Rowbotham seems like a pretty dumb guy

I read some of his work. It's pretty bad.

CHAPTER XII: THE CAUSE OF TIDES.

1.)"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."

Rowbotham doesn't understand the definition of flood tide.

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.) "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."

Rowbotham doesn't fully understand his own thought experiment.

This statement is 100% false and can be disproved 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.) "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."

Rowbotham doesn't understand proportionality of gravity.

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 km² (371,000,000 meters). Average depth= 187 m

Smallest ocean: Arctic Ocean area of 13,990,000 km² (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.

Other problems 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.



Why do people support Rowbotham's theories? Can any Rowbotham supporters defend him on any of these points?

If so, please point out my errors.

That's actually a great post. It shows quite clearly where Rowbotham's logic fails. As far as I can tell, there's no flaw in your argument, so I look forward to see how FE advocates respond.

Also, I found point 6 to be quite confusing at first. I'm assuming that the person is going at a constant velocity (therefore 0 N) and they're shooting the gun (or holding the incense in your example) within the vehicle. In that case, your logic is perfect.

Well thought, challenging and original questions. Prepare to be utterly ignored by FE'ers.

Rowbotham is a pile of fun. Something I've noticed is how he uses round-earth phenomena to explain why the Earth isn't round.

Another phenomenon supposed to prove rotundity, is thought to be the fact that Polaris, or the north polar star sinks to the horizon as the traveller approaches the equator, on passing which it becomes invisible. This is a conclusion fully as premature and illogical as that involved in the several cases already alluded to. It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the "vanishing point" or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible.

What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower.

This lowering of the pole star as we recede southwards; and the rising of the stars in the south as we approach them, is the necessary result of the everywhere visible law of perspective operating between the eye-line of the observer, the object observed, and the plane surface upon which he stands; and has no connection with or relation whatever to the supposed rotundity of the earth.

He clearly hasn't done any of the maths involved with perspective. He walks down a line of lamp-posts, or sails away from a lighthouse assuming the Earth is flat, and thus the objects sinking beneath the horizon is due to perspective. Had he done the maths, he'd have found that for Polaris to appear on the horizon from a mere 20,000 kilometers away, it'd have to be around 3 kilometers above the north pole.

Another favorite of mine is Experiment 6:

EXPERIMENT 6.

The following important experiment has recently been tried at Brighton, in Sussex. On the new or Western Pier a good theodolite was fixed, at an elevation of 30 feet above the water, and directed to a given point on the pier at Worthing, a distance of at least ten statute miles. Several small yachts and other vessels were sailing about between the two piers, one of which was brought to within a few yards of the Brighton Pier, and directed to sail as nearly as possible in a straight line towards the pier at Worthing; when the top of the mast, which scarcely reached the theodolite, was observed to continue below the line of sight throughout the whole distance, as shown in fig. 14--A,

^{FIG. 14.}

representing the theodolite, and B, the pier at Worthing. From which it is concluded that the surface of the water is horizontal throughout the whole length of ten miles. Whereas, if the earth is a globe, the water between the two piers would be an arc of a circle (as shown in fig. 15), the centre of which would

^{FIG. 15.}

be 16 feet 8 inches higher than the two extremities, and the vessel starting. from A, would ascend an inclined plane, rising over 16 feet, to the summit of the arc at C, where the mast-head would stand considerably above the line of sight. From this point the vessel would gradually descend to the point B, at Worthing. As no such behaviour of the vessel was observed, the ten miles of water between the two piers must be horizontal.

He is adamant that the piers 10 miles apart must be parallel and in-line with each-other instead of tangent to the water beneath them. If you redrew FIG.15 to show actual pier construction, and have the dotted line represent a leveled theodolite, then it's obvious the boat would never rise up into the horizontal. Rowbotham drew the boat and piers to be about the same height, so allow me to provide a diagram explaining the leveled view on a round Earth:


Notice that as B travels between A and C it will always be below the upper horizontal line of the leveled theodolite.

I read the title and almost choked on my cornflakes. 


Then I realised you were criticising Rowbotham's work on tides and of course he came to the exact same conclusions as Galileo.
http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/observations/tides.html
That basically tides are caused by sloshing and the moon doesn't make a jot of difference.

So I guess you are saying Galileo must be a pretty dumb guy too. At this point you have lost all credibility. 

I read the title and almost choked on my cornflakes. 


