Curvature

This might be of interest in the Biot and Arago measurement:
l'Observatoire de Paris: Arago and Biot in the Baleares: the extension of the measurement of the Paris meridian

That contains this old map of of those triangulations:

I don't see much room for doubt as to the location of the peak even though el Bartolo is not explicit named.

You named El Bartolo and said that the light in question was on it. A lie. That peak isn't mentioned anywhere at all in the chapter or descriptions.

Then, you claim in your response to me, in one of your last few spam posts, that I asserted that it was a peak at the same altitude.

"In any case, it cannot be denied that even with your claims that they were about the same height,"

 Another lie. Where did I say that?

It doesn't say the tallest peak, or a peak at the same altitude. You can clearly only argue by lieing and fibbing and stretching the truth.

You named El Bartolo and said that the light in question was on it. A lie.

No, not a line.
Instead it is showing that the claim by your high prophet is missing key information to pretend there is a problem.

That peak isn't mentioned anywhere at all in the chapter or descriptions.

Of course, because if it was it would undermine your high prophet's position.
He needs that dishonest to pretend there is a problem.

Without knowing the height, there is no basis to claim that it should be hidden.

It is typical FE dishonesty to pretend there is a problem with the globe, just like your recent video. Again, care to address the problem with the angles in the picture vs reality?
You can see the bearings provided in the video, then from that calculate the angular separation between the light sources, and then compare that to those observed in the photo. Doing so gives this:

Bearing              Real Px Calculated 222.11 -------------- --------------- ----------------- 231.74 9.63 367 15.59 239.36 7.62 272 11.56 245.91 6.55 224 9.52 251.4 5.49 192 8.16 268.29 16.89 33 1.40

Why don't the angles match up? Is it all a blatant lie?

You named El Bartolo and said that the light in question was on it. A lie. That peak isn't mentioned anywhere at all in the chapter or descriptions.

No it was not a lie. I did not ever claim that Rowbotham named that peak.

I knew that "That peak isn't mentioned explicitly anywhere at all in the chapter or descriptions" but all the official description is the Biot and Arago triangulation make it abundantly clear the points were Camp Vey on Iviza and el Bartolo on the mainland.

But I challenge you to find another peak that fits the map in here!

This might be of interest in the Biot and Arago measurement:
l'Observatoire de Paris: Arago and Biot in the Baleares: the extension of the measurement of the Paris meridian

That contains this old map of those triangulations:

I don't see much room for doubt as to the location of the peak even though el Bartolo is not explicit named.

Then, you claim in your response to me, in one of your last few spam posts,

No spam! You seem to ignore this report: Arago and Biot in the Baleares: the extension of the measurement of the Paris meridia

that I asserted that it was a peak at the same altitude.
"In any case, it cannot be denied that even with your claims that they were about the same height,"

Another lie. Where did I say that?

I apologise but my memory of exact details from 18 months ago might be imperfect.

Agreed, you did not say that, but Rowbotham did in and that is far more significant:

Zetetic Astronomy: EXPERIMENT 14.
In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.

Near enough?

It doesn't say the tallest peak, or a peak at the same altitude. You can clearly only argue by lieing and fibbing and stretching the truth.

The words may not be identical and I used the height of the peak at Camp Vey on Iveza (Ibiza) not 70 feet but read this:

If the observer was at the same elevation as the target, as is mentioned in the full quote, then at an altitude of 70 feet over 100 miles the drop is 6669.41 Feet according to that calculator. The opposite rock is at 70 feet. Therefore the lamp is 6600 feet below the line of sight, just as Rowbotham said.

Mr Bishop that is enough of your accusations! I do not lie.

But the whole point is that Rowbotham is completely wrong, misquoting his source of possible quoting from an unreliable source.

Whatever the case that report in ENaG is worthless.

If you think it might be a different peak I challenge you to find one in the correct location from the map above!

You might read again: Questions about a Rowbotham claim « Reply #16 on: June 25, 2018, 01:36:13 PM ».

Even Ski posted these very early in that old thread:

If you do the math at zero elevation, 100 miles, the answer is 6667'.

So a failure to account for elevation.

The highest point on Ibiza is 1500' or so. The drop would calculate to 1843' below the horizon.

So depending on how high the lighthouse is and where on Ibiza the sighting was made, it may or may not be visible were the earth a globe.

And

Yes. "A failure to account for elevation" means he was wrong.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, just that in this as in quite a few other cases Rowbotham was wrong.

One way or another Rowbotham was wrong and it seems that everybody but you agree - funny that!

The fact that it says the elevations are the same discounts El Bartolo, which you claimed was the location.

The researchers studied the area for a long time, and the particular reference in question may not have anything to do with that map. Another fib from you.

I used the height of the peak at Camp Vey on Iveza (Ibiza)

It doesn't say the 'peak' of Camp Vey, either. Is everyone who has said that they were on Mt. Everest on its peak?

