[rabinoz]

The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.

Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.

So you have to dredge up 1885 documentation without any photos!

I do not see any "evidence", just "Parallax" saying something happens because of the "Law of Perspective", which he grossly misinterprets.

The "Law of Perspective" says no more that that objects appear to get smaller as they get further and goes on to say quite correctly

Law of Perspective
In the first place it is easily demonstrable that, as shown in the following diagrams, fig. 71, lines which are equi-distant

FIG. 71.

"The range of the eye, or diameter of the field of vision, is 110°; consequently this is the largest angle under which an object can be seen. The range of vision is from 110° to 1°. . . . The smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average, for different sights, the sixtieth part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable; consequently the greatest distance at which we can behold an object like a shilling of an inch in diameter, is 3000 inches or 250 feet."

That is in reasonable agreement with current thoughts on resolution of the eye, etc.

Even bits like this I find logical:

Let A represent a disc of wood or card-board, say one foot in diameter, and painted black, except one inch diameter in the centre. On taking this disc to about a hundred feet away from an observer at A, the white centre will appear considerably diminished--as shown at B--and on removing it still further the central white will become invisible, the disc will appear as at C, entirely black. Again, if a similar disc is coloured black, except a segment of say one inch in depth at the lower edge, on moving it forward the lower segment will gradually disappear, as shown at A, B, and C, in diagram fig. 74. If the

Fig. 74.

disc is allowed to rest on a board D, the effect is still more striking. The disc at C will appear perfectly round--the white segment having disappeared.

Note carefully here the circle stays a circle, but the white part just gets too small to resolve - no great problem, though we might see a blurred greyish bit at the bottom!

Where I do start having a big disagreement is where "Parallax" just simply states all his conclusions from this.

If a receding train be observed on a long, straight, and horizontal portion of railway, the bottom of the last carriage will seem to gradually get nearer to the rails, until at about the distance of two miles the line of rail and the bottom of the carriage will seem to come together, as shown in fig. 79.

Fig. 79.

Perspective simply reduces the apparent size of objects in proportion to the distance, when that apparent size gets below the limit of the eye's resolving power, the object is no longer visible. In the diagram above we have a completely unjustified premature earlier reduction in size. A more correct diagram would be:

where the wheels don't artificially "burrow" into the ground. Normal real perspective will make those smaller parts "disappear" in good time.

[TotesNotReptilian]

The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.

Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.

Rabinoz pointed out that Robotham's logic is wrong. This is true.
Woody pointed out that we need some solid modern evidence of this occurring. This is true.

A third problem with your statement is that Rowbotham does not provide any experimental evidence for this phenomenon. I read the pages you linked me to in the other thread. If you think I am wrong, and that there really is experimental evidence for this phenomenon in that book, please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.

[geckothegeek]

The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.

Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.

Rabinoz pointed out that Robotham's logic is wrong. This is true.
Woody pointed out that we need some solid modern evidence of this occurring. This is true.

A third problem with your statement is that Rowbotham does not provide any experimental evidence for this phenomenon. I read the pages you linked me to in the other thread. If you think I am wrong, and that there really is experimental evidence for this phenomenon in that book, please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.

I think ("  IMHO " )  Rowbotham's ideas might be defined as " This is just my idea of how I think that things would be if the earth was flat."

[geckothegeek]

The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.

k

Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.

Tom if you are right it would be very easy to demonstrate.

You do not live too far away from the Port of LA.  One of the busiest ports in the world with plenty of large ships coming and going.

It should be well within most peoples means to conduct the experiment of trying to bring part of a ship back into view once it passes the horizon.

To prove you are right you must show:

1. The horizon clearly in front of the ship when it disappears from view.

2. Using higher magnification you can see the ship again.

Continually referring people to a source that regularly omits important information like observer height, distances, and target height is not proof.  How can someone go recreate the experiment and verify the observations and conclusions.  By your own standards the source you cite is not adequate evidence.  You are taking Rowbathan's word for it and have not witnessed it yourself or seen pictures or videos demonstrating it.

I assume I have more experience and cehave witnessed the hull down effect more than most people.  I could be wrong because I do not have data, but since I live on my boat, currently in one of the busiest ports in the world I think it is safe to assume.

