[Frocious]

Have you read his book? He goes into extreme detail with regards to how his experiments were conducted and the various things he took into account. And I assume you were referring to Alfred Russell Wallace who claimed to take into account refraction, yet Dr Rowbotham himself went into extreme detail as to how he took refraction into account, thereby rendering Wallace's 'experiment' invalid. Dr Rowbotham produced many experiments and the conclusions were the result of the facts. Hence the reason he revealed that the sun is less than 700 miles above the earth.

More importantly, have YOU read his book?

This remark by yourself seems more than a bit off the mark: "Hence the reason he revealed that the sun is less than 700 miles above the earth."

The rest of the FE community is of the opinion that the sun is about 3,000 miles above the earth. Did they get that number from Rowbotham, or another source? If Rowbotham indeed believed the 700 mile number, then the community seems to believe him to be in error.

Incidentally, I DID read the book and passed it off as complete hogwash, which it is, and always will be. It's part pseudo science and part religious proselytizing. Scientifically, it is deserving of no respect whatever, in my opinion. The book was written by a man simply trying desperately to cling to his bizarre interpretation of the Christian religion in the face of all evidence to the contrary. To him, a flat earth was absolutely necessary because, in his interpretation, that's what the bible indicated it to be.

I have. And it's pride of place on my shelf. The Dr Rowbotham presented many facts to back up his experiments, taking different situations into account yet each one proved the point that earth is not a globe.

And I'm not sure where other people get their information from, I can't speak for them. I do, however, trust Dr Rowbothams work.

You need to stop typing "Dr" in front of "Rowbotham."

And why exactly?

What did he receive his doctorate in?

[Scroogie]

Still, the only argument I'm making is:

If taken alone, that is not considering the other factors that make FE Moon conjecture laughable, the inversion of the image between North and South points in the FE model is consistent enough not to falsify the FE conjecture (i.e. it could be consistent with an FE model).

I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get what it is I'm trying to point out, so I give up.

[6or1/2Dozen]

Still, the only argument I'm making is:

If taken alone, that is not considering the other factors that make FE Moon conjecture laughable, the inversion of the image between North and South points in the FE model is consistent enough not to falsify the FE conjecture (i.e. it could be consistent with an FE model).

I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get what it is I'm trying to point out, so I give up.

I'm can't get your 'point' because what you're trying to point out amounts to 'nu-uh'. Your sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to good science. I'm not trying to convince you of FE, that's a bunch of bunk. I'm trying to teach about basic geometry and point of view.

I've shown (in two different sets of pictures) a model over a flat plane that an overhead object in which only one face is visible to all observer's, will appear to flip over based solely on the observer crossing underneath and it turning around. You're refusing to believe it.

Did I fake the pictures? If you say, 'No', then what the problem, I've shown 'that flat earthers COULD see the moon as "upside down", when compared to that seen by another viewer, from SOMEWHERE on their "flat earth'. [paraphrasing you]

If you scream 'FAKE'; Welcome to the mindset of the FEer's. Congratulations, you now probably understand their cognitive dissociation better than any other RE in the room. 

What you're saying is that such an observation can't happen, ever, at all, under no conditions. You claim is that I should NEVER have been able to take a picture of the 3D cylinder from the flat floor of my office and have the image appear to invert (which I did BTW). You, on the other hand, have provided nothing to backup your claim, A) because you can't really backup 'nu-uh' and B) I've already falsified it.

I've explained it to you in blimp-o-vision. Are you telling me that you think that the peeps in both the Goodyear blimp and the peeps in the MetLife blimp on the other side of the track would both read the number on the race car roof as '6'?
Are you saying a racetrack isn't [relatively] flat?
Or that 2 blimps at similar altitudes aren't on the same plane with the same reference of the direction defined as away from the surface of the Earth?

Then I provided you a drawing that related this concept to a distant object circling overhead (like the FE Moon).

And, then there is my personal favorite, the attempt to obfuscate and confuse a 2D drawing, by injecting you own 3D perspective without considering that when you push (or pull) the Moon around in the Z direction, you have to rotate it so the back side continues to face away from everyone, confuse a card taped to the ceiling on edge as a fair depiction of the Moon's image, have me make a 3D cylinder, but then say, you're the one whose been "trying to deal with a two dimensional representation of the moon, disregarding its third dimension for the purposes of this discussion".

Maybe it's my fault for taping a card up, perhaps if I had drawn the Moon on my ceiling in permanent marker, you would have realized that I had the ink oriented in the proper direction to begin with? I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding that turning around is sufficient to to invert the Moon image.

Maybe it's because this is the FE site, had you read this elsewhere you might been more open minded to the idea that there is not a preferred direction of 'top' on a flat plane.
 
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/135-does-the-moon-look-different-in-the-northern-and-southern-hemispheres-beginner

I'm not surprised they noticed a difference in the appearance of the moon. Had they tilted their head and looked at the Moon upside down, it would have looked normal (to them anyway). In short, the moon looks upside down in the southern hemisphere (or in your case the moon would look upside down in the northern hemisphere). I noticed exactly the same thing on my first trip to southern hemisphere.

To understand why this happens, imagine for simplicity that the orbit of the Moon was exactly in the same plane as the Earth's equator. From the northern hemisphere, the Moon is in the southern sky because that's the direction of the Earth's equator. In the southern hemisphere the situation is reversed. Now imagine that you are standing on the equator. The Moon would be directly overhead. First face north and look straight up at the Moon. It should look like it does in Australia. Now turn and face south and look at the Moon. You are now looking at the Moon flipped from how it looked when facing north. This is how the moon looks in the northern hemisphere to your American friends.