You appear to just be making things up, per usual.

Your arguments only work if you assume and lie about what was said.

The fact that it says the elevations are the same discounts El Bartolo, which you claimed was the location.

By the way there is a very good reason why none of Biot, Arago or Rowbotham used that name el Bartolo -
It is only Rowbotham that "says the elevations are the same" but he gives no source.

Read exactly what Rowbotham wrote:

Zetetic Astronomy: EXPERIMENT 14.
In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.

For a start, if you want to get fussy:
       Rowbotham refers to "M. M. Biot" and there is no such person. It was "Jean-Baptiste Biot" and Rowbotham mean "MM. Biot and Arago" for "Messieurs" or "Misters" in English.
       There is no "Camprey" so presumably, Rowbotham misquoted the "Camp Vey" though "Campvey" was also used.

Sure, the "fact that it says the elevations are the same" should "discount El Bartolo" but it also discounts any "rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas" as Rowbotham claims. Camp Vey, itself, is now a restaurant that is too low to see Desierto las Palmas.
And if you look at this what could "a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas" refer to but what we now call el Bartolo?


Now you find any other "rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas"!

The researchers studied the area for a long time, and the particular reference in question may not have anything to do with that map. Another fib from you.

Come off it! That map is of the actual triangulation!
You find another path 100 miles long from Camp Vey to any "rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas"!

Quote

I used the height of the peak at Camp Vey on Iveza (Ibiza)

It doesn't say the 'peak' of Camp Vey, either. Is everyone who has said that they were on Mt. Everest on its peak?

Then you find another point at Camp Vey that can see in the direction of Desierto las Palmas.

You appear to just be making things up, per usual.

No, I'm basing what I write on real reports of the time, not trusting Rowbotham.

Your arguments only works if you assume and lie about what was said.

No, my arguments are based on data from the time while you seem to base yours on Rowbotham's inaccurate quote!

And, I believe that I've shown that Rowbotham's evidence is quite incorrect for quite a number of reasons.

Rowbotham also said that he saw the sinking effect on a regular basis. It mainly occurs at sea and in turbid conditions.

This is why the Bedford Canal was selected, as it is a man made structure with narrow passage ways.

Did Rowbotham assume that light travels in a straight line or did he allow for light bending due to aetherific eddification or electromagnetic acceleration?

You appear to just be making things up, per usual.
Your arguments only work if you assume and lie about what was said.

And there you go projecting again. That holds entirely true of you and your high prophet.
His argument only works if he just makes things up and lies about reality.
Par for the course for FEers.

If he didn't just make things up, how did he come up with his figure of over 6600 archaic units?
That is pretty much what one gets when they just stick in the distance into the 8 inches per mile squared calculation, which gives 6666'.
Just round down to a decent number so you can still say "over x ft" and you get 6600.

So if your high prophet isn't just assuming and lying, how did he get the 6000 ft?

Likewise, if the video you provided isn't just more assumptions and lies from FEers, why don't the angles match at all?
The 2 lights which should be separated the most are the closest together. So either it is an outright lie from FEers, or they have no idea what they are talking about and are just assuming things to show a problem for a FE.

The drop over 100 miles when the observer is near sea level is 6667.6173 feet.

It says nowhere in the text what the altitude is for the observer or the second location. If the observer is near sea level that means the second location can be a small rocky summit.

The second location where the light is located is also referred to as "the light on the rock". It says rock, not mountain. None of this, except for your own assumptions and lies, says that the locations are on the peaks of mountains.

Desierto las Palmas is a very large area of land on a coast, not any specific mountain.

The drop over 100 miles when the observer is near sea level is 6667.6173 feet.

Yes, which is not the amount that should be hidden.
But what does the text say?
"If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."
Unless you want to take that "below the line of sight" to just be extremely dishonest phrasing where that simple means below eye level, in which case it would be better to express as an angle, i.e. 43 arc seconds.

But it only makes sense as an argument against Earth being round if he is saying that it should have been hidden, making the "line of sight" the line connecting the observer to the horizon.

It says nowhere in the text what the altitude is for the observer or the second location. If the observer is near sea level that means the second location can be a small rocky summit.

And that is the point.
Without that key information it CANNOT be used as an argument against the curvature of Earth.
It is only by lying and assuming the light and observer were quite low that such a problem arises.

The same applies to your recent photo which you really seem to want to ignore and not try to make any further comment on it. What is the matter, can't figure out how to lie your way out of such obvious deceit or ignorance?
Again, the 2 lights on the right should have the largest angular separation, being over 1.75 times the separation between the next furthest 2 lights. But instead they have the least angular separation, with the second smallest angular separation being over 5.8 times the separation between these 2 lights.
So it is clearly not a photo taken of the lights they claim from the location they claim. Either they are different lights, it was a taken in a different location, or both.

