Rowbathams Folly

  • 61 Replies
  • 10412 Views
Rowbathams Folly
« on: October 06, 2006, 01:16:53 PM »
I've been thinking about posting on this topic for a while, but I wasn't sure how to phrase the argument correctlly.  But I really would like this question answered, so here it goes.


Anyone who has been on this forum for more then a month has encountered some newbie who mentions the fact that ships "disappear" over the horizon.  If I had a nickel for every time some new RE'er has brought up this argument, well. . . I would have a lot of nickels.


Of course, FE'ers have answered this question many times before.

Depending on which FE'er you talk to, ships sink over the horizon because of:

a) The effects of perspective on distant objects.

Or

b) An optical illusion caused by the atmosphere.

I'm willing to accept either of these explanations.



But the last time someone posted about the sinking ship "illusion", it got me thinking.

Several of Samuel Rowbothams experiments in "The Earth Not a Globe" were made by observing objects on the distant horizon.  And he reports several times that he saw no apparent sinking effect as they got farther away.

See his first experiment for his exact words.

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



Now several times, the FE'er have acknowledged the existence of the effect, and explained it in a way that fits their model.

Now if Rowbotham really conducted the experiments he says he did, why didn't he observe this sinking effect?  The cause of ships "disapearing" over the horizon may be up for debate, but we can all agree that it happens.  I think this calls many of Rowbothams experiments into question.

Either:

a) The Earth is flat and ships disappear due to perspective/optical illusions, and Rowbothams observations were poorly conducted.

Or

b) Ships do not sink over the horizon, and everyone who has ever observed this effect is deluded.

Which is it FE'ers?
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2006, 01:31:07 PM »
I've never seen a ship sink over the horizon. I've been working under the assumption that they do, though.

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2006, 02:05:22 PM »
Well, I have seen ships sink over the horizon.  You don't have to take my word for it though, go see for yourself!

But although we may debate about the cause of the "Illusion", I think we can all agree that ships do appear to sink as they get farther away.

I think this calls the authenticity of Rowbothams experiments into question.  And seeing as Rowbothams book "The Earth, Not a Globe" is the go to source for FE theory, I think it says something about the authenticity of FE as well. . .
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #3 on: October 06, 2006, 02:14:47 PM »
Even if you haven't seen ships sinking over the horizon, it's conceivable that you may have seen cities or mountains sinking over the horizon as you drove away from them on a very geodesic road, or rising as you drove closer.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #4 on: October 06, 2006, 04:50:11 PM »
That true, Erasmus.  So I wonder, should FE'ers really trust Rowbothams experiments when we can see for ourselves that his observations are incorrect?
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

?

Nomad

  • Official Member
  • 16983
Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #5 on: October 06, 2006, 05:20:06 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Even if you haven't seen ships sinking over the horizon, it's conceivable that you may have seen cities or mountains sinking over the horizon as you drove away from them on a very geodesic road, or rising as you drove closer.


That can easily be explained away by hills, though.  Working on the assuption that in the FE theory water would be completly flat, and the RE theory that the water would cuve with the earth, is more "accurate" to gather evidence from.
Nomad is a superhero.

8/30 NEVAR FORGET

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #6 on: October 06, 2006, 08:01:41 PM »
Right.  So did Rowbatham really see ships sinking into the horizon, and then lie about it in his book?

Or did the illusion which makes objects vanish over the horizon only come into effect sometime in the last 150 years?

Will some FE'er please answer this?  Rowbatham made one set of observations, and failed to observe an effect which is seen every day by FE'ers and RE'ers alike.  Did he lie?  Was he just nearsighted?  Or do you think he was assuming the conclusion?
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2006, 08:13:58 AM »
I, personally, would like a better explanation of this "optical illusion"?

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2006, 08:28:30 AM »
Well you won't find it here, soggycrouton.  Here, I only want to discuss the implications that this mistake has on Rowbathams credibility.

But there are dozens of other topics which discuss the sinking ship illusion.  Use the search function if you want to find them.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2006, 09:22:37 AM »
That's fine. It's just from what I HAVE searched, and from looking around for a month now, I still haven't found a very, or even slightly, satisfying explanation.

But I didn't mean to push you off topic.

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #10 on: October 07, 2006, 11:27:41 AM »
Max, what specifically do you find unsatisfactory about Rowbatham's explanation for ships sinking into the horizon? It seems perfectly feasable to me.

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2006, 12:35:32 PM »
I think the first experiment is what Max was specifically talking about; Rowbotham claimed a ship did not drop below the horizon at all in his experiment, though it sailed beyond where it should theoretically appear to drop.

