What about a telescope aimed at the horizon?

There are many fora on this site.  The upper fora are basically the ones that start with "Flat Earth".  The rest of the site is pretty much social fora.  We moderate the upper fora in a strict manner.  The lower you go through the different fora on the forum page, the less strict the moderation is.  If you make it to the very bottom, which are the Complete Nonsense and Angry Ranting fora, you can actually say the F word without worrying about getting a warning.  However, here, you can not say words like that.  Please consider this another warning. 

Given we don't speak Latin, why not say.. FORUMS..

I don't want to spend any more time here, i cant work out how to delete my account, pls do that for me.

I can't delete an account.  You could try PMing Daniel or Lord Wilmore, and then wait six months for a reply.  Alternatively, you could just log out, clear your cookies, and not log back in.

Id like my posts to be removed, hence i want the account deleted. I use this identity in other places too. and regret using it here.

I'll message daniel..

Id like my posts to be removed, hence i want the account deleted. I use this identity in other places too. and regret using it here.
I'll message daniel..

Thanks for clogging up this thread. Why not simply DELETE your posts?  Please start with this thread.  Thanks.  Have a nice life. 

Yep.  You're quite correct.  I guess I made the mistake of trying to oversimplify things for the flat earthers who now seem to have introduced the meaningless definition "eyeline".

The "meaningless definition" of "eyeline" has been set by people versed in perspective and not flat earthers 
http://bit.ly/1c4I9f5

I also note that Ski never got around to defining exactly what he meant by "eyeline".  Rather than defining the peculiar FE terminology they use (instead of accepted scientific terminology) they seem more than keen to pick every little error that REs might make. 

"Eye line" is not peculiar FE terminology... You're ridiculous.

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 06, 2014, 08:56:48 PM

Quote from: Ski on February 06, 2014, 01:58:40 PM

Dr. Rowbotham suggests that the laws of perspective dictate that while the object will become larger through telescopic restoration, the real feat that is happening is the unequal decompression of objects nearer the eyeline than those distant to it.  I.e. -- the base of the bridge decompresses at a greater rate than those parts of the bridge farther from the eyeline. It is this phenomena that causes the "sinking ship" illusion. This is covered in great detail in Chapter 32 of ENaG.

Do you feel the vertical compression of the bridge, buildings, and hillside shown would be corrected as I zoomed in?

Any answer yet?

The vertical compression will always be greatest near the eye line. As more of the bridge (et al) is restored, the greater part is removed from the eyeline and the compression is no evident on the greater part of the bridge. Just as Dr Rowbotham predicts and your photos demonstrate.
Why could compression not only happen vertically?

Just as Dr Rowbotham predicts and your photos demonstrate.

As has already been discussed, Rowbotham's correct honorific is "Mr" and not "Dr".  Your hero of the moment was nothing more than a glorified snake-oil salesman charging uneducated dupes 5¢ a throw to hear him lecture on pseudo-science in circus tents 150 years ago.

Is this really some of the best evidence you have to support your flat earth theory?  Seriously?
 
 
 

I already told you that if you'd like to discuss Dr. Rowbotham's title, I am not above doing that for you (though it has been done before to everyone's satisfaction -- but apparently your own). We are not, however, going to do it in every thread as you seem to thrill in merely producing ad hominem. 

What sort of weak mind can worship an individual like this? Reminds me of a cult.

He clearly was not a Doctor, there's no evidence whatsoever pointing to any study that he did, any PHd, or anything else for that matter.. he even used fake names throughout his life.

When Geoff referred to him as a snake oil sales man - i thought he was being fallacious.. but he actually WAS! lol haha classic.

One of the most common logical fallacies is appealing to authority... and no surprise - here it is.

Quote from: ausGeoff on February 12, 2014, 06:25:21 AM

Yep.  You're quite correct.  I guess I made the mistake of trying to oversimplify things for the flat earthers who now seem to have introduced the meaningless definition "eyeline".

The "meaningless definition" of "eyeline" has been set by people versed in perspective and not flat earthers 
http://bit.ly/1c4I9f5

Quote

I also note that Ski never got around to defining exactly what he meant by "eyeline".  Rather than defining the peculiar FE terminology they use (instead of accepted scientific terminology) they seem more than keen to pick every little error that REs might make. 

"Eye line" is not peculiar FE terminology... You're ridiculous.