Are you going to admit that in the light of that inescapable fact, this photo and video does not show what you claim?

Again, it is only by FEers lying and assuming that they can pretend there is a problem for the RE.

The drop over 100 miles when the observer is near sea level is 6667.6173 feet.

It says nowhere in the text what the altitude is for the observer or the second location. If the observer is near sea level that means the second location can be a small rocky summit.

Read again what Rowbotham wrote!

Zetetic Astronomy: EXPERIMENT 14.
In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.

Bofore going into detail could interpret exactly what Rowbotham means by, " The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight."

That "below the line of sight" seems to be totally meaningless! What is his "line of sight"? Is it the:

• Horizontal from the observer? If so it is usually called "eye-level" but bears no relation to whether the target is is is not visible.
  
  
• Is it the "line of sight" joining the observer (here "on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas") to the target (here the fire at "Camprey, on the Island of Iviza")?

Either case seems meaningless and what matters is how much, if any, of the target is hidden and the 6666 feet is is meaningful only right on sea-level.

But, if Rowbotham is correct, it cannot "be a small rocky summit"; he wrote, "a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas" and Desierto las Palmas is a mountain range! A rocky summit on a mountain range can hardly be near sea level!

The second location where the light is located is also referred to as "the light on the rock". It says rock, not mountain. None of this, except for your own assumptions and lies, says that the locations are on the peaks of mountains.

Leave the accusations of lies out of this,  Mr Bishop, thank you.

What you call "The second location", Rowbotham calls "Camprey, on the Island of Iviza". He means "Campvey" and today that name seems to apply to "Restaurente Es Camp Vell" 182 m high, somewhat inland, at 39° 2'21.77"N, 1°22'58.45"E and with no view towards Desierto las Palmas.
But other sources than Rowbotham refer to Mount Campvey.

And these other sources including the one Rowbotham may have used as his seem to differ from Rowbotham's brief account in at least one other aspect; they all put the signal-light on Ibiza and it was finally observed from

I have been trying to find a source of Rowbotham's "a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit" because accounts by Arago etc did not seem to mention the "powerful lamp, with good reflectors".
They did, however, say that the observer was on Desierto las Palmas and finally "saw the signal-lights on Mount Campvey in the Island of Iviza".

And I finally found this, A description and list of the lighthouses of the world, 1861 [electronic resource] / by Alexander G. Findlay in various place.
An in there it referred to:


"on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas."
As near as I can find, this is seems to be a copy of same source that Rowbotham used:

Popular Science Dec 1886 p 261

Rowbotham wrote, "was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas".

Arago wrote, "Arago established himself on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, the summit of which hardly afforded room enough for his tent and instruments."

Then Rowbotham writes, "was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza" but "Camprey" is simply a misreading of "Campvey" or "Camp Vey".
But now Camp Vell is the somewhat inland "Restaurente Es Camp Vell" 182 m high at 39° 2'21.77"N, 1°22'58.45"E and with no view towards Desierto las Palmas. But sources other than Rowbotham all seem to refer to "Mount Campvey".

Desierto las Palmas is a very large area of land on a coast, not any specific mountain.

No, Desierto las Palmas is not just "a very large area of land on a coast". Just look up Desierto las Palmas and you'll find it is a mountain range!

Desert de les Palmes Mountains
Desert de les Palmes (Valencian pronunciation: [deˈzɛɾd de les ˈpalmes], Spanish: Desierto de las Palmas), also known as Serra del Desert de les Palmes is an 18.8 km long mountain range in the Plana Alta comarca, Valencian Community, Spain. Its highest point is Bartolo (729 m).

The Ermita de La Magdalena 40°02′04″N 0°00′20″W, an important church for Castellonenc people, is located on a hill at the southern end of the range. The Prime Meridian crosses the Desert de les Palmes roughly in the middle.

The sinking ship effect is an old aristotilian OBSERVATION.

There are a great many contradictory observations, showing that we can see further than we should. The effect is inconsistent and does not prove curvature. Aristotile 'proved' things through observation and interpretation. In this case the rotundity of the earth.

In another case Aristotile saw flies appear on rotting meat and concluded that flies spontaneously generated into existence. It took 2000 years for people to discover that wasn't true. To observe and interpret is science's greatest fallacy and the root of the word pseudoscience.

Not relevant.

Aristotle may have been an early observer and recorder of the sinking ship phenomenon, and come to a conclusion about it. That alone is not compelling evidence. What is compelling is the subsequent thousands of years of repeated and refined observations.

His conclusion of observation of spontaneous life from rotting meat was followed by subsequent refined observation and refined conclusions.

Juat because one conclusion is wrong does not show that the other conclusion is wrong. Your attempt to show otherwise does not hold.

The example is directly relevant. The scientific revolution of the Enlightenment and Renaissance was marked by finally rejecting Aristotile's nonsense and showing that mere observation and interpretation is insufficient to determine truth. It brought on the Scientific Method, which demands emperical and experimental verification of an interpretation.