However, to anyone who has ever actually witnessed the effect, Rowbotham's explanation of the effect based on perspective is completely laughable. To paraphrase Erasmus, "Rowbotham must have been locked in a basement his whole life, because that is not what it looks like at all when ships drop below the horizon."
the cake is a lie

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2006, 12:39:24 PM »
What I find unsatisfactory about Rowbothams explanation is that he doesn't provide one.

He said quite clearly that he never observed a ship sinking into the horizon as it got farther away.

Although we can argue about what causes a ship to disappear as it gets farther away, I think that every FE'er and RE'er will agree that it does occur.  Yet Rowbotham said that in his experiments, the boat did not sink into the horizon.

I think this calls Rowbothams entire experiment into question.  He didn't observe a phenomenon that people (REers and FEers alike) observe every day.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2006, 02:46:58 PM »
I'm getting the feeling you have only read one part of Rowbotham's proposal.

He never says the effect doesn't occur; quite the opposite, he addresses the phenomenon explicitly:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

It seems like a reasonable explanation, given that I've never observed the phenomenon myself.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2006, 03:57:26 PM »
Quote from: "thedigitalnomad"
That can easily be explained away by hills, though.


"Easily"? It seems sort of inconceivable that every city and every mountain and every <insert tall object here> is surrounded by hills.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #15 on: October 07, 2006, 04:01:09 PM »
Your right, Unimportant.  Thanks for pointing that out to me.  I never got that far into his book, so I never read his explanation of perspective in great detail.

But this still confuses me.  Obviously, Rowbotham believes that an object will appear to sink into the horizon as it gets farther away.  We know he believes that because he tries to integrate it with FE theory.

But as you can see in his first experiments, he never observed that effect.  So which is it?

Is the Earth Flat, and objects sink into the horizon because of perspective, as according to the chapter that you cited?

Or do objects remain completely visible as they get farther away, as in the chapter that I cited?
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #16 on: October 07, 2006, 09:51:03 PM »
Well Max, as much as I believe in RE, perhaps Rowbotham was just trying to present a number of different theories. I mean, really, that's what science is supposed to be about. When a piece of evidence could be interpreted a number of different ways, a number of different theories are presented as to what this evidence means. As more evidence is presented, more theories are nixed, seeing how the findings didn't match what the theory predicted. Eventually, either one theory ends up being correct, or all of them end up being wrong and a completely new one must be presented. It could be that Rowbotham was just presenting several of his own theories on the matter.
 am a round-earther traversing this site to disprove false claims and bring the light of science to those who remain in the dark without it. Thank you for your time.

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2006, 10:12:52 AM »
Hey this was a very interesting topic.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2006, 10:28:39 AM »
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
Your right, Unimportant.  Thanks for pointing that out to me.  I never got that far into his book, so I never read his explanation of perspective in great detail.

But this still confuses me.  Obviously, Rowbotham believes that an object will appear to sink into the horizon as it gets farther away.  We know he believes that because he tries to integrate it with FE theory.

But as you can see in his first experiments, he never observed that effect.  So which is it?

Is the Earth Flat, and objects sink into the horizon because of perspective, as according to the chapter that you cited?

Or do objects remain completely visible as they get farther away, as in the chapter that I cited?

I believe Rowbotham's claim was that they remain completely visible, but an optical illusion causes you to perceive them as disappearing from the bottom up, because the small characteristics (such as the ship's hull) appear to disappear before the large characteristics (the ship's sails). I'm not sure how this squares with objects which have large characteristics closer to the ground than small characteristics though.
-David
E pur si muove!

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2006, 11:38:02 AM »
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
Your right, Unimportant.  Thanks for pointing that out to me.  I never got that far into his book, so I never read his explanation of perspective in great detail.

But this still confuses me.  Obviously, Rowbotham believes that an object will appear to sink into the horizon as it gets farther away.  We know he believes that because he tries to integrate it with FE theory.

But as you can see in his first experiments, he never observed that effect.  So which is it?

Is the Earth Flat, and objects sink into the horizon because of perspective, as according to the chapter that you cited?

Or do objects remain completely visible as they get farther away, as in the chapter that I cited?

I believe Rowbotham's claim was that they remain completely visible, but an optical illusion causes you to perceive them as disappearing from the bottom up, because the small characteristics (such as the ship's hull) appear to disappear before the large characteristics (the ship's sails). I'm not sure how this squares with objects which have large characteristics closer to the ground than small characteristics though.


