Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.

  • 34 Replies
  • 2033 Views
Inspiration

In Earth Not a Globe, pages 25 - 34, Rowbotham offers an explanation for why objects appear to disappear behind the horizon bottom first on a flat earth. However, it is not enough to merely posit a plausible sounding explanation. We must test it! To test it, we need numbers!

Here is your mission, should you choose to accept it:

1. Hypothesize! Based on Rowbotham's logic, find a way to predict how much of an object will appear to have sunk "behind" the horizon, based on various factors. (distance to the object, height of the observer, etc...). Start by assuming no refraction. Bonus points if you are able to develop an equation that also makes a reasonable attempt at approximating refraction.

2. Test! Compare your calculated values with a wide range of observed values. Make sure that you only use pictures/videos that you reliably know the distances for. Also, compare the values from your equation to the values that we would expect if the earth is round. Bonus points if you also take into account refraction for both a round and flat earth.

3. Analyze! Which set of calculated values matches up better with the observed values? What possible explanations are there for the differences between the calculated and observed values? Does your equation closely follow Rowbotham's logic? Are there any flaws/weakpoints in Rowbotham's logic?

* Feel free to do as little/much as you want, but the more the better. Good luck!
* If you have an alternative to Robotham's explanation, feel free to use that instead. However, please present the alternative explanation as clearly and precisely as possible before presenting your equation. Don't just link to a youtube video.
* Round earthers: let the flat earthers have a go at it before chiming in. Try to keep the snark to a minimum.
* sacred-text.com, which hosted ENAG 2nd edition, seems to be down. All I can find is the first edition in pdf format. :(
« Last Edit: October 11, 2016, 06:05:42 AM by TotesReptilian »

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2016, 09:39:20 AM »
These tests have been done again and again, consistently supporting the flat earth model.

Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2016, 10:54:23 AM »
These tests have been done again and again, consistently supporting the flat earth model.
Details please.




Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.


Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #8 on: October 12, 2016, 12:35:33 PM »
www.google.com
Specific link please.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=google.com
Thanks, found it:

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=narcberry%20is%20retarded

I'm glad you found it. Unfortunately I can't verify the authenticity of that link since it's "not available in [my] region".

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Snarckberry,

Your trolling is truly delightful,
But I was hoping for insightful,
So I would like to let you know,
You're a schmo, you're a schmo, you're a schmo...

(Put up or shut up please)

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #9 on: October 12, 2016, 12:49:04 PM »
www.google.com
Specific link please.

Sore loser I guess...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=google.com
Thanks, found it:

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=narcberry%20is%20retarded

I'm glad you found it. Unfortunately I can't verify the authenticity of that link since it's "not available in [my] region".

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!

Snarckberry,

Your trolling is truly delightful,
But I was hoping for insightful,
So I would like to let you know,
You're a schmo, you're a schmo, you're a schmo...

(Put up or shut up please)

?

Kami

  • 993
Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #10 on: October 12, 2016, 03:11:13 PM »
narcberry is an expert for claiming that certain studies have been done without presenting any evidence... :D

?

narcberry

  • 5566
  • Reason > RET
Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #11 on: October 12, 2016, 03:19:19 PM »
Please use the FAQ, search utility, or links from my index. Ignorance in this place is for a lack of trying...

Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #12 on: October 12, 2016, 04:23:40 PM »
Please use the FAQ, search utility, or links from my index. Ignorance in this place is for a lack of trying...

I found nothing relevant to this thread. I did find this though. You do go to some impressive lengths to troll people. Goodness.

So, is there anyone besides narcberry who would like to give this a try?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #14 on: October 12, 2016, 05:19:46 PM »
These tests have been done again and again, consistently supporting the flat earth model.
What tests?

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 18320
  • Or should I?
Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2016, 06:26:57 PM »
Please use the FAQ, search utility, or links from my index. Ignorance in this place is for a lack of trying...

I found nothing relevant to this thread. I did find this though. You do go to some impressive lengths to troll people. Goodness.

So, is there anyone besides narcberry who would like to give this a try?

I found that also, Call me a feminist but I really wanted to punch him after reading that, lol sorry Nark.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2016, 06:29:56 PM »
Wow. What a level to stoop to..

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2016, 07:48:43 PM »
Quote from: narcberry
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Huzzah!


I'll basically repeat what I said in the other thread. I don't how we would adjust for refraction in a way that we could work backwards toward an actual equation. We'd have to have temperature and atmoplanic data at various places and altitudes between the "obscured" object and observer.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2016, 08:25:40 PM »
Quote from: narcberry
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FE!!!
Huzzah!


I'll basically repeat what I said in the other thread. I don't how we would adjust for refraction in a way that we could work backwards toward an actual equation. We'd have to have temperature and atmoplanic data at various places and altitudes between the "obscured" object and observer.

Start simple. Start by ignoring refraction. Assume the light travels in a straight line (because it often does). Don't work backwards, work forwards. Start with Rowbotham's logic and develop an equation based on the logic. Then test the equation against observation.

If you work backwards, the resulting equation won't agree with Rowbotham's logic, and we will have no idea if his explanation is correct or not.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11156
  • V is for Viceroy
Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #19 on: October 12, 2016, 09:25:13 PM »
Atmospheric refraction isn't a dark art.  There's lots of fancy equations and methods for controlling for it.

With regards to temperature variation, fortunately the best surface to test curvature on (a large body of water)also happens to have a high specific heat so temperature uniformity shouldn't skew things too badly.