See this quote from Diane Stranz from her article "Aristotle: Wrong About Everything":

“ Aristotle, the most important Western philosopher of all time, was a powerful thinker. He wrote many foundational texts that shape philosophical and logical discourse to this day. He expounded on just about every topic, from math to physics to biology. He also managed to be wrong about everything. And not just mildly in error. Grievously, profoundly, perhaps even maliciously wrong to such a depth that he, more than any other single person, carries the blame for the West’s descent into the Dark Ages. Europe could not return from the depths of superstition and ignorance until it got past this man’s influence. The Enlightenment and its preceding Renaissance, in fact, represents the West finally throwing off of the iron shackles of Aristotelian thought after over a thousand years. ”

Asistotile's work is an example of how NOT to do science. Yet he remains as an authority for the Round Earth Theory, and his 'proofs' are frequently quoted.

Looking at the spontaneous generation fallacy we see that mere observation and interpretation is an insufficient method of investigation. One can repeat the observation that rotting meat would produce maggots and flies. Many people have seen that. Merely repeating an observation again and again is also insufficient to determine truth. This lesson that observation and interprestation, and even repeatability, is insufficient, took over two thousand years to learn, and yet this pseudoscience still permeates many aspects of science.

Take a look at what the famous scientist hero Dr. Michio Kaku had to say in an interview:

“ Nobody that I know of in my field uses the so-called scientific method. In our field it is by the seat of your pants, leaps of logic. It is guesswork.” —Michio Kaku, In Depth with Michio Kaku

And this is why we should reject science as an authority. It has lost the lessons learned from the Aristotile debacle.

The example is directly relevant. The scientific revolution of the enlightenment and renissance was marked by finally rejecting Aristotile's nonsense and showing that mere observation and interpretation is insufficient to determine truth. It brought on the Scientific Method, which demands emperical and experimental verification of an interpretation.

See this quote from Diane Stranz from her article "Aristotle: Wrong About Everything":

“ Aristotle, the most important Western philosopher of all time, was a powerful thinker. He wrote many foundational texts that shape philosophical and logical discourse to this day. He expounded on just about every topic, from math to physics to biology. He also managed to be wrong about everything. And not just mildly in error. Grievously, profoundly, perhaps even maliciously wrong to such a depth that he, more than any other single person, carries the blame for the West’s descent into the Dark Ages. Europe could not return from the depths of superstition and ignorance until it got past this man’s influence. The Enlightenment and its preceding Renaissance, in fact, represents the West finally throwing off of the iron shackles of Aristotelian thought after over a thousand years. ”

Asistotile's work is an example of how NOT to do science. Yet he remains as an authority for the Round Earth Theory, and his 'proofs' are frequently quoted.

Looking at the spontaneous generation fallacy we see that mere observation and interpretation is an insufficient method of investigation. One can repeat the observation that rotting meat would produce maggots and flies. Many people have seen that. Merely repeating an observation again and again is also insufficient to determine truth. This lesson that observation and interprestation, and even repeatability, is insufficient, took over two thousand years to learn, and yet this pseudoscience still permeates many aspects of science.

Which is why no one is arguing that the validity of the sinking ship phenomenon rests solely on his observation and interpretation.

Your argument seems to be:

"Aristotle observed a thing and came to a wrong conclusion about A.

Aristotle was the first to observe and come to a conclusion about B.

Therefore B is incorrrect."

Comments?

The argument is that the sinking ship proof came from Arostile who was largely incorrect because he improperly performed science. Aristotile's methods were eventually rejected in favor an an emperical method of inquiry known as the scientific method.

When experiments were done in a controlled setting it was seen that flies did not spontaneously generate and the spontaneous generation claim was baseless.

Your error is that by insisting that ships sink behind curvature, you are essentially insisting that spontaneous generation is true and that others need to prove you wrong. No. You need to prove your own observation right, especially in the face of others having performed contradictory observations. Observation and interpretation alone is classic pseudoscience, and is insufficient.

Your error is that by insisting that ships sink behind curvature, you are essentially insisting that spontaneous generation is true ...

That does not follow.

But at least now I understand your argument.

Yet he (Aristotle) remains as an authority for the Round Earth Theory, and his 'proofs' are frequently quoted.

No, Aristotle does not "remain as an authority for the Round Earth Theory"!

He is just cited a one of the earliest to believe that the Earth was not flat as Anaximander, Thales and earlier Babylonian and Sumerian flat-Earth cosmologies had posited.

And nobody would claim that Aristotle's evidence was 'proof' of a Globe Earth - the Greeks simply saw that the old local flat Earth did not fit what they saw as they travelled further.

What is far more significant is the consistency of the results of the later investigators such as Eratosthenes, Aristarchus and Hipparchus.