So still using the art class concept of perspective rather than the visual/optical version then.

The vertical compression will always be greatest near the eye line.

 
Near the surface or near the eyeline?

The eyeline is just as pronounced in the other picture.  It was only a difference of 15-20 feet elevation between the images, and it's 12 miles to the hill.

If the visual presence of the waterline/eyeline is the cause the distortion of the hillside, would panning the scope upward so that the waterline/eyeline is just out of frame result in everything returning to normal?

As more of the bridge (et al) is restored, the greater part is removed from the eyeline and the compression is no evident on the greater part of the bridge. Just as Dr Rowbotham predicts and your photos demonstrate.

By magnification or changing elevation?

Besides physical distance, a difference in elevation will determine how much an object sinks beyond the horizon.  Whether or not it disappears, is compressed, appears to float, etc, depends on whether or not conditions are ideal for refraction or mirage.  Just as RET predicts and my photos demonstrate.

Why could compression not only happen vertically?

When things grow smaller due to perspective, they grow smaller vertically and horizontally.  If it's not sinking and there's no refraction, then some type of lensing effect needs to cause 'vertical only' compression as there is nothing between the observer and subject.  As I asked above, what if I framed out that eyeline?



Anyway, here's my original question again... (Earthisaspaceship said yes then no. Novice seemed to say yes, then no.  Tappet says no.)  Would increasing the optical zoom from 1x upwards cause the vertical compression seen in the left to gradually stretch upward, eventually resulting in (or closer to) the visual dimensions seen in the right?

What sort of weak mind can worship an individual like this? Reminds me of a cult.

Noone worships Dr. Rowbotham. There are several concepts in ENaG I take issue with. What you are doing is baselessly accusing him of fraud while not addressing anything he said. Much more akin to what you are accusing us of, actually.

Quote from: alfa156melb on February 20, 2014, 03:19:24 PM

What sort of weak mind can worship an individual like this? Reminds me of a cult.

Noone worships Dr. Rowbotham. There are several concepts in ENaG I take issue with. What you are doing is baselessly accusing him of fraud while not addressing anything he said. Much more akin to what you are accusing us of, actually.

Just because you take issue with some concepts in the book, does not mean you're a true believer with a deity on the top.. Most religious nuts still think God is all caring and loving even though he advocates slavery and mass massacres.. they just choose to gloss over those sections of their book as concepts they 'take issue' with.

As far as Rowbotam being a fraud? Well, 200 years of all of real science says his book is nonsense sold as truth. fraud...

Fraud:  wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

Well, that does seem describe him.. he went around under fake names, he sold snake oil to sick people.. all for profit.

As far as Rowbotham being a fraud? Well, 200 years of all of real science says his book is nonsense sold as truth. fraud...

Fraud:  wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

Well, that does seem describe him.. he went around under fake names, he sold snake oil to sick people.. all for profit.

One of the myths that the flat earthers seem keen to perpetuate is that Rowbotham was actually a doctor (they invariably refer to him as Dr. Rowbotham) which, I'm guessing, is a vain attempt to give his quackery some additional credibility (if that's at all possible LOL).

Rowbotham toured the UK lecturing to a largely scientifically-illiterate population, and became relatively wealthy charging them sixpence (5¢) a time to hear his lectures—which were invariably total rubbish.

The fact that so many flat earthers regard Rowbotham as some sort of flat earth guru is of concern.  Why do they not quote some genuine, accredited scientists in support of their flat earth model claims?  Or do they regard every one of the estimated 6,000,000 scientists working today as part of some gigantic conspiracy to deceive the public—and for what purpose if they were?
 

You are neglecting to add that Samuel Birley Rowbotham also debated with many of the greatest scientific minds of the time.  If he can hold his own against a deck of cards that is stacked against him, does that not not mean something about the man's beliefs?  You portray him to be a quack.  Many others believe that he was a pioneer. 

You are neglecting to add that Samuel Birley Rowbotham also debated with many of the greatest scientific minds of the time.  If he can hold his own against a deck of cards that is stacked against him, does that not not mean something about the man's beliefs?  You portray him to be a quack.  Many others believe that he was a pioneer.

I don't dough that but he could only debate to what was know at the time. He died in 1884. The knowledge people have today largely oversees any of his ideas.

