What about a telescope aimed at the horizon?

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 24, 2014, 06:15:17 PM

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: ausGeoff on February 25, 2014, 03:42:47 AM

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.

Well, other than the fact that I really was not planning to go to England any time soon, I see no reason why it can not be repeated.

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

By deck of cards, I mean preconceived notions from people who claim to be experts.

Devonport Independent felt able to conclude that those who tried to debate with Parallax often 'became excited and lost their compmand', and to an unprejudiced observer it looked as if the zetetic had maintained the upper hand.

Quote from: Garwood, Christine (2007). Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-330-43289-4.  Page 57.

Devonport Independent felt able to conclude that those who tried to debate with Parallax often 'became excited and lost their command', and to an unprejudiced observer it looked as if the zetetic had maintained the upper hand.

Now, maybe you can start citing your references.

Quote from: 29silhouette on February 24, 2014, 06:15:17 PM

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.

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.

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?

Quote from: Garwood, Christine (2007). Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-330-43289-4.  Page 57.

Devonport Independent felt able to conclude that those who tried to debate with Parallax often 'became excited and lost their compmand', and to an unprejudiced observer it looked as if the zetetic had maintained the upper hand.

Now, maybe you can start citing your references.

Quote from: jroa on February 25, 2014, 07:35:49 AM

Quote from: Garwood, Christine (2007). Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-330-43289-4.  Page 57.

Devonport Independent felt able to conclude that those who tried to debate with Parallax often 'became excited and lost their compmand', and to an unprejudiced observer it looked as if the zetetic had maintained the upper hand.

Now, maybe you can start citing your references.

You do realise that is not a positive comment right? It mean's that Mr Rowbotham managed to frustrate anyone trying to debate him enough that they lose their cool, and to someone undecided on the subject it would give the impression that Mr Rowbotham had won.

Quote from: glokta on February 25, 2014, 12:25:25 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 25, 2014, 07:35:49 AM

Quote from: Garwood, Christine (2007). Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-330-43289-4.  Page 57.

Devonport Independent felt able to conclude that those who tried to debate with Parallax often 'became excited and lost their compmand', and to an unprejudiced observer it looked as if the zetetic had maintained the upper hand.

Now, maybe you can start citing your references.

You do realise that is not a positive comment right? It mean's that Mr Rowbotham managed to frustrate anyone trying to debate him enough that they lose their cool, and to someone undecided on the subject it would give the impression that Mr Rowbotham had won.

Rowbotham debated with many of his contemporary "experts".  Sailors, astronomers, scientists, it does not matter.  All of these people thought they knew the shape of the Earth, yet when confronted with Robotham's unparalleled logic, they were rendered speechless.

Quote from: glokta on February 25, 2014, 12:25:25 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 25, 2014, 07:35:49 AM

Quote from: Garwood, Christine (2007). Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-330-43289-4.  Page 57.

Devonport Independent felt able to conclude that those who tried to debate with Parallax often 'became excited and lost their compmand', and to an unprejudiced observer it looked as if the zetetic had maintained the upper hand.

Now, maybe you can start citing your references.

You do realise that is not a positive comment right? It mean's that Mr Rowbotham managed to frustrate anyone trying to debate him enough that they lose their cool, and to someone undecided on the subject it would give the impression that Mr Rowbotham had won.

Rowbotham debated with many of his contemporary "experts".  Sailors, astronomers, scientists, it does not matter.  All of these people thought they knew the shape of the Earth, yet when confronted with Robotham's "unparalleled logic", they were rendered speechless.

Quote from: jroa on February 25, 2014, 04:31:32 PM

Quote from: glokta on February 25, 2014, 12:25:25 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 25, 2014, 07:35:49 AM

Quote from: Garwood, Christine (2007). Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-330-43289-4.  Page 57.

Devonport Independent felt able to conclude that those who tried to debate with Parallax often 'became excited and lost their compmand', and to an unprejudiced observer it looked as if the zetetic had maintained the upper hand.

Now, maybe you can start citing your references.

You do realise that is not a positive comment right? It mean's that Mr Rowbotham managed to frustrate anyone trying to debate him enough that they lose their cool, and to someone undecided on the subject it would give the impression that Mr Rowbotham had won.

Rowbotham debated with many of his contemporary "experts".  Sailors, astronomers, scientists, it does not matter.  All of these people thought they knew the shape of the Earth, yet when confronted with Robotham's "unparalleled logic", they were rendered speechless.

You forgot the quotes around the unparalleled logic part 

Any ways, in response to how high the lamp was on the lighthouse, it appears that after that particular light house was torn down, the top portion was rebuilt on land in Plymouth Hoe.
  I guess it comes down to what is considered the lantern portion of a lighthouse.  I believe it is the very top down to the bottom of the glass. 

I also find it odd that Rowbotham could proclaim the earth was flat when the REers said only the lantern would be visible when in fact only half of the lantern was visible.  This means that the drop was more than they had predicted not less.  How could Rowbotham possibly claim victory?

