velocity is wind, which accounts for the results that the Rowbotham got.
6.) "When sitting in a rapidly-moving railway carriage, let a spring-gun 1 be fired forward, or in the direction in which the train is moving. Again, let the same gun be fired, but in the opposite direction; and it will be found that the ball or other projectile will always go farther in the first case than in the latter."
First of all, Rowbotham doesn't require that the railway carriage be moving at a constant speed, which is quite careless because in RE the Earth rotates at a constant rate. Therefore, in order for this to be analogous to a rotating Earth, it must have a steady velocity.
If you try this experiment at a constant velocity, you find that the ball or other projectile will go the same distance regardless of direction. His statement that it will go different distances is completely false.
Example: If you smoke or light incense in a car that has a steady velocity, with the windows rolled up and AC off, you will find that the smoke rises straight up. It does not rise toward the back of the car.
Can any Rowbotham supporters defend him on any of these points?
If so, please point out my errors.