Then I realised you were criticising Rowbotham's work on tides and of course he came to the exact same conclusions as Galileo.
http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/observations/tides.html
That basically tides are caused by sloshing and the moon doesn't make a jot of difference.

So I guess you are saying Galileo must be a pretty dumb guy too. At this point you have lost all credibility. 

I'm sorry to tell you this but the final paragraph of this article states that Galileo made an error on this subject. I've pasted the entire thing in and highlighted the relevant sections.

"Many critical questions are involved in this Galileo theory of the tides: first of all the fact that, rejecting any kind of attractive force as the real cause of the tides, this theory was, in Newtonian terms, an error. Nevertheless this judgment has for a long time impeded a historical evaluation of Galileo's theory. Only in some recent essays the question is examined with more care and is judged in the context of the physical and astronomical debate of the seventeenth century. To accuse Galileo of an excess of scientific realism, or even of presumption (as some authors have done), is to lose the possibility of historical reconstruction in which what counts is not the achievement of the future, but the efforts to reach them. Galileo was trying to build a scientific method in a world based more on books than on the nature, more on astrology than on astronomy, more on closing one's eyes than on observing through the telescope. That his theory of the tides did not survive the critical judgment of his successors is not germane to historical inquiry."

This article states that Galileo examined the idea of the tides after the pope would not accept Copernican theory, in an attempt to get it accepted.

His letter and the diagram are actually describing what is known as the earth's "Chandler wobble" in orbit caused by varying sea bed pressure. (i.e. the weight of the earths oceans moving around) which is linked to the moon's gravity driving the tides. Galileo was a great man, and essentially he was half way there and in a way ahead, but in this case he was later proven wrong when the tools evolved and became more accurate and showed the moon as the main driver of the tides. As the second bold line says, and really most of the article, he was living in a world where society simply wouldn't accept his methods, causing him to deviate off of his scientific course.

In short, read through your evidence first before you use it.

I'm sorry to tell you this but the final paragraph of this article states that Galileo made an error on this subject.

Am I to believe Galileo or some internet opinion?

I posted that blog as it succinctly explained Galileo's position. I could have posted the Discorso sul flusso e il reflusso delmare, but then you would have bitched it was in 17th century Italian.

Don't you dare tell me what I can and can't use as a source. The source was to illustrate Galileo's position, not whether some internet talking head agrees with it or not.

Keep up, or get out. 

Quote from: danger2007 on August 13, 2013, 11:00:16 AM

I'm sorry to tell you this but the final paragraph of this article states that Galileo made an error on this subject.

Am I to believe Galileo or some internet opinion?

I posted that blog as it succinctly explained Galileo's position. I could have posted the Discorso sul flusso e il reflusso delmare, but then you would have bitched it was in 17th century Italian.

Don't you dare tell me what I can and can't use as a source. The source was to illustrate Galileo's position, not whether some internet talking head agrees with it or not.

Keep up, or get out. 

The internet opinion is simply that of the source that you posted. If you not going to believe the source then why did you use it?? It doesn't support your position it also illustrates the age of the theory - 17th century. We have much more accurate ways to measure what Galileo was studying.

You should refrain from telling me to keep up when using evidence from the 17th century....

I read the title and almost choked on my cornflakes. 


Then I realised you were criticising Rowbotham's work on tides and of course he came to the exact same conclusions as Galileo.
http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/observations/tides.html
That basically tides are caused by sloshing and the moon doesn't make a jot of difference.

So I guess you are saying Galileo must be a pretty dumb guy too. At this point you have lost all credibility. 

Actually, you have it backwards.  Rowbotham came to the exact same wrong conclusion that Galileo did more than a hundred years earlier.  You would have thought that Rowbotham could have learned from Galileo's mistake.

Quote from: Ævan on August 13, 2013, 10:31:34 AM

I read the title and almost choked on my cornflakes. 


Then I realised you were criticising Rowbotham's work on tides and of course he came to the exact same conclusions as Galileo.
http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/observations/tides.html
That basically tides are caused by sloshing and the moon doesn't make a jot of difference.

So I guess you are saying Galileo must be a pretty dumb guy too. At this point you have lost all credibility. 

Actually, you have it backwards.  Rowbotham came to the exact same wrong conclusion that Galileo did more than a hundred years earlier.  You would have thought that Rowbotham could have learned from Galileo's mistake.

