What about a telescope aimed at the horizon?

Quote from: SirSpankalot on February 26, 2014, 08:30:13 PM

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.

I'll have you know that the author of the book is an RE'er.  She simply published facts, not her opinions.  Are you calling her a liar?  Also, the book was published in 2007, so it is a contemporary book.

I've no idea but my point still applies.. its one persons account that can't be corroborated..

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).

So we have an undated report of a lecture given by Rowbotham, 150 years ago, regarding an unnamed audience member who allegedly read a letter from George Biddell Airy, and which letter has apparently gone missing?

Well, that certainly provides incontrovertible evidence for something doesn't it?  (much LULZ)  Dunno what though.

And presumably you're now admitting you made an error by claiming that Rowbotham engaged in a debate with Airy face to face?

You've also yet to list the names of any of the other "great scientists" you mentioned earlier, and who debated Rowbotham.
 

Are you calling her a liar?  Also, the book was published in 2007, so it is a contemporary book.

I'm sorry, but you really need to stop implying round earthers are accusing people of being "liars" in every second comment you post.

And I understand that you're using it for some distorted form of dramatic impact, or to denigrate round earther's opinions, but your feeble ploy is blatantly obvious to those of us who've been successful debaters outside of this forum, and in the real world.

Please refrain from doing so in future.
 

Back those days, before they had tape recorders and such, the newspaper's reporters were all we had to rely on.  You can say they were lying, if you like.  I can't prove anything more than what was reported in the paper at the time. 

Quote from: BJ1234 on February 26, 2014, 08:27:38 PM

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

I did read over your numbers, and, as I already said, I do not claim that your calculations are wrong.  I simply stated that your height may be incorrect, as the stated height of the telescope is "as close to the water level as possible" and the height of the light, as it is not on the roof of the lighthouse.

The location of the light is irrelevant.  According to the only information I have found on this subject, the RE calculated that only the lantern portion would be seen.  However, when viewed through the telescope, only half of the lantern was seen.  How does this indicate a flat earth as rowbotham proclaimed? 

You also stated that it was determined that the calculated drop would put the top of the tower 40-60 feet below the horizon.  So where did you get this number?
Where did you get the information that the scope was set up in the manner that you say?

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.

So let me get this straight. This is a quote of Airy describing Herschel's opinion on Newtonian theory (with no context), taken from a letter read by an anonymous person attending a Rowbotham lecture (of unknown date or location). And this is what you choose to prove that Rowbotham destroyed his contemporary experts in debate?

I already gave you another quote that described Rowbotham leaving his opponents speechless. 

I already gave you another quote that described Rowbotham leaving his opponents speechless.

But he was not talking to people of our times.

What difference does that make?  The truth does not change with time, now does it?

I already gave you another quote that described Rowbotham leaving his opponents speechless.

I'm picturing these debates as being along the lines of:

SBR: Grass is pink.
Opponent: I'm sorry, but as you can plainly see, grass is, in fact, green.
SBR: It only looks green because you expect it to look green. It is, in fact, pink.
Opponent: The light reflected off grass is predominantly green, therefore, grass is green.
...
...
SBR: Grass is pink, and there is no way you can prove otherwise.
Opponent: 

What difference does that make?  The truth does not change with time, now does it?

He was talking about a belief. Just like people talk about God. Talking about it does not make it the truth.

What difference does that make?  The truth does not change with time, now does it?

So you believe everything in the bible then do you?

Quote from: jroa on February 27, 2014, 07:21:28 PM

I already gave you another quote that described Rowbotham leaving his opponents speechless.

I'm picturing these debates as being along the lines of:

SBR: Grass is pink.
Opponent: I'm sorry, but as you can plainly see, grass is, in fact, green.
SBR: It only looks green because you expect it to look green. It is, in fact, pink.
Opponent: The light reflected off grass is predominantly green, therefore, grass is green.
...
...
SBR: Grass is pink, and there is no way you can prove otherwise.
Opponent: 

This is exactly how all debates on this website seem to go.. especially ones with Skepti and jroa!

lots of 

Then when  finally happens, they think they've won!  Eehh so infuriating lol

I already gave you another quote that described Rowbotham leaving his opponents speechless.

Do you mean this?

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.

I don't think you understand that this is not a complimentary description.

I already gave you another quote that described Rowbotham leaving his opponents speechless.

But you haven't yet specifically named even one of the other "great scientists" that allegedly debated Rowbotham.  Why is this?

You also have yet to correct your error in saying that Rowbotham had debated with Airy—when clearly he did not.
 

This is exactly how all debates on this website seem to go.. especially ones with Skepti and jroa!

lots of 

Then when  finally happens, they think they've won!  Eehh so infuriating lol

Yep.  I can't even get a Yes or no answer on whether or not restoration will occur according to Rowbotham with real pictures taken through a scope.

Why wouldn't it?

There's a very good reason why it wouldn't..

Can you show us video evidence please?

We had pictures showing such compression from sil himself. I'm sure he's posted them in this thread.

We had pictures showing such compression from sil himself. I'm sure he's posted them in this thread.

Yep, back on page 24.

(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?

Not the difference in detail between 1x and 60x, but the difference in the vertical compression.