You better quote the book before someone, fe or re, jumpas at your throat :)
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2006, 02:45:59 PM »
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
I believe Rowbotham's claim was that they remain completely visible, but an optical illusion causes you to perceive them as disappearing from the bottom up, because the small characteristics (such as the ship's hull) appear to disappear before the large characteristics (the ship's sails).


This is correct.  The extra trick is that Rowbotham points out that even the ocean isn't perfectly flat -- there are little waves in between you and the hull of the ship.  Since the ship appears so small, it can be obscured by even very small waves.  Thus, the farther it gets, the more likely it is to be totally obscured by smaller and smaller waves.

That's what Rowbotham says.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2006, 02:51:30 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
You better quote the book before someone, fe or re, jumpas at your throat :)


I'm pretty sure I got it right, and Erasmus backed me up, so why would anyone jump down my throat? If people want quotes, they can look at the book themselves; it's online.
-David
E pur si muove!

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #22 on: November 23, 2006, 08:43:18 PM »
Quote from: "skeptical scientist"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
You better quote the book before someone, fe or re, jumpas at your throat :)


I'm pretty sure I got it right, and Erasmus backed me up, so why would anyone jump down my throat? If people want quotes, they can look at the book themselves; it's online.


People here aren't in the habit of doing things themselves. They won't look things up, and if you can't find it for them, you are wrong by default.

But in any case, that still doesn't explain why he both gives his explanation for the phenomenon and also say it doesn't happen.

What was his explanation when water isn't involved?
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2006, 08:50:49 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
People here aren't in the habit of doing things themselves. They won't look things up, and if you can't find it for them, you are wrong by default.

If people can't be bothered spending 5 minutes checking something, then I should win by default, not them.

Quote
But in any case, that still doesn't explain why he both gives his explanation for the phenomenon and also say it doesn't happen.

He says it doesn't happen because he believes it doesn't happen. He does believe that it appears to happen, so he offers an explanation for the appearance.

Quote
What was his explanation when water isn't involved?

Exactly the same as when water is involved. Speaking of people who can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes checking something when I've already provided the link...
-David
E pur si muove!

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2006, 10:37:50 AM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
People here aren't in the habit of doing things themselves. They won't look things up, and if you can't find it for them, you are wrong by default.


Man, you have really hit the nail on the head with this one.  I too wish REers would be willing to do a little bit of work on their own, and stop assuming that they automatically win every argument ... just because.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2006, 12:49:28 PM »
Quote
Exactly the same as when water is involved. Speaking of people who can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes checking something when I've already provided the link...


What   Iwas told by Fe-ers, is that Rowbotham 's explanation involved the waves in the sea obsccuring the base of the ship as it got smaller. Forgive me for taking their words for it but I assumed they knew about his work enough to explain it.

Quote
Man, you have really hit the nail on the head with this one. I too wish REers would be willing to do a little bit of work on their own, and stop assuming that they automatically win every argument ... just because.


What exactly are you refering to?
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2006, 01:08:31 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
What exactly are you refering to?


I'm referring to

Quote
People here aren't in the habit of doing things themselves. They won't look things up, and if you can't find it for them, you are wrong by default.


I agree.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #27 on: November 24, 2006, 02:10:40 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
What exactly are you refering to?


I'm referring to

Quote
People here aren't in the habit of doing things themselves. They won't look things up, and if you can't find it for them, you are wrong by default.


I agree.


Note that I said people, not RE-ers or Fe-ers.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2006, 04:53:30 AM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Man, you have really hit the nail on the head with this one.  I too wish REers would be willing to do a little bit of work on their own, and stop assuming that they automatically win every argument ... just because.


We have all the explanations, facts, scientifical evidence, photo-evidence, video-evidence*, resources and possibilites in the universe to prove that the Earth is round, while all you FE'ers do is hold on to your unproved theory - nothing more.
Get a telescope.


* Of course, if all of these would be faked then it's still a lot more than you FE'ers have ever accomplished.
quot;Earth is flat because there is a conspiracy, and there is a conspiracy because the Earth is flat" - Makes sense, duh.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2955.0

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Rowbathams Folly
« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2006, 01:08:24 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Note that I said people, not RE-ers or Fe-ers.

Last time I checked, RE-ers were subset of people. But you have to admit, there are a lot of people who post, "The earth is round. You all are dumb! OMG lol!!!11!"* Even the more serious and better spoken breed of RE-er sometimes just fails to produce evidence because, "we all know the earth is round, so it is."

*My apologies for the correct spelling and punctuation. I'm not good at writing in internet-lamer.
-David
E pur si muove!