Quote from: glokta on February 25, 2014, 12:25:25 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 25, 2014, 07:35:49 AM

Quote from: Garwood, Christine (2007). Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-330-43289-4.  Page 57.

Devonport Independent felt able to conclude that those who tried to debate with Parallax often 'became excited and lost their compmand', and to an unprejudiced observer it looked as if the zetetic had maintained the upper hand.

Now, maybe you can start citing your references.

You do realise that is not a positive comment right? It mean's that Mr Rowbotham managed to frustrate anyone trying to debate him enough that they lose their cool, and to someone undecided on the subject it would give the impression that Mr Rowbotham had won.

Rowbotham debated with many of his contemporary "experts".  Sailors, astronomers, scientists, it does not matter.  All of these people thought they knew the shape of the Earth, yet when confronted with Robotham's unparalleled logic, they were rendered speechless.

Quote from: jroa on February 25, 2014, 04:31:32 PM

Quote from: glokta on February 25, 2014, 12:25:25 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 25, 2014, 07:35:49 AM

Quote from: Garwood, Christine (2007). Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea. Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-330-43289-4.  Page 57.

Devonport Independent felt able to conclude that those who tried to debate with Parallax often 'became excited and lost their compmand', and to an unprejudiced observer it looked as if the zetetic had maintained the upper hand.

Now, maybe you can start citing your references.

You do realise that is not a positive comment right? It mean's that Mr Rowbotham managed to frustrate anyone trying to debate him enough that they lose their cool, and to someone undecided on the subject it would give the impression that Mr Rowbotham had won.

Rowbotham debated with many of his contemporary "experts".  Sailors, astronomers, scientists, it does not matter.  All of these people thought they knew the shape of the Earth, yet when confronted with Robotham's unparalleled logic, they were rendered speechless.

Yeah so you keep saying. Yet you can't name any.

Rowbotham debated with many of his contemporary "experts".  Sailors, astronomers, scientists, it does not matter.  All of these people thought they knew the shape of the Earth, yet when confronted with Robotham's unparalleled logic, they were rendered speechless.

Quote from: glokta on February 26, 2014, 12:15:40 AM

Rowbotham debated with many of his contemporary "experts".  Sailors, astronomers, scientists, it does not matter.  All of these people thought they knew the shape of the Earth, yet when confronted with Robotham's unparalleled logic, they were rendered speechless.

Yeah so you keep saying. Yet you can't name any.

the Newtonian theory was not sufficient, and John Herschel [believed] we were in a "hodge podge" with regard to these things.

Quote from: Sir George Biddell Airy

the Newtonian theory was not sufficient, and John Herschel [believed] we were in a "hodge podge" with regard to these things.

Rowbotham debated with many of his contemporary "experts".  Sailors, astronomers, scientists, it does not matter.  All of these people thought they knew the shape of the Earth, yet when confronted with Rowbotham's unparalleled logic, they were rendered speechless.

Quote from: jroa on February 26, 2014, 06:32:18 AM

Quote from: Sir George Biddell Airy

the Newtonian theory was not sufficient, and John Herschel [believed] we were in a "hodge podge" with regard to these things.

OK lets pull some more teeth, where is this quote from? What is the context? What has this got to do with Mr Rowbotham?

Quote from: glokta on February 26, 2014, 10:35:01 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 26, 2014, 06:32:18 AM

Quote from: Sir George Biddell Airy

the Newtonian theory was not sufficient, and John Herschel [believed] we were in a "hodge podge" with regard to these things.

OK lets pull some more teeth, where is this quote from? What is the context? What has this got to do with Mr Rowbotham?

It is a quote from the Leed's Times, no date given, as reported in the book Flat Earth the History of an Infamous Idea.  I can give you a proper citation if you require it.  The paper quoted an anonymous audience member from a lecture by Parallax in Greenwich.  The context of the quote is that the audience member is reading a letter from the Astronomer Royal in regards to his encounter with Parallax (Rowbotham).  This is the only quote from the letter that is reported in the news paper and published in the book.

I am quoting a book.  You have the right to claim that the book is not factual or accurate.  However, I am only claiming that the book says this, not that the author is an authority.  I was asked for a quote and I gave one. 

I get the feeling that, more and more, you people just reject everything without even thinking about anything that goes against your programming.  Is this a correct assumption in your opinion?

Have you had time to look over my numbers yet Jroa? How about more information on the set up?

Quote from: jroa on February 26, 2014, 08:19:50 PM

I am quoting a book.  You have the right to claim that the book is not factual or accurate.  However, I am only claiming that the book says this, not that the author is an authority.  I was asked for a quote and I gave one. 

I get the feeling that, more and more, you people just reject everything without even thinking about anything that goes against your programming.  Is this a correct assumption in your opinion?

Yes but we are debating science and now, history.. quoting a flat earth book, is like saying Jesus walked on water because the Bible said so.

Or, I could quote SpongeBob, but anything SpongeBob would have to say about this would bare little relevance, or credibility.