Don't be factious, Markjo. You know how we feel about Rowbotham at TFES.

I read the title and almost choked on my cornflakes. 


Then I realised you were criticising Rowbotham's work on tides and of course he came to the exact same conclusions as Galileo.
http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/observations/tides.html
That basically tides are caused by sloshing and the moon doesn't make a jot of difference.

So I guess you are saying Galileo must be a pretty dumb guy too. At this point you have lost all credibility. 

Sorry can you clarify what you mean by "sloshing" with some academic material on the subject?

It was pointed out that universal acceleration is a constant increase in speed. This would serve to pin the water in place, like when you spin a bucket on a string around in school. Gravity works in all directions from the center of mass but only towards it, hence we encounter the atmospheric and oceanic circulations in our day to day lives.   

Guys we're getting off-topic. This is about how people can support Rowbotham's theories, especially where it appears he's either ignorant of the topic or deliberately misleading. Megaman has given a few examples, and I've given a couple. To iterate the question:

Why do people support Rowbotham's theories? Can any Rowbotham supporters defend him on any of these points?

If so, please point out my our errors.

Sorry can you clarify what you mean by "sloshing" with some academic material on the subject?

Is your Google broken?

I have brought it to your attention that Rowbotham's work is based on Galileo's theory of the tides. Galileo observed waves sloshing in a barge carrying fresh water to Venice, and thought perturbations of movement of the Earth caused the same to happen in the oceans.

I have already given you the name of the work if you wish to read the original. It is by Galileo and would have to be classed as "academic material".

Guys we're getting off-topic. This is about how people can support Rowbotham's theories, especially where it appears he's either ignorant of the topic or deliberately misleading. Megaman has given a few examples, and I've given a couple. To iterate the question:

Why do people support Rowbotham's theories? Can any Rowbotham supporters defend him on any of these points?

If so, please point out my our errors.

Quote from: danger2007 on August 13, 2013, 01:43:00 PM

Sorry can you clarify what you mean by "sloshing" with some academic material on the subject?

Is your Google broken?

I have brought it to your attention that Rowbotham's work is based on Galileo's theory of the tides. Galileo observed waves sloshing in a barge carrying fresh water to Venice, and thought perturbations of movement of the Earth caused the same to happen in the oceans.

I have already given you the name of the work if you wish to read the original. It is by Galileo and would have to be classed as "academic material".

It seems Rowbotham ties his tidal theories to Galileo, which is why supporters believe them. So unfortunately if we're discussing Rowbotham  we're disscussing Galileo.

Yes my Google does work and a casual search reveals many articles showing Galileo tidal theory to be incorrect. The one that will give you the most interest is this article from the university of Pittsburgh. It goes in to great detail on the subject and shows that Galileo was close to correctly calculating the tides. The author presents a non-Newtonian scenario where Galileo would have been correct. The scenario does not conform with the universal acceleration model that FE supporters purvey. It may well be the youngest source of material on the subject on this website. No one denies he was brilliant, but the author in this has to concede that under Newtonian physics he did not have the entire answer.

http://www.pitt.edu/~pap7/Re-examining%20Galileos%20Theory%20of%20Tides.pdf

FE supporters contradict themselves by supporting Galileo anyway, he is one of the greatest astronomers to have lived and was accused of heresy for suggesting the Sun was in the centre of the solar system and agreeing with Copernicus, which led to life imprisonment. The church was eventually forced to accept Copernicus and Galileo's evidence on the Earth revolving around the sun. However this occurred after his death.

In the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which earned him his second heresy accusation, he argues that the earth is rotating and for Copernicus. This again does not fit the FE view.
 

Don't be factious, Markjo. You know how we feel about Rowbotham at TFES.

How you feel about Rowbotham is irrelevant.  What matters is how well you can support his creative interpretation of physics.

FE supporters contradict themselves by supporting Galileo anyway, he is one of the greatest astronomers to have lived and was accused of heresy for suggesting the Sun was in the centre of the solar system and agreeing with Copernicus, which led to life imprisonment. The church was eventually forced to accept Copernicus and Galileo's evidence on the Earth revolving around the sun. However this occurred after his death.

In the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which earned him his second heresy accusation, he argues that the earth is rotating and for Copernicus. This again does not fit the FE view.

Galileo saw the error of his ways regarding whirling ball theory. He documented this in an open letter to the church.