You are neglecting to add that Samuel Birley Rowbotham also debated with many of the greatest scientific minds of the time.  If he can hold his own against a deck of cards that is stacked against him, does that not not mean something about the man's beliefs?  You portray him to be a quack.  Many others believe that he was a pioneer.

"When finally pinned down to a
challenge in Plymouth in 1864 by allegations that he wouldn't agree to
a test, Parallax appeared on Plymouth Hoe at the appointed time, witnessed by Richard Proctor, a writer on astronomy, and
proceeded to the beach where a
telescope had been set up. His
opponents had claimed that only the
lantern of the Eddystone lighthouse, some 14 miles out to sea, would be
visible. In fact, only half the lantern
was visible, yet Rowbotham claimed
his opponents were wrong and that
it proved the earth was indeed flat". Very difficult to debate with someone like that. Although this behaviour is replicated all over this forum.

Quote from: jroa on February 24, 2014, 12:37:03 PM

You are neglecting to add that Samuel Birley Rowbotham also debated with many of the greatest scientific minds of the time.  If he can hold his own against a deck of cards that is stacked against him, does that not not mean something about the man's beliefs?  You portray him to be a quack.  Many others believe that he was a pioneer.

"When finally pinned down to a
challenge in Plymouth in 1864 by allegations that he wouldn't agree to
a test, Parallax appeared on Plymouth Hoe at the appointed time, witnessed by Richard Proctor, a writer on astronomy, and
proceeded to the beach where a
telescope had been set up. His
opponents had claimed that only the
lantern of the Eddystone lighthouse, some 14 miles out to sea, would be
visible. In fact, only half the lantern
was visible, yet Rowbotham claimed
his opponents were wrong and that
it proved the earth was indeed flat". Very difficult to debate with someone like that. Although this behaviour is replicated all over this forum.

Yes, its like we are all looking at an orange, but the FEers insist it's a bowl of chicken stir fry... you an compare it to sticking pins in your eyes.. same experience.

Quote from: jroa on February 24, 2014, 12:37:03 PM

You are neglecting to add that Samuel Birley Rowbotham also debated with many of the greatest scientific minds of the time.  If he can hold his own against a deck of cards that is stacked against him, does that not not mean something about the man's beliefs?  You portray him to be a quack.  Many others believe that he was a pioneer.

"When finally pinned down to a
challenge in Plymouth in 1864 by allegations that he wouldn't agree to
a test, Parallax appeared on Plymouth Hoe at the appointed time, witnessed by Richard Proctor, a writer on astronomy, and
proceeded to the beach where a
telescope had been set up. His
opponents had claimed that only the
lantern of the Eddystone lighthouse, some 14 miles out to sea, would be
visible. In fact, only half the lantern
was visible, yet Rowbotham claimed
his opponents were wrong and that
it proved the earth was indeed flat". Very difficult to debate with someone like that. Although this behaviour is replicated all over this forum.

Nice wikipedia quote.  You might want to cite your sources in the future.

Anyway, you are trying to make him out to be in denial.  Yes, he claimed that the lighthouse was proof of a flat Earth.  Did you bother to find out why?  No, you took that small little sentence from wikipedia and ran with it.

The light house was proof of a flat Earth because the light house should not have been seen at all according to geometric calculations.  Many people crunched the numbers and agreed that the light house was something like 40 or 60 feet too short to be seen from that distance.

hehe at least we HAVE sources lol

Quote from: glokta on February 24, 2014, 02:58:18 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 24, 2014, 12:37:03 PM

You are neglecting to add that Samuel Birley Rowbotham also debated with many of the greatest scientific minds of the time.  If he can hold his own against a deck of cards that is stacked against him, does that not not mean something about the man's beliefs?  You portray him to be a quack.  Many others believe that he was a pioneer.

"When finally pinned down to a
challenge in Plymouth in 1864 by allegations that he wouldn't agree to
a test, Parallax appeared on Plymouth Hoe at the appointed time, witnessed by Richard Proctor, a writer on astronomy, and
proceeded to the beach where a
telescope had been set up. His
opponents had claimed that only the
lantern of the Eddystone lighthouse, some 14 miles out to sea, would be
visible. In fact, only half the lantern
was visible, yet Rowbotham claimed
his opponents were wrong and that
it proved the earth was indeed flat". Very difficult to debate with someone like that. Although this behaviour is replicated all over this forum.