I have only once been able to restore a ship once it went beyond the horizon out of view.  As I pointed out above it was when I climbed the mast.  If you ever spent weeks crossing an ocean single handed you would realize how something like another ship coming into sight becomes the entertainment and the vsomething to do.  The same is true when you see the first signs of land.  I have spent hours on each of these different occasions observing ships using my naked eye, binoculars and telescopes.

Every time the ship/land/object appeared from the top up and disappeared from the bottom up.  I usually switch between my naked eye, binos and a telescope.  My many observations tell me I can not bring something back into view once it passes the horizon.  The only thing that happens when I use higher magnification is I am able to make out more detail.

When you conduct observations I would suggest trying to observe a cruiseliner at night.  They are very well lit and allows you to see it with the naked eye from further distances.  I suggest this because I have observed a cruiseliner at night and can not think of anything that could demonstrate you may be wrong better.  Approaching a cities at night, like LA, from the sea also has me firmly believing you are wrong.

We have just returned from a vacation trip to California.

If Tom lives near the port  of LA, a deck on the Queen Mary Hotel at Long Beach  or the Santa Monica  Pier would be good vantage points to observe the horizon and ships passing over the horizon.

I have also observed a city at night - Honolulu at night from a ship that was either approaching or departing to or from Honolulu.

My experiences are much like Woody's so I am in agreement with Woody.

Also , today's ships are much larger than they were in Rowbotham's times and can be seen much longer before they become too small to be seen. Compare the size of today's container ships, cruise liners or aircraft carriers with the size of the sailing ships shown in Rowbotham's drawings.

[Tom Bishop]

The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.

Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.

Rabinoz pointed out that Robotham's logic is wrong. This is true.
Woody pointed out that we need some solid modern evidence of this occurring. This is true.

A third problem with your statement is that Rowbotham does not provide any experimental evidence for this phenomenon. I read the pages you linked me to in the other thread. If you think I am wrong, and that there really is experimental evidence for this phenomenon in that book, please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.

Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them. Are you in denial?

[TotesNotReptilian]

Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them. Are you in denial?

None of the experiments prove this particular phenomenon. At least not from the pages you told me to read.

please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.

Still waiting...

[rabinoz]

The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.

Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.

Rabinoz pointed out that Robotham's logic is wrong. This is true.
Woody pointed out that we need some solid modern evidence of this occurring. This is true.

A third problem with your statement is that Rowbotham does not provide any experimental evidence for this phenomenon. I read the pages you linked me to in the other thread. If you think I am wrong, and that there really is experimental evidence for this phenomenon in that book, please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.

Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them. Are you in denial?

You make the statements:
     "Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe."
     "Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them."
All I see is a lot of statements by Rowbotham, but I guess a lot of things are "in the eye of the beholder"!
That is why in real science we do not accept the evidence of one person or group, but expect it to be verified and if it is a measurement to improve its accuracy!
Just look at the measurement of the "Universal Gravitational Constant", where Henry Cavendish made the first measurement (yes, I know he was "weighing the earth", the result was "G"), but there have probably been a hundred experiments improving on his figure, even to the present day.

Or measuring (or estimating) the distance to the sun. Copernicus estimated around 9,000,000 miles (I think), but it wasn't untill sometime after Cook's and other expeditions to measure the "Transit of Venus" that reasonably accurate values were found.

And the list goes on.

But  by contrast the "Flat Earth Movement" seems to take the results of one person (who may have been well intentioned, but was still one person) and never bothers to verify the results. Even on the distance to the sun. Rowbotham is the only Flat Earther I know to have actually done any experimental work to measure the distance to the sun. If the earth were flat his method was reasonable (though his baseline was far too short), but his equipment was completly inadequate and his result of 700 miles is vastly different to the current Flat Earth figure of "a bit over" 3,000 miles. If Rowbotham's method is repeated using accurate angles (derived from GLOBE sun information) the results agree with the other "estimates" of sun heights. But  I repeat Rowbotham is the only Flat Earther I know to have actually done any experimental work on this.

So where are these "Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them."? You undoubtedly know "The Earth is not a Globe" far better than I.