I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged seventy years, being brought personally to judgment, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords Cardinals, General Inquisitors of the Universal Christian Commonwealth against heretical depravity, having before my eyes the Holy Gospels which I touch with my own hands, swear that I have always believed, and, with the help of God, will in future believe, every article which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome holds, teaches, and preaches. But because I have been enjoined, by this Holy Office, altogether to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre and immovable, and forbidden to hold, defend, or teach, the said false doctrine in any manner ... I am willing to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of every Catholic Christian, this vehement suspicion rightly entertained towards me, therefore, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that I will never more in future say, or assert anything, verbally or in writing, which may give rise to a similar suspicion of me; but that if I shall know any heretic, or any one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor and Ordinary of the place in which I may be. I swear, moreover, and promise that I will fulfil and observe fully all the penances which have been or shall be laid on me by this Holy Office. But if it shall happen that I violate any of my said promises, oaths, and protestations (which God avert!), I subject myself to all the pains and punishments which have been decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other general and particular constitutions against delinquents of this description. So, may God help me, and His Holy Gospels, which I touch with my own hands, I, the above named Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and, in witness thereof, with my own hand have subscribed this present writing of my abjuration, which I have recited word for word.

He does not reject his theory of the tides. It would seem ultimately that he was in agreement with FES.

It should be of no surprise to anyone that the FES relies on centuries-old science which was, as was axiomatically the case with Galileo, dictated by a tyrannical church whom could have you imprisoned should one be able to contradict their doctrines (Flat-earth, creationism, geocentrism etc).

The facts are that a FE has been no less refuted and disproved than geocentrism has. The FES has to ignore over a century of developing science and its observations, instead relying on crude, erroneous, centuries-old models and global conspiracies. This very sub-forum is proof how lacking the FET is - hundreds of threads with pertinent questions as yet still remained unanswered - and countless more that FE's derailed with non-sequitars.

It speaks volumes that the FES puts stock in Rowbotham who the OP shows to be in serious error on numerous occasions.

The FES reminds me of religion: now matter how many times you show their arguments and theories to be in error, there is seemingly an infinite replenishment of their stance as anything can be rectified... usually with magic

Quote from: danger2007 on August 13, 2013, 04:54:32 PM

FE supporters contradict themselves by supporting Galileo anyway, he is one of the greatest astronomers to have lived and was accused of heresy for suggesting the Sun was in the centre of the solar system and agreeing with Copernicus, which led to life imprisonment. The church was eventually forced to accept Copernicus and Galileo's evidence on the Earth revolving around the sun. However this occurred after his death.

In the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which earned him his second heresy accusation, he argues that the earth is rotating and for Copernicus. This again does not fit the FE view.

Galileo saw the error of his ways regarding whirling ball theory. He documented this in an open letter to the church.

Quote from: Galileo Galilei

I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged seventy years, being brought personally to judgment, and kneeling before you, Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lords Cardinals, General Inquisitors of the Universal Christian Commonwealth against heretical depravity, having before my eyes the Holy Gospels which I touch with my own hands, swear that I have always believed, and, with the help of God, will in future believe, every article which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome holds, teaches, and preaches. But because I have been enjoined, by this Holy Office, altogether to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre and immovable, and forbidden to hold, defend, or teach, the said false doctrine in any manner ... I am willing to remove from the minds of your Eminences, and of every Catholic Christian, this vehement suspicion rightly entertained towards me, therefore, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I abjure, curse, and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that I will never more in future say, or assert anything, verbally or in writing, which may give rise to a similar suspicion of me; but that if I shall know any heretic, or any one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor and Ordinary of the place in which I may be. I swear, moreover, and promise that I will fulfil and observe fully all the penances which have been or shall be laid on me by this Holy Office. But if it shall happen that I violate any of my said promises, oaths, and protestations (which God avert!), I subject myself to all the pains and punishments which have been decreed and promulgated by the sacred canons and other general and particular constitutions against delinquents of this description. So, may God help me, and His Holy Gospels, which I touch with my own hands, I, the above named Galileo Galilei, have abjured, sworn, promised, and bound myself as above; and, in witness thereof, with my own hand have subscribed this present writing of my abjuration, which I have recited word for word.

He does not reject his theory of the tides. It would seem ultimately that he was in agreement with FES.

He was allowed to continue his work after first promising not to work not spread Copernican theory, which the Church dissagreed with. This is that promise which he later broke. Look at any biography of Galileo. Or perhaps your google isn't working properly?