Once our raging flare up of Narcberry Simplex goes into remission someone will have to remember to bump this thread so we can see some progress on this.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2016, 09:44:46 PM »
With regards to temperature variation, fortunately the best surface to test curvature on (a large body of water)also happens to have a high specific heat so temperature uniformity shouldn't skew things too badly.

It's kinda the opposite. High specific heat means the difference in temperature between the atmosphere and water tends to be high. There tends to be a large temperature gradient. Refraction is heavily influenced by temperature gradients.

Quote
Once our raging flare up of Narcberry Simplex goes into remission...

lol

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11156
  • V is for Viceroy
Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2016, 11:13:12 PM »
With regards to temperature variation, fortunately the best surface to test curvature on (a large body of water)also happens to have a high specific heat so temperature uniformity shouldn't skew things too badly.

It's kinda the opposite. High specific heat means the difference in temperature between the atmosphere and water tends to be high. There tends to be a large temperature gradient. Refraction is heavily influenced by temperature gradients.


There is that.  But over a long distance I would think that the high specific heat of water would keep that difference more even.  Maybe I'm wrong about that.  It's been a while since I've taken engineering physics.

Atmospheric refraction is an interesting subject.  It could almost be it's own challenge. 
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8505
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2016, 11:20:45 PM »
And not just surface temp differences.  You'd have to measure the temperature up to 300 meters in the originally cited post. I imagine humidity values may play a non-negligible role over water particularly.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2016, 11:30:10 PM »
With regards to temperature variation, fortunately the best surface to test curvature on (a large body of water)also happens to have a high specific heat so temperature uniformity shouldn't skew things too badly.

It's kinda the opposite. High specific heat means the difference in temperature between the atmosphere and water tends to be high. There tends to be a large temperature gradient. Refraction is heavily influenced by temperature gradients.


There is that.  But over a long distance I would think that the high specific heat of water would keep that difference more even. 

I'm not really following your logic.

Heat transfer in the ground happens primarily through conduction. This is a slow process. Heat doesn't spread out quickly. When the surface loses heat to the air, it cools off, but a few feet below ground it may be much warmer. This temperature difference doesn't even out quickly. The temperature gradient occurs below ground.

Heat transfer in water happens primarily through convection. This is a relatively fast process. Heat spreads out quickly. As soon as the surface loses heat to the air, it gets stirred up and is returned to the average temperature of the water. The temperature gradient occurs primarily above the surface of the water, in the air, which causes refraction.

Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #24 on: October 12, 2016, 11:32:41 PM »
And not just surface temp differences.  You'd have to measure the temperature up to 300 meters in the originally cited post. I imagine humidity values may play a non-negligible role over water particularly.

Yes, that too. It is most significant near the surface though, since that is usually where the temperature gradient is the largest.

But like I said, try to translate Rowbotham's logic into an equation without taking into account refraction first of all. Start with an easy first approximation, then add the nasty complications later. Gotta start somewhere.

Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #25 on: October 15, 2016, 02:39:16 AM »
There are laser beams available (eg Spyder 3 Krypton) which have ranges of over 34 kms, extendable with an adjustable focus. Just go to a lake where there is a distance from one point to another of about 34 km, set up tests at various heights above the water level across the lake which can attempt to hit a point 20m high on the other side. Once you start placing the laser over 25 meters high on one side, you should start seeing it at 20 meters high on the far side. Or do it on a smaller scale, say 20 kms. Use the earth curve calculator to find that if the laser is at 5 meter height, you will need to be over 11 metres high on the opposite bank to see it. If the beam is diverging, the center point of the laser light on the far bank needs to be used.
If this test means that much to FE'ers, do it on a true scale, or just watch this

Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #26 on: October 15, 2016, 07:09:19 AM »
nearly every flat earth video that claims you can see a landmark (from too far away) over a body of water, has a partially submerged landmark in the distance

that, should be enough proof


..unless buildings are built partially submerged nowadays??


FE's have a knack of overcomplicating simple observations

Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #27 on: October 15, 2016, 01:17:11 PM »
Johnorbital, southern hemispherer, please read the first post of this thread before responding. You have valid points, but neither are on topic.

Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #28 on: October 16, 2016, 06:57:37 AM »
Johnorbital, southern hemispherer, please read the first post of this thread before responding. You have valid points, but neither are on topic.

I don't see how my post was off topic. Taking readings from higher up can then be used to calculate how much of something would be hidden from any lower point. If you take lots of readings from different heights, there may be a correlation between any changes based on temperature near the water and higher up, readings of humidity at the various heights, and if the moon was out if you really want to go to town. Count me out on doing the tests though, too expensive for me and I am happy that the earth is a sphere.

Re: Flat Earther Challenge: Testing Rowbotham's Theory of Perspective.
« Reply #29 on: October 16, 2016, 11:26:56 AM »
Johnorbital, southern hemispherer, please read the first post of this thread before responding. You have valid points, but neither are on topic.

I don't see how my post was off topic. Taking readings from higher up can then be used to calculate how much of something would be hidden from any lower point. If you take lots of readings from different heights, there may be a correlation between any changes based on temperature near the water and higher up, readings of humidity at the various heights, and if the moon was out if you really want to go to town. Count me out on doing the tests though, too expensive for me and I am happy that the earth is a sphere.

The point of this thread is to translate Rowbotham's logic into a mathematical equation. Something that allows us to predict specifically how much of an object will be hidden behind the horizon based on his theory of perspective. This is step 1.

Yes, at some point we will need to test those values against observations. But this is step 2. Please don't sidetrack the thread with step 2 before anyone has even attempted step 1.