You may have missed my earlier question in reference to your claim about Rowbotham debating "great scientists" etc jroa, so I'll repeat it here, and await your response.....

You haven't yet specifically named even one of the other "great scientists" you mentioned that allegedly debated Rowbotham.  Why is this?

You also have yet to correct your error in saying that Rowbotham had debated with Airy—when clearly he did not.

So... which scientists, by name.
Your claim about Airy was incorrect, yes?
 

You may have also missed my earlier response, in which I told you that reporters in those times seemed to not care so much about listing the names of the debaters, but gave news reports that gave a picture of the whole debate/lecture.  I suppose that you will now claim that Parallax never gave a lecture because I can not produce a list of all the attendees of any particular lecture? 

I suppose that you will now claim that Parallax never gave a lecture because I can not produce a list of all the attendees of any particular lecture?

No, that is not at all the same as asking for one example of someone he debated, and you lying and choosing Airy.

You may have also missed my earlier response, in which I told you that reporters in those times seemed to not care so much about listing the names of the debaters, but gave news reports that gave a picture of the whole debate/lecture.

Really?  This only seems to apply to Rowbotham debates...strange that!

The 1860 Oxford evolution debate took place at the Oxford University Museum in Oxford, England, on 30 June 1860, seven months after the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species. Several prominent British scientists and philosophers
participated, including Thomas Henry Huxley, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, Benjamin Brodie, Joseph Dalton Hooker and Robert FitzRoy.

There's one just for starters. Your turn now

You may have also missed my earlier response, in which I told you that reporters in those times seemed to not care so much about listing the names of the debaters, but gave news reports that gave a picture of the whole debate/lecture.  I suppose that you will now claim that Parallax never gave a lecture because I can not produce a list of all the attendees of any particular lecture?

You haven't yet specifically named even one of the other "great scientists" YOU (not any news reporter) mentioned that allegedly debated Rowbotham.  Why is this?

You also have yet to correct your error in saying that Rowbotham had debated with Airy—when clearly he did not.

So... which scientists, by name.
And again... your claim about Airy was incorrect, yes?

 

I watched ships with telescopes for more than a decade, and I my personal experience is that it doesn't do what FEs claim.  If the ship is already blocked from naked eye, it will still be blocked when magnified. A telescope just makes the image bigger; it doesn't make one see around corners.

Besides that, we have optics theory and 400 years of practice confirming this. If an isolated case said otherwise, odds are it's just an error.

If the ship is already blocked from naked eye, it will still be blocked when magnified. A telescope just makes the image bigger; it doesn't make one see around corners.

Both points absolutely correct, and more than observable, logical, and indisputable to everybody—with the exception of the flat earthers, who claim in some way that telescopes defy all optical laws.  In the flat earth world, if we were to observe (say) an orange with a small spider sitting on its far side, just over the line of curvature and barely out of sight, using a small telescope, then the spider would magically appear in the telescope's field of view.

—David Blaine, eat your heart out LOL.
 

Quote from: Jairo on March 06, 2014, 05:38:52 PM

If the ship is already blocked from naked eye, it will still be blocked when magnified. A telescope just makes the image bigger; it doesn't make one see around corners.

Both points absolutely correct, and more than observable, logical, and indisputable to everybody—with the exception of the flat earthers, who claim in some way that telescopes defy all optical laws.  In the flat earth world, if we were to observe (say) an orange with a small spider sitting on its far side, just over the line of curvature and barely out of sight, using a small telescope, then the spider would magically appear in the telescope's field of view.

—David Blaine, eat your heart out LOL.

You got all that lot mixed up, Geoffrey. If a flat earth theorist was to look at the spider on an orange they would know it wouldn't come back into view. If it was on a pizza a little to the edge, it would be brought into view.

Eat your heart out skippy, LOL. LMAO. ROTFLMAO. GUFFAW.

Eat your heart out skippy, LOL. LMAO. ROTFLMAO. GUFFAW.

Is this sort of puerile schoolyard banter really meant to form part of your nonsensical argument?  At any rate, and as anybody will tell you, ad hominem attacks are a sure sign that somebody's been backed into a corner by their opponent, and plays the man and not the ball.

Your powers of logical deduction seem to decrease whenever it comes to matters scientific.  Contrarily, your ability to throw around the childish insults seems to increase when it comes to matters scientific.

Maybe I could develop some sort of mathematical correlation—a world first—and join you on the stage in Stockholm when you get your Nobel Prize?
 

Quote from: Jairo on March 06, 2014, 05:38:52 PM

If the ship is already blocked from naked eye, it will still be blocked when magnified. A telescope just makes the image bigger; it doesn't make one see around corners.

Both points absolutely correct, and more than observable, logical, and indisputable to everybody—with the exception of the flat earthers, who claim in some way that telescopes defy all optical laws.  In the flat earth world, if we were to observe (say) an orange with a small spider sitting on its far side, just over the line of curvature and barely out of sight, using a small telescope, then the spider would magically appear in the telescope's field of view.

—David Blaine, eat your heart out LOL.

Except that there is nothing to block the objects nor a corner to see around...   Critical thinking, eat your heart out...