If he saw the error if his ways then way was he accused of heresy, forced into house arrest twice??

Why did the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems earn him the rest of his life under house arrest?? It is written after the letter you cite and his tide theory.

The facts show he never learned the ""error"" of his ways at all. Evidence for this is the historical fact that the church posthumously pardoned him and accepted the Copernicus model.

You are cherry picking specific events and a theory and not looking at the whole picture, or all of Galileo's actions.

You mentioned acedemic sources, The Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems is endorsed by Albert Einstein here are some extracts from Einstein's forward to the book:

"The naïve picture of the earth as a flat disc, combined with obscure ideas about star-filled space and the motions of the celestial bodies, prevalent in the early Middle Ages, represented a deterioration of the much earlier conceptions of the Greeks, and in particular of Aristotle’s ideas and Ptolemy’s consistent spatial concept of the celestial bodies and their motions. … In advocating and fighting for the Copernican theory Galileo was not only motivated by a striving to simplify the representation of the celestial motions. His aim was to substitute for a petrified and barren system of ideas the unbiased and strenuous quest for a deeper and more consistent comprehension of the physical and astronomical facts."

On Galileo "seeing the error of his ways" and your letter:

"Galileo had, in fact, been expressly forbidden to advocate the Copernican theory. Apart from its revolutionary factual content the Dialogue represents a down-right roguish attempt to comply with this order in appearance and yet in fact to disregard it. Unfortunately, it turned out that the Holy Inquisition was unable to appreciate adequately such subtle humor"

On the tides:
"This investigation also is ingenious, notwithstanding its primitiveness. It was Galileo’s longing for a mechanical proof of the motion of the earth which misled him into formulating a wrong theory of the tides."

Please stop miss-representing Galileo.

Guys we're getting off-topic. This is about how people can support Rowbotham's theories, especially where it appears he's either ignorant of the topic or deliberately misleading.

Why do people support Rowbotham's theories? Can any Rowbotham supporters defend him on any of these points?

If so, please point out my our errors.

There are several areas where I disagree with Dr. Rowbotham or find his views naive in light of subsequent discoveries. It's a book, not a bible. I could scarcely find a book to read wherein I did not disagree with the author at points.

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 13, 2013, 01:46:14 PM

Guys we're getting off-topic. This is about how people can support Rowbotham's theories, especially where it appears he's either ignorant of the topic or deliberately misleading.

Why do people support Rowbotham's theories? Can any Rowbotham supporters defend him on any of these points?

If so, please point out my our errors.

There are several areas where I disagree with Dr. Rowbotham or find his views naive in light of subsequent discoveries. It's a book, not a bible. I could scarcely find a book to read wherein I did not disagree with the author at points.

Thats very honest ski, its nice to see not everyone will defend the blinding obvious errors in that book. It was the backbone to the TES but like a lot of older scientific theories  it did not stand the test of time. An idiot though? No. He sold many a fizzy soft drink most likely from the fame created by his publicity stunt; The Earth Not a Globe.

Found another jewel:

Although this admission is logically compulsory, it will be useful and strictly Zetetic to collect all the evidence possible which bears upon it.

1st. A reflector is a plane or concave surface, which gives off or returns what it receives:--

If a piece of red hot metal or any other heated object is placed before a plane or concave surface, heat is reflected.
If snow or ice, or any artificial freezing mixture is similarly placed, cold will be reflected.

If light of any given colour is placed in the same way, the same colour of light will be reflected.

If a given sound is produced, the same tone or pitch will be reflected.

Here Rowbotham posits self-evident truths which he later uses to further the idea that the moon can't be reflecting sunlight.

Firstly, his definition is both vague and wrong. A reflector is "a piece of glass, metal, or other material for reflecting light in a required direction, e.g., a red one on the back of a motor vehicle or bicycle." Rowbotham's definition more closely resembles a mirror, in that mirrors give back exactly what is given to them.

Given that, I'll assume Rowbotham's talking about mirrors, which instantly denies the validity of his arguments against the moon. Mainly because the moon isn't a mirror. It reflects about the same amount as worn asphalt.

But for the benefit of the doubt, let's switch back from mirror to reflector and go through Rowbotham's list.

If a piece of red hot metal or any other heated object is placed before a plane or concave surface, heat is reflected.
If snow or ice, or any artificial freezing mixture is similarly placed, cold will be reflected.