And those flat-Earth cosmologies were very different from the modern flat-Earth Cosmology with its little Sun and Moon and minute planets.
The Greeks never had any issue with:
    the movement of the Sun, Moon and stars,
    with sunrises and sunsets nor
    with the Sun and Moon staying the same size.
This was because many earlier Cosmologies commonly had the celestial bodies in distant spheres anyway.

The geocentric Cosmology of Aristotle and Ptolemy etc had far more in common with those old flat-Earth cosmologies than does the modern flat-Earth Cosmology

I wonder why?

Then:

The argument is that the sinking ship proof came from Arostile who was largely incorrect because he improperly performed science. Aristotile's methods were eventually rejected in favor an an emperical method of inquiry known as the scientific method.

That piece of "evidence" did not originally come from Aristotle.
The Greeks had observed that back before Homer's time. I would not claim that the writings in fiction (as in Homer's epics) are evidence but the simply fact that he writes of that sort of thing impies it was simply accepted.

Odyssey Translated by Samuel Butler
Moreover, she made the wind fair and warm for him, and gladly did glorious Odysseus spread his sail before it, while he sat and guided the raft skillfully by means of the rudder. He never closed his eyes, but kept them fixed on the Pleiades, on late-setting Boötes, and on the Bear—which men also call the wagon, and which turns round and round where it is, facing Orion: she alone has no share in the baths of Okeanos —for Kalypsō, bright among goddesses, had told him to keep this to his left. Seventeen days did he sail over the sea, and on the eighteenth the dim outlines of the mountains on the nearest part of the Phaeacian coast appeared, rising like a shield on the horizon.

The argument is that the sinking ship proof came from Arostile who was largely incorrect because he improperly performed science. Aristotile's methods were eventually rejected in favor an an emperical method of inquiry known as the scientific method.

When experiments were done in a controlled setting it was seen that flies did not spontaneously generate and the spontaneous generation claim was baseless.

Your error is that by insisting that ships sink behind curvature, you are essentially insisting that spontaneous generation is true and that others need to prove you wrong. No. You need to prove your own observation right, especially in the face of others having performed contradictory observations. Observation and interpretation alone is classic pseudoscience, and is insufficient.

I assume I’m not the only one having a drinks, then? 



We don’t need to rely on Aristotle for evidence of things being obscured by the horizon.  We can see and photograph these things today.  What he thought about anything else is totally irrelevant.

Just like you don’t need to rely on whatever sketchy details Rowbotham wrote.

The argument is that the sinking ship proof came from Arostile who was largely incorrect because he improperly performed science. Aristotile's methods were eventually rejected in favor an an emperical method of inquiry known as the scientific method.

Except that we don't put any weight of the simple claim that Aristotle said that ships disappear behind the horizon.
Many have gone out and done the investigation and found that:

• How much is hidden depends directly on the height of the observer.
  
  Quote from: rabinoz on August 15, 2019, 03:38:24 AM

  The following screenshots of the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island are taken from Avonmore Tce,  Cottesloe Western Australia.
  

  Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft

  Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft
• How much is hidden depends directly on the distance to the target.
  
  Quote from: rabinoz on July 23, 2019, 05:50:06 AM

  These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
  The nearer ship is all visible but the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the ship is hidden behind something.
  

  And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:

  And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:

  
  
• For a given observer height the amount hidden does vary with the atmospheric conditions and this fits with know ideas on refraction near the surface.
• etc.

When experiments were done in a controlled setting it was seen that flies did not spontaneously generate and the spontaneous generation claim was baseless.

So Aristotle and many until the 19th century were wrong. So what?

Your error is that by insisting that ships sink behind curvature, you are essentially insisting that spontaneous generation is true and that others need to prove you wrong.

That is a complete logical fallacy! Just because Aristotle was proven wrong on one or even many claims means nothing about other claims.

No. You need to prove your own observation right, especially in the face of others having performed contradictory observations.

And I believe that has been done quite consistently.

Observation and interpretation alone is classic pseudoscience and is insufficient.

And that's rich coming from a proponent of Robotham's ENaG!

Shall we bring up his ideas on the Moon, circumpolar stars or many other big and small errors and omissions?

Read again what Rowbotham wrote!

Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham

Zetetic Astronomy: EXPERIMENT 14.
In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.

I did read it. It clearly also refers to the location as a "rock" and not a mountain. A rocky summit can be a small structure, and not necessarily a large one.

The passage also discounts El Bartolo as the location, since the elevations were about the same.

That "below the line of sight" seems to be totally meaningless! What is his "line of sight"? Is it the:

• Horizontal from the observer? If so it is usually called "eye-level" but bears no relation to whether the target is is is not visible.
  
• Is it the "line of sight" joining the observer (here "on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas") to the target (here the fire at "Camprey, on the Island of Iviza")?

Actually, below the line of sight does not mean below the horizon.