So I believe that I should be the one to ask quite sincerely "Are you in denial?"

[Woody]

The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.

Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.

Rabinoz pointed out that Robotham's logic is wrong. This is true.
Woody pointed out that we need some solid modern evidence of this occurring. This is true.

A third problem with your statement is that Rowbotham does not provide any experimental evidence for this phenomenon. I read the pages you linked me to in the other thread. If you think I am wrong, and that there really is experimental evidence for this phenomenon in that book, please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.

Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them. Are you in denial?

Can you copy and paste them here?  I am have not found anything that I was able to recreate or have observed. I have not read the entire thing. I skimmed it and was able using my personal experiences determine your reference has not offered any evidence the Earth is flat.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.

Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.

Rabinoz pointed out that Robotham's logic is wrong. This is true.
Woody pointed out that we need some solid modern evidence of this occurring. This is true.

A third problem with your statement is that Rowbotham does not provide any experimental evidence for this phenomenon. I read the pages you linked me to in the other thread. If you think I am wrong, and that there really is experimental evidence for this phenomenon in that book, please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.

Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them. Are you in denial?

Can you copy and paste them here?  I am have not found anything that I was able to recreate or have observed. I have not read the entire thing. I skimmed it and was able using my personal experiences determine your reference has not offered any evidence the Earth is flat.

A lot of you guys spend so much time here debating and circle jerking but just admitted what I already suspected, most of you have not even read any damn flat earth literature in the first place. You come here with the strength of your preconceived notions and attempt to debunk shit you don't even understand.

But ofcourse flat earthers are the ones with confirmation bias, considering they were taught about the spherical rotating tilted elliptically orbiting earth since the first grade and all.

[Rama Set]

A lot of you guys spend so much time here debating and circle jerking but just admitted what I already suspected, most of you have not even read any damn flat earth literature in the first place.

A few of us have read EnaG and found it to be deeply flawed.  It does not really have many experimental results in it either, especially not in the section being discussed, but mostly proposals for experiments or anecdotes about experiments; not much in the way of data sets.  This is not an outright criticism, but calling on EnaG to deliver empirical results is not the best course.

[TotesNotReptilian]

A lot of you guys spend so much time here debating and circle jerking but just admitted what I already suspected, most of you have not even read any damn flat earth literature in the first place. You come here with the strength of your preconceived notions and attempt to debunk shit you don't even understand.

I haven't read the entire book, but I have read the chapters relevant to this discussion (plus a few others). I'll just state this bluntly: Rowbotham is an idiot. His logic is extremely poor, and he demonstrates lots of bias in the interpretation of his observations/experiments. I can back up these statements with specific examples if you want, although it should probably be done in a new thread so we don't derail this one.

Reading the entire book would be extremely tedious. However, I'll continue reading the chapters directly related to the topic at hand.

Given that you are such an expert in this literature, perhaps you can help Tom out? I am still waiting for one of these "numerous experiments" that I am "in denial" about. So far none have been presented.

[Woody]

The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.

Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.

Rabinoz pointed out that Robotham's logic is wrong. This is true.
Woody pointed out that we need some solid modern evidence of this occurring. This is true.

A third problem with your statement is that Rowbotham does not provide any experimental evidence for this phenomenon. I read the pages you linked me to in the other thread. If you think I am wrong, and that there really is experimental evidence for this phenomenon in that book, please quote the exact passage where it can be found. This should be a trivial task if you are correct.

Numerous experiments are performed in the text. A lot of them. Are you in denial?

Can you copy and paste them here?  I am have not found anything that I was able to recreate or have observed. I have not read the entire thing. I skimmed it and was able using my personal experiences determine your reference has not offered any evidence the Earth is flat.

A lot of you guys spend so much time here debating and circle jerking but just admitted what I already suspected, most of you have not even read any damn flat earth literature in the first place. You come here with the strength of your preconceived notions and attempt to debunk shit you don't even understand.

But ofcourse flat earthers are the ones with confirmation bias, considering they were taught about the spherical rotating tilted elliptically orbiting earth since the first grade and all.