Half right, but half very wrong. Yes, reflectors can reflect heat. Build a fire in a fireplace with a concave backing and you'll see what I mean. If it's stone, this is likely because the stones get warmed by the fire and radiate their own heat at you, but metal ones will actually reflect the heat.

You can easily see this effect for yourself with a heat-lamp. Place the heat-lamp on a desk and turn it on, such that it's shining on the desk. Put your hand under it, and you'll feel the heat. Put your hand above it, and if you do feel heat it's not nearly as intense. This shows the casing of the lamp is reflecting the heat from the bulb. You can use a thermometer, too, if you like.

But the opposite is not true--a reflector can't reflect cold because cold isn't really a thing. Cold is a word we invented to describe things that don't have as much heat as other things. You can't reflect what doesn't exist. Example--try reflecting darkness. When you get down to it, what you're doing is simply not reflecting light.

But enough with theory, let's experiment. Remove the bulb from your heat-lamp and tilt it upward. Place a piece of dry ice (frozen carbon dioxide) where the bulb was. Now place your hand where the bulb should have been shining. Do you feel cold?

No, you don't. But this was the same reflector that reflected the heat-lamps heat. Why doesn't it reflect cold? Because physics doesn't work that way.

If light of any given colour is placed in the same way, the same colour of light will be reflected.

Yeah, no. Again, we're not talking about a mirror here because the moon isn't a mirror. Let's do another experiment. Put a piece of red construction paper under a white light. What color is the paper? Certainly not white, even though all the light it's reflecting is from a white source. The color has been changed because the paper can only reflect a certain color.

A more in-depth experiment would involve two sheets of construction paper--one red and one white--a flashlight that produces white light, and a dark room. Set the paper up such that their flat sides are at, say, a 60-degree angle from each-other. Turn off the room lights and turn on the flashlight, such that the flashlight is the only source of light in the room. Shine the light as best you can directly on the inner face of the red paper (the side closest to and facing the white). Make sure none of the light falls on the white paper.

Now, look at the white paper. It is illuminated only from the reflected light from the red paper. And you'll clearly see it, too, is red.

So no, a reflector will reflect only those colors that it can reflect.

If a given sound is produced, the same tone or pitch will be reflected.

This one's 100% correct, unless there is relative motion involved.

You are incorrect. Cold can be reflected. Since all temperatures are above absolute zero, they can be reflected. If we consider 60^o F to be "cold", then 60^o F can be reflected and trasnmuted into another object, giving it the same coldness.

If we are in space, reflecting 60^o F onto the tip of a thermometer, the thermometer will eventually read 60^o F.

You are incorrect. Cold can be reflected. Since all temperatures are above absolute zero, they can be reflected. If we consider 60^o F to be "cold", then 60^o F can be reflected and trasnmuted into another object, giving it the same coldness.

If we are in space, reflecting 60^o F onto the tip of a thermometer, the thermometer will eventually read 60^o F.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo you are incorrect. He explained it perfectly well to you. You are reflecting heat. In the case of 60 degrees, that is 60 degree of heat, not 60 degrees of cold. Similarly 1 degree above absolute zero would still be heat.

Rowbotham was not a uniquely brilliant man. He was merely the first to actually pause to wonder whether or not ancient Greek assumptions about the shape of the Earth were correct and to devise an experiment to prove them wrong or right. I disagree with quite a bit of his work.

However, if we're going around Poisoning Wells, I'd like to add that Newton spent more time researching alchemy than he did physics. As stated above, Galileo believed the same as Rowbotham regarding tides. Aristotle believed that objects had a natural place where they wanted to go and when things fell this was what they were doing; he also explained friction as being the result of objects getting tired. Just because they believed some inaccurate things doesn't mean they were stupid people.

I doubt he was the first, perhaps just the most vocal.

As for his work, if I find any of his experiments that can be reliably repeated, and that give unquestionable evidence of a flat earth, I will be happy to support this idea. However, having read through most of ENaG, I don't like my chances...

Rowbotham was not a uniquely brilliant man. He was merely the first to actually pause to wonder whether or not ancient Greek assumptions about the shape of the Earth were correct and to devise an experiment to prove them wrong or right. I disagree with quite a bit of his work.