Nice wikipedia quote.  You might want to cite your sources in the future.

Anyway, you are trying to make him out to be in denial.  Yes, he claimed that the lighthouse was proof of a flat Earth.  Did you bother to find out why?  No, you took that small little sentence from wikipedia and ran with it.

The light house was proof of a flat Earth because the light house should not have been seen at all according to geometric calculations.  Many people crunched the numbers and agreed that the light house was something like 40 or 60 feet too short to be seen from that distance.

Please cite your sources. And while you are at it, why not edit the wikipedia page.

Should be easy enough to repeat that today, why do you rely on something done so long ago for your argument?

I've been here long enough to know that jroas response will be to question why he should edit the wiki page whilst ignoring my question so let me preempt that and  rephrase

"The light house was proof of a flat
Earth because the light house should not have been seen at all according to geometric calculations.  Many
people crunched the numbers and
agreed that the light house was
something like 40 or 60 feet too short
to be seen from that distance."

Please cite your source. Who are the many people that "crunched the numbers" and proved a flat earth?

I am at work right now, but when I get a chance, I will look it up.

So how about you jroa?  Do you think the squashed bridge, buildings, and hillside in the left half of the picture would gradually raise up as magnification is increased from 1x?

OK 1864 the light house was 59 feet tall. Not really sure how high the rock that it was constructed on was above sea level, so I will assume it was between 5 and 10 feet.  Making the light house about 65-70 feet above sea level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddystone_Lighthouse#Smeaton.27s_lighthouse

I will now do some number crunching using Rowbotham's own chart.
[url]http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm[url]

Now, we don't know how high above sea level the telescope was placed.  I will assume around 6 feet as I am 6 foot tall.

A height of 6 feet above sea level causes the horizon to be about 3 miles out. 

So now the light house is 11 miles further past the horizon.

As 11 miles is not on his chart, I must use his calculation to determine the drop.
So 11^2 = 121
121*8=968
968/12=80

So there is only a drop of 80 feet.  A difference of 10-15 feet.

IMO, since I made quite a few assumptions about the problem, mainly how high the rocks are, and how high the telescope was set up, I believe that it is well within possibility that they did see the light house.  You change those two factors, and the light house would easily be visible.

So now jroa, please show your number crunching that shows the light house should have been 40-60 feet lower.  Or at least a source where the numbers are calculated.

BTW, remember, I used Rowbotham's own numbers and showed that it is very possible that the light house is visible.

You are neglecting to add that Samuel Birley Rowbotham also debated with many of the greatest scientific minds of the time. 

I'm unable to find any references to these alleged debates with other great scientists.  As far as I can tell, all other scientists of the period regarded Rowbotham as a crank, and not worth their time.

Could you please cite references to prove otherwise?
 

 

Should be easy enough to repeat that today, why do you rely on something done so long ago for your argument?

I'm guessing it's because if the same experiment were to be done today using laser technology, the result wouldn't be to the liking of the flat earthers.  Why use high-tech 21st century instruments when you can rely absolutely on an optical instrument invented 400 years ago?
 

 

So how about you jroa?  Do you think the squashed bridge, buildings, and hillside in the left half of the picture would gradually raise up as magnification is increased from 1x?

I think there could be some atmospheric distortion at play here that you may not be taking into account.

BJ1234, I will look over your numbers in a little while.  I just got home from work.  However, a priliminary glance at your post makes me think that most of the numbers are good.  I still need to find the reference for this; however, I remember reading that the challenge was conducted with the telescope as close to the water level as they could get it, although I don't think any hard numbers were given.  Also, while I have not reason to doubt the height of the lighthouse that you offered, I do believe that the light would not be at the very top of the light house.  It would probably be 10 feet or so under the tip of the it.

Quote from: jroa on February 24, 2014, 12:37:03 PM

You are neglecting to add that Samuel Birley Rowbotham also debated with many of the greatest scientific minds of the time. 

I'm unable to find any references to these alleged debates with other great scientists.  As far as I can tell, all other scientists of the period regarded Rowbotham as a crank, and not worth their time.

Could you please cite references to prove otherwise?

Yes, I will.  I can't remember the name of the book that I read this in.  However, the author of the book specifically pointed out that Rowbotham left his opponents in such a state that people would assume that he won by default.