But, if Rowbotham is correct, it cannot "be a small rocky summit"; he wrote, "a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas" and Desierto las Palmas is a mountain range! A rocky summit on a mountain range can hardly be near sea level!

Desierto las Palmas consists of many areas which are not the peaks of mountains. A mountain range is a large area.

What you call "The second location", Rowbotham calls "Camprey, on the Island of Iviza". He means "Campvey" and today that name seems to apply to "Restaurente Es Camp Vell" 182 m high, somewhat inland, at 39° 2'21.77"N, 1°22'58.45"E and with no view towards Desierto las Palmas.

But other sources than Rowbotham refer to Mount Campvey.

Campvey is also a big area, and not a single point on the top of a mountain.

"He was on the Rocky Mountains" does not mean that the person is on the peak of a mountain in the mountain range.

You have failed to show what is meant in the passage or show that there is anything that is in error.

That piece of "evidence" did not originally come from Aristotle.
The Greeks had observed that back before Homer's time. I would not claim that the writings in fiction (as in Homer's epics) are evidence but the simply fact that he writes of that sort of thing impies it was simply accepted.

Quote from: Homer

Odyssey Translated by Samuel Butler
Moreover, she made the wind fair and warm for him, and gladly did glorious Odysseus spread his sail before it, while he sat and guided the raft skillfully by means of the rudder. He never closed his eyes, but kept them fixed on the Pleiades, on late-setting Boötes, and on the Bear—which men also call the wagon, and which turns round and round where it is, facing Orion: she alone has no share in the baths of Okeanos —for Kalypsō, bright among goddesses, had told him to keep this to his left. Seventeen days did he sail over the sea, and on the eighteenth the dim outlines of the mountains on the nearest part of the Phaeacian coast appeared, rising like a shield on the horizon.

Your quote from Homer might not even be intended as a reference to a rising structure from behind the curve of the earth. Things RISE as you approach them on a plane as well.

Aristotle is cited as the first Greek to argue that the earth was round based on physical evidence.

According to the American Physical Society:

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200606/history.cfm

It was around 500 B.C. that Pythagoras first proposed a spherical Earth, mainly on aesthetic grounds rather than on any physical evidence. Like many Greeks, he believed the sphere was the most perfect shape. Possibly the first to propose a spherical Earth based on actual physical evidence was Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), who listed several arguments for a spherical Earth: ships disappear hull first when they sail over the horizon, Earth casts a round shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse, and different constellations are visible at different latitudes.

Astronomy: The Evolving Universe - Page 31

Aristotle was the first person to describe in detail simple observations to demonstrate that the earth must be round

Except that we don't put any weight of the simple claim that Aristotle said that ships disappear behind the horizon.
Many have gone out and done the investigation and found that:

How much is hidden depends directly on the height of the observer.
How much is hidden depends directly on the distance to the target.
For a given observer height the amount hidden does vary with the atmospheric conditions and this fits with know ideas on refraction near the surface.
etc.

That's still observation and interpretation. If light is curving, all of that would apply. None of what you posted is experimental investigation of nature.

Recall also that astronomy also proposes that light is permanently curving through astronomical refraction. Straight light isn't default.

See these wise words of Nobel Prize winner, Physcist Max Planck:

 “Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is poetry imagination.”

The argument is that the sinking ship proof came from Arostile who was largely incorrect because he improperly performed science. Aristotile's methods were eventually rejected in favor an an emperical method of inquiry known as the scientific method.

When experiments were done in a controlled setting it was seen that flies did not spontaneously generate and the spontaneous generation claim was baseless.

Your error is that by insisting that ships sink behind curvature, you are essentially insisting that spontaneous generation is true and that others need to prove you wrong. No. You need to prove your own observation right, especially in the face of others having performed contradictory observations. Observation and interpretation alone is classic pseudoscience, and is insufficient.

You are stuck in a time warp. Our current understanding of the Cosmos has nothing to do with ancient Greeks who in all honesty knew little about the world they lived in let alone about the Cosmos at large. While they contributed massively to philosophy their contribution to science is another matter which was minimal.
All this fine stuff however is missing the point. I presented an image I took last week of a distant object, the Forth Rail Bridge. The image taken at a distance of over 30km showed around 70 meters of the base of the structure hidden. Why was that? I and others would say it was due to the curvature of the earth. Tom Bishop has yet to put forward an adequate explanation from the flat earth perspective. I await his scientific response.

It has everything to do with Aristotle and the Ancient Greeks. The Ancient Greeks saga shows us that to observe and interpret is crap science which does not bring us to truth. Nearly everything Aristotle and the Ancient Greeks said about nature turned out to be false, because they did not experimentally investigate the matter. This sinking ship observation is yet another observe-and-interpret fallacy without experimental confirmation which controls for the effects of nature.