However, if we're going around Poisoning Wells, I'd like to add that Newton spent more time researching alchemy than he did physics. As stated above, Galileo believed the same as Rowbotham regarding tides. Aristotle believed that objects had a natural place where they wanted to go and when things fell this was what they were doing; he also explained friction as being the result of objects getting tired. Just because they believed some inaccurate things doesn't mean they were stupid people.

Usually smart people believing stupid things is a result of incomplete information or just a stubborn pigheadedness (see Einstein and Quantum Mechanics). Rowbotham on the other hand has at his disposal quite a bit of information, which he either cherry-picks or ignores. And his own arguments either blatantly go against observations or contradicts arguments he made earlier. This doesn't make a brilliant man with bad beliefs, it makes a man with bad beliefs.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 26, 2013, 02:04:35 PM

You are incorrect. Cold can be reflected. Since all temperatures are above absolute zero, they can be reflected. If we consider 60^o F to be "cold", then 60^o F can be reflected and trasnmuted into another object, giving it the same coldness.

If we are in space, reflecting 60^o F onto the tip of a thermometer, the thermometer will eventually read 60^o F.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo you are incorrect. He explained it perfectly well to you. You are reflecting heat. In the case of 60 degrees, that is 60 degree of heat, not 60 degrees of cold. Similarly 1 degree above absolute zero would still be heat.

If I hold an ice cube which is 15 degrees, I'm describing 15 degrees as "cold".

The definition of cold is "low temperature".

cold
adjective
1. of or at a low or relatively low temperature, esp. when compared with the human body.

Since no one is disputing that low temperatures can be reflected, "cold" can therefore be reflected.

Quote from: rottingroom on August 26, 2013, 02:09:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 26, 2013, 02:04:35 PM

You are incorrect. Cold can be reflected. Since all temperatures are above absolute zero, they can be reflected. If we consider 60^o F to be "cold", then 60^o F can be reflected and trasnmuted into another object, giving it the same coldness.

If we are in space, reflecting 60^o F onto the tip of a thermometer, the thermometer will eventually read 60^o F.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo you are incorrect. He explained it perfectly well to you. You are reflecting heat. In the case of 60 degrees, that is 60 degree of heat, not 60 degrees of cold. Similarly 1 degree above absolute zero would still be heat.

If I hold an ice cube which is 15 degrees, I'm describing 15 degrees as "cold".

The definition of cold is "low temperature".

cold
kōldSubmit
adjective
1.
of or at a low or relatively low temperature, esp. when compared with the human body.

The fact of the matter is that heat will always travel from the hotter body to the colder.  So you cannot radiate cold, but a hotter body only has so much heat to radiate.

If I hold an ice cube which is 15 degrees, I'm describing 15 degrees as "cold".

The definition of cold is "low temperature".

cold
adjective
1. of or at a low or relatively low temperature, esp. when compared with the human body.

Since no one is disputing that low temperatures can be reflected, "cold" can therefore be reflected.

What exactly do you think cold is?  It isn't a thing, and it can't be 'reflected'.  As per your definition, 'cold' is only meaningful in a comparative context between different temperatures.  Water ice is cold compared to the average temperature of a human body.  It's hot compared to a cup of liquid nitrogen.

Of course, this has already been explained to you by other users...

Quote from: rottingroom on August 26, 2013, 02:09:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 26, 2013, 02:04:35 PM

You are incorrect. Cold can be reflected. Since all temperatures are above absolute zero, they can be reflected. If we consider 60^o F to be "cold", then 60^o F can be reflected and trasnmuted into another object, giving it the same coldness.

If we are in space, reflecting 60^o F onto the tip of a thermometer, the thermometer will eventually read 60^o F.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo you are incorrect. He explained it perfectly well to you. You are reflecting heat. In the case of 60 degrees, that is 60 degree of heat, not 60 degrees of cold. Similarly 1 degree above absolute zero would still be heat.

If I hold an ice cube which is 15 degrees, I'm describing 15 degrees as "cold".

The definition of cold is "low temperature".

cold
adjective
1. of or at a low or relatively low temperature, esp. when compared with the human body.

Since no one is disputing that low temperatures can be reflected, "cold" can therefore be reflected.

Yep, that is the definition of cold, pretty much "low temperature".

Did you bother looking up temperature?

noun
noun: temperature; plural noun: temperatures

1. the degree or intensity of heat present in a substance or object, esp. as expressed according to a comparative scale and shown by a thermometer or perceived by touch.