Here is the problem.  I started reading things like the 100 proof and earth is not a globe.  For the Hundred Protofs I made it to about #20 and was able to realize either with logic or personal experience it was wrong.  For earht is not a globe it was basically the same thing or I noticed it failed to offer anything that could be reproduced and give consistent results. 

Why would I continue to read it?  It uses flawed logic and nothing I have read that I can recreate to verify what it is telling me it is true.

I have seen FE's claim that RE's just accept things without looking into them and personal investigation.  Well when I do it with what I have read offered as evidence in the wiki, 100 proofs and Eartht not a Globe the things that I could verify stated in the sources proved wrong.

A couple examples:

Tom Bishop made a mistake when calculating the distance in the Bishop experiment.  He was off by 10 miles. The location where he stated he was at makes it very questionable the telescope was only 20" above the water.

100 proofs states engineers/architects do not take curvature into account. Which is true. There is no need to take it into account when building something like a road unless it is built in one piece then placed on the surface.  If you build something like a road it is self correcting as you build.

For earth not a globe everything I read lacked important details like observer height, target distance and height.  It just had sketches and logical fallacies.

I will say if you think is especially convincing and you link it here or tell me the page number I will read it. I am open to being proven wrong, just have not seen any convincing evidence that contradicts what I have observed.

I have sailed many places, used celestial navigation, used tables telling how far I can see, watch ships approach and go away from me, seen different stars in the northern and southern hemispheres, been able to see things that others could not simply because I was higher than they were.

If I read something and read 3 or more things I know are wrong from personal experience I tend to think it is a waste of time and written by someone who does not what they are talking about.

[geckothegeek]

The complete lack of evidence in support of the flat-earther claim does not prove the claim to be false. However, it is a strong indication that no evidence exists, and therefore there is no reason to believe the claim to be true.

Except that there is significant experimental evidence in Earth Not a Globe.

If, as some one commented , you live near the port of Los Angeles ....San Pedro, Santa Monica, etc....it should be easy to go some point and just look out to sea and see whether or  not there is or is not a distinct horizon which should coincide with round or flat earth.  Also with the many large ships entering and departing , it should be easy  to see if you can restore a ship  - to full view...hull to mast - whether you can do this or not which should coincide  with round or flat earth. This should  be done on a clear sunny day with no atmoshperic conditions to interfere. Been there, done that.

[rabinoz]

A lot of you guys spend so much time here debating and circle jerking but just admitted what I already suspected, most of you have not even read any damn flat earth literature in the first place. You come here with the strength of your preconceived notions and attempt to debunk shit you don't even understand.

But ofcourse flat earthers are the ones with confirmation bias, considering they were taught about the spherical rotating tilted elliptically orbiting earth since the first grade and all.

And how much of "Earth Not a Globe" have you read? You have a copy of course, l have.

So maybe you could explain how Rowbotham manages to prove that the sun's height cannot be more than 700 miles as in:

If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.

I guess you can find that bit in your copy and explain how it is that now they say the sun is a "bit over 3,000 miles".

And Flat Earthers complain that we "change the distance between the earth and the sun".

You are so critical of all the Globe "theories, what about looking at what the Flat Earthers really "believe?

The bit above is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more that is nothing more than guesswork.

[Rounder]

While you're at it, explain why "the earth floats on the ocean" and "the sea isn't salty" doesn't immediately discredit Rowbotham as an authority on anything about the natural world?

[TotesNotReptilian]

While you're at it, explain why "the earth floats on the ocean" and "the sea isn't salty" doesn't immediately discredit Rowbotham as an authority on anything about the natural world?

Actually, he doesn't say the sea isn't salty. He says it isn't saturated with salt. For the most part, this is true.

[Rounder]

I think you're giving him too much credit.  Based on the level of understanding exhibited in the work as a whole, I really think he wanted his readers to take away the understanding that "water in the open ocean isn't as saturated with saline as the seawater you find at the seashore"  But OK, you want to exclude that statement, fair enough.  Replace "the sea isn't salty" with your choice of:

A) the sea floats on a bed of steam above a lake of fire
B) far south = perpetual darkness
C) the South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer
D) sunlight puts out fire

Or many others I could list, but I've had my fill of Rowbotham for now.