Pythagoras argued that the earth was round because a sphere is the perfect shape. Aristotle and the Greeks then decided to go out looking for "proofs" to support the theory that the earth was round. See this nice quote from Historian of science Dr. James Hannam, author of God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science:

"Although we condemn flat-Earth thinking as an example of foolish ignorance, a spherical Earth is actually counter-intuitive. It’s such a radical idea that it has been ‘discovered’ only once, in Athens after 400 BCE. The concept of the Earth being round didn’t appear in any other civilisation. India and the Islamic world learnt it from the Greeks, while China had to wait until the Jesuits arrived in the 16th century and turned the Chinese view of the Universe upside down." (Source)

No other civilization discovered it on their own. The Round Earth Theory came from a single group of people, the Ancient Greeks, who have a reputation for getting many things wrong about nature due to a wrong approach to science.

Astronomy: The Evolving Universe - Page 31

Quote

Aristotle was the first person to describe in detail simple observations to demonstrate that the earth must be round

Quote from: rabinoz on December 31, 2019, 03:17:32 PM

Except that we don't put any weight of the simple claim that Aristotle said that ships disappear behind the horizon.
Many have gone out and done the investigation and found that:

• How much is hidden depends directly on the height of the observer.
  
  Quote from: rabinoz on August 15, 2019, 03:38:24 AM

  The following screenshots of the Bathurst Lighthouse on Rottnest Island are taken from Avonmore Tce,  Cottesloe Western Australia.
  

  Bathurst Lighthouse from 100 ft

  Bathurst Lighthouse from 6 ft
• How much is hidden depends directly on the distance to the target.
  
  Quote from: rabinoz on July 23, 2019, 05:50:06 AM

  These two photos are from a video of two large cargo ships off the coast near Wollongong, NSW and taken from about 10 m above sea-level.
  The nearer ship is all visible but the farther ship's containers are is still very visible but most of the ship is hidden behind something.
  

  And here we have a huge bulk ore carrier quite visible:

  And a container vessel with the hull hidden behind something:

That's still observation and interpretation. If light is curving, all of that would apply. None of what you posted is experimental investigation of nature.

• You, Rowbotham and most other flat Earthers assume that light travels in almost straight lines in all your "seeing too far proofs" (that are NOT proofs) so please a little consistency, please.
  
  
• How does your curving light manage to folllow the observer dowb the hill to make the hidden amount fit? Magic?
  
  
• Then in the second case with the ships; why does this curving light of yours only affect the hidden ship anf not the one that is closer? More magic?
  

Recall also that astronomy also proposes that light is permanently curving through astronomical refraction. Straight light isn't default.

No, "astronomy" does no propose "that light is permanently curving through astronomical refraction"!
And I think that astronomers might know more than anybody about atmospheric refraction.
Astronomy proposes that light travels in a straight line unless deflected by the media it travels through. The maximum astronomical refraction near the horizon is about 34' or arc and that figure is just what is expect with the air to almost vacuum transition.

And this is the typical refraction for various angles:


Note that by 5° above the horizon it's only about 10' of arc and by 45° about 1' of arc - nothing like the massive bending you demand for your bendy light hypotheses.

So we certainly accept that there is this slight refraction of light just as surveyors, especially geodetic surveyors, accept and correct for slight refraction where applicable

See these wise words of Nobel Prize winner, Physcist Max Planck:
“Experiment is the only means of knowledge at our disposal. Everything else is poetry imagination.”

Agree, everything “Everything else is poetry imagination” or unsupported hypotheses.

The above observations do amount to experiments, simple though they might be.
Climb the hill and reveal all the island and lighthouse. Go back down and a predictable height of the lighthouse and island are hidden and ask why?

And the maker of the video those screenshots came from wrote:

MCtheEmcee1 Published on Mar 21, 2018
Cargo ship with the entire hull below the horizon. Only the containers are visible.
The background ship called CONTI LYON, and at SEVEN pm,  that ship was at [-34.44074, 151.18053].
The foreground ship - EPIC - was moored at [-34.3693, 151.0004].
The camera was at location is -34.347 150.921  at 10m ASL.
Collins Rock, in the suburb of Woonona NSW.

So the nearer ship, the EPIC, was 16.7 km from the camera and the farther ship, the container ship was 26.0 km from the camera.
[/quote]
So the distances were "varied" (well two ships at known distances) from 16.7 km to 26.0 km and much more of the more distant ship was hidden? Why is it so?

Now, where is all this experimental evidence for your "Electromagnetic Accelerator" that you claim magically bends light to fit what we've known fits the Globe for centuries before your flat Earth model was even thought of.

And while we're on evidence. Where is Rowbotham's experimental evidence for these claims?

• The Sun, Moon, Planets and stars circling 700 to 1000 miles above the Earth.
  
  
• Antarctica being a massive ring continent around a North Pole centred circular Earth.
  
  
• "If the Southern Cross is a circumpolar cluster of stars, it is a matter of absolute certainty that it could never be in-visible to navigators upon or south of the equator. It would always be seen far above the horizon, just as the "Great Bear" is at all times visible upon and north of the equator."
  
  The "Great Bear, Ursa Major, is" is certainly not "at all times visible upon and north of the equator."
  
  All of the Southern Cross, Crux is circumpolar only to those living further south that about 30°S latitude
  and the Great Bear, Ursa Major is circumpolar only to those living further north that about 30°N latitude.
  

Rowbotham is simply wrong about these and many other things so why should anyone believe his claim that the Earth is flat when that claim was based on much of that evidence.

I could go on and on but we'll leave it there

The example is directly relevant.

No, it isn't.
People thinking life spontaneously formed from meat has no bearing on the shape of Earth.
Thinking one thing that is wrong doesn't make everything you do wrong.

He also believed Earth existed. Do you reject that as well, or are some things fine to accept?

It brought on the Scientific Method, which demands emperical and experimental verification of an interpretation.

You mean like a large portion of science which you reject because it shows Earth is round?

Mapping of Earth is an empirical and experimental verification.
GPS is more, which is used on a daily basis.
We have photos of Earth, showing it is curved.

Yet you reject all that, because it contradicts your FE fantasy.

Straight light isn't default.

No, straight light is the default, along with the isotropy of space.
In order for straight light to not be the default there would need to be evidence of a preferred directionality which causes light to bend in a particular direction.

Something like refraction at an interface causing light to deviate from a straight line based upon the directionality of that interface doesn't mean that straight is not the default.

But any appeals to bendy light are directly contradicted by your attempts to claim we can see too far. It seems your light is sentient and will decide to bend sometimes to make Earth appear round when needed to dismiss the evidence of the round Earth, while not bending at other times and instead going straight so you can get your baseless claims of a series of flags all nicely lined up.

So much of the FE "proofs" rely upon light travelling in a straight line. If you want to reject that and be honest and consistent the appropriate course of action would be to say you know literally nothing about the shape of Earth, as all the "FE proofs" could simply be due to magic bendy light. Earth could be a stellated dodecahedron, with some regions being flat and some being pointy and light just magically bending to produce the results observed.

The passage also discounts El Bartolo as the location, since the elevations were about the same.

And we have literally no reason to trust your high prophet about such a claim.
Could that be yet another baseless assumption/lie of his?
Just what source did he use to come to that conclusion?

Actually, below the line of sight does not mean below the horizon.

So you are saying the entire claim is a non-argument which shows absolutely nothing wrong with the RE, as an object being below the line of sight in that case would have no bearing on if it is visible or not?

Like I said, the argument only makes sense if it is taken to mean below the horizon.

So either it is just a non-argument pretending to be one, or it is an argument based upon lies and assumptions to try and pretend there is a problem.

You have failed to show what is meant in the passage or show that there is anything that is in error.

Meanwhile, I showed a very clear problem with the video that you linked, which you are yet to try and defend or acknowledge that massive problem.
Why is that? Do you feel the need to run away from the truth?

I took this second image just the other day. As you will see the light was very poor being quite an overcast day, but it is still pretty clear for all to see almost all the bottom section of the rail bridge is hidden from view.  Again the sea was almost flat calm with the tide slack and on the point of turning. Regardless of what the Greeks had to say it is pretty self-evident that the bottom section of the bridge is being obscured due to the curvature of the earth.



Any flat earth scientist is welcome to offer an alternative.

It has everything to do with Aristotle and the Ancient Greeks. The Ancient Greeks saga shows us that to observe and interpret is crap science which does not bring us to truth. Nearly everything Aristotle and the Ancient Greeks said about nature turned out to be false, because they did not experimentally investigate the matter. This sinking ship observation is yet another observe-and-interpret fallacy without experimental confirmation which controls for the effects of nature.

Pythagoras argued that the earth was round because a sphere is the perfect shape. Aristotle and the Greeks then decided to go out looking for "proofs" to support the theory that the earth was round. See this nice quote from Historian of science Dr. James Hannam, author of God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science:

Quote

"Although we condemn flat-Earth thinking as an example of foolish ignorance, a spherical Earth is actually counter-intuitive. It’s such a radical idea that it has been ‘discovered’ only once, in Athens after 400 BCE. The concept of the Earth being round didn’t appear in any other civilisation. India and the Islamic world learnt it from the Greeks, while China had to wait until the Jesuits arrived in the 16th century and turned the Chinese view of the Universe upside down." (Source)

No other civilization discovered it on their own. The Round Earth Theory came from a single group of people, the Ancient Greeks, who have a reputation for getting many things wrong about nature due to a wrong approach to science.

Forget the red herring that is the ancient Greeks and offer an explanation as to why the bottom half of the Forth Rail Bridge is being obscured.