[geckothegeek]

I think you're giving him too much credit.  Based on the level of understanding exhibited in the work as a whole, I really think he wanted his readers to take away the understanding that "water in the open ocean isn't as saturated with saline as the seawater you find at the seashore"  But OK, you want to exclude that statement, fair enough.  Replace "the sea isn't salty" with your choice of:

A) the sea floats on a bed of steam above a lake of fire
B) far south = perpetual darkness
C) the South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer
D) sunlight puts out fire

Or many others I could list, but I've had my fill of Rowbotham for now.

I, too, have just about had my filll of Rowbotham - and for that matter - this entire website- for now, but these few additional comments.:

(1) Moonlight supports combustion.
(2) If flat earthers would just go to the nearest point where they can see the sea clearly and honestly report or photograph what they saw as far as the horizon is concerned.
It is not necessary to go to sea to do this.
(3) If flat earthers would just observe. a ship going over the horizon and becoming completely invisible and report honestly if they can or can not restore the ship to full visibility with a telescope.

Even if  flat earthers would simply perform these experiments for themselves, they would probably be in complete denial even if they found all these flat earth ideas are completely false.......So maybe it's just a hopeless case ?

[rabinoz]

I think you're giving him too much credit.  Based on the level of understanding exhibited in the work as a whole, I really think he wanted his readers to take away the understanding that "water in the open ocean isn't as saturated with saline as the seawater you find at the seashore"  But OK, you want to exclude that statement, fair enough.  Replace "the sea isn't salty" with your choice of:

A) the sea floats on a bed of steam above a lake of fire
B) far south = perpetual darkness
C) the South Georgia islands are under many fathoms of snow in the summer
D) sunlight puts out fire

Or many others I could list, but I've had my fill of Rowbotham for now.

I honestly do not know whether Rowbotham is knowingly dishonest or unforgivably (for someone assuming so much authority) ignorant!

He states

In the Cook's Strait Almanack for 1848, it is said:
"At Wellington, New Zealand, December 21st, sun rises 4 h. 31 m., and sets at 7 h. 29 m., the day being 14 hours 58 minutes. June 21st, sun rises at 7 h. 29 m., and sets at 4 h. 31 m., the day being 9 hours and 2 minutes. In England the longest day is 16 hours 34 minutes, and the shortest day is 7 hours 45 minutes. Thus the longest day in New Zealand is 1 hour and 36 minutes shorter than the longest day in England; and the shortest day in New Zealand is 1 hour and 17 minutes longer than the shortest day in England."

From: Zetetic Astronomy, by Samuel Birley Rowbotham  CHAPTER VIII, p. 121

He compares the sunrise, sunset times of Wellington, NZ (at 41.286°S and 174.776°E) with an unstated part of "England", say London (at 51.507°N and 0.128°W). London is more than 10° further North than Wellington is South - of course it gets longer summer days and shorter winter days than Wellington.

Below are the sunrise and sunset times and day lengths for Wellington, London and Barcelona, at almost the same North Latitude as Wellington is South.

Where we see that the day length for the summer solstice in Wellington was 15 hours 10 minutes in 2015 which compares well with Cooks 14 hours 58 minutes and almost exactly the same as Barcelona's of  15 hours 10 minutes.

Rowbotham's day length for "England" is 16 hours 34 minutes, compares well to the http://SunEarthTools day length of 16 hours 38 minutes. Anyone claiming to be an authority on these matters must know how sunrise and sunset time vary with latitude!

But is Rowbotham simply ignorant, being deceptive? Either way he completely discredited as a source of reliable information.

[geckothegeek]

It is just one more of my "IMHO"'s but maybe Rowbotham just made up all these ideas just for the sake of them.
Since the genreral population of England was far less literate than that of today, and since he was reported to be an excellent speaker, he found he could make money by pesenting his lectures.
Since the general population was none the wiser for it, they might be impressed with this, thinking that he was some kind of a genius in presenting such things as "Earth Not A Globe" that they just bought into his talks without question.

So maybe he wasn't any better or worse than the old snake oil salesman of that time.
But if you read about some of the others   of Rowbotham's activities, there is cause to  question his motives and character as being a bit devious..