The equator is a special place because the moon is overhead (at least in our thought experiment), and there's no preferred viewing direction. At higher or lower latitudes there is a preferred direction, namely the one when you're standing on your feet and not your hands, so you really only see the moon in one orientation.

Key points:

The orbit of the Moon was exactly in the same plane as the Earth's equator. = On flat earth, the Moon ALWAYS orbits in the same plane of the equator.

The equator is a special place because the moon is overhead (at least in our thought experiment), and there's no preferred viewing direction. = When the viewing plane is parallel to orbital plane, there is no preferred viewing direction.

From the northern hemisphere, the Moon is in the southern sky because that's the direction of the Earth's equator. In the southern hemisphere the situation is reversed. = On FE, turning around reverses your viewing direction.

At higher or lower latitudes there is a preferred direction, namely the one when you're standing on your feet and not your hands, so you really only see the moon in one orientation. = The is only a preferred direction on RE, a model where people can be upside down while still standing on their feet, but this only applies to higher and lower latitudes.

[stanlee]

the point of view FE argument is fine except it's not the angular displacement of the moon with respect to the viewer. it's with respect to the horizon. it should not change in FE. simultaneous observation and correspondence betwen the northern and southern hemisphere will show you the horizon flipped. (RE).

[Tom Bishop]

Yes, the moon "flipping" is not an issue in FET.

Yes, the theories of Ancient Greek continuous perspective do predict that we should be able to see the side of the moon when viewed from an angle. However we questions those assumptions. See my comments in this thread.

[stanlee]

with respect to horizon.
wrt horizon!
are you obfuscating, tom?
we are not talking about greek continuous perspective flipping anything 180.
take 2 points above the horizon(A&B). align them such that a straight line joining them is parallel to the horizon. does it remain parallel to the horizon as you pass across the flat earth? yes. yes, it does. despite the fact the the points switch from A is closer to B is closer.

[6or1/2Dozen]

Yes, the moon "flipping" is not an issue in FET.

Yes, the theories of Ancient Greek continuous perspective do predict that we should be able to see the side of the moon when viewed from an angle. However we questions those assumptions. See my comments in this thread.

The assumption are shown to be accurate at the distance from the Earth to the Moon & Sun in an FE model. If they were not, the path of totality during the solar eclipse would be vastly different than what is observed.

As seen in this scale cross-section, in order for both observers (4666 miles apart) to see the same portion of the Lunar surface, a perspective effect or a non-continuous universe could (and would have to) bend their field of view, as depicted by the uncolored sight lines. However, under these conditions, both observers (and presumably every one in between) would also view a 100% total Solar Eclipse. 



The actual path of totality of the Solar Eclipse is much narrower and the observed % totality at various locations is not consistent with a model invoking non-Euclidean geometries or non-continuous universe.

The observations seem to more closely match the Euclidean geometry predictions in a continuous universe, as depicted by the colored fields of view, indicating that people 2333 miles from the path of totality would not observe a 100% total eclipse (if they seen any eclipse at all).


Time of maxim and % totality confirmed from Corpus Christi, Pittsburgh, points along the path of totality and everywhere else that an eclipse did not occur

[stanlee]

pretty graphics.
not sure it's relevant though.

[6or1/2Dozen]

pretty graphics.
not sure it's relevant though.

Thank you, I did the cross-sectional line-drawing, the Eclipse map was one I found on the internet from a non-governmental source (i.e. not NASA).

As for the relevancy:

It was noted that Ancient Greek theories perspective do predict that we [observers] should be able to see [different] sides of the moon when viewed from an [different] angle [like when standing thousands of miles apart]. This presents a problem in the FE model as this isn't what we actually observe.

The poster presented, in order to reconcile the discrepancy between prediction and observation, the argument that those ancient theories are incorrect, some phenomena, such a curved space, electromagnetic acceleration or incomplete model of the perspective, causes the observers to both see the Moon from the same angle.

The line drawing, shows via the uncolored and slightly curving lines, the reconciling conjecture, that somehow the observer's field of view is bent so all observer's see the same Lunar surface.

To counter this argument, a study of the Solar Eclipse was presented:
The curving lines of the reconciling conjecture appear to predict that all observers would view a 100% Total Solar Eclipse, due to the phenomena bending their fields of view to observer in a nearly straight up direction, and would occur at the same moment for all observers.

The predictions of the straight colored fields of view [representing that space is not curved, photons generally travel in straight lines and the RE model of perspective are correct] indicate observers 2333 miles from the path of totality would be unlikely to see the Eclipse and implies that the % of totality would decrease proportionally to the distance viewed from the path of totality. Additionally, the point of totality would sweep along a path West to East, so the local time of the eclipse maxim would vary by longitude.

To summarize:
The Eclipse map shows the RE prediction [the straight colored lines].
The FE prediction, based on alternate perspective conjecture discussed here and in the linked thread, predicts all (or nearly all) observers in the daylight zone would see a 100% total Eclipse all at the same time.

The result:
The actual observations of the August 21, 2017 Solar Eclipse are consistent with the RE model prediction. During the Eclipse the path of totality is relatively narrow and the % totality observable decrease with the distance the observer is away from the path of totality, with the eclipse maxim occurring at different time based on the observer's longitude.

The FE model prediction is found to be wildly inaccurate. And, you simply can't have the view bend to see the Moon from the same angle while simultaneously have it not bend to see the Eclipse from different angles.

This would suggest that the FE conjecture of light bending (for whatever reason) is false and we can discount any conjecture that results in a curvature in space or the general path a photon takes, at least to the distance of the Moon. It also suggests, that perspective and geometry function as theorized by the Ancient Greeks, at least to the distance of the Moon and that the Moon is significantly farther away than 3000(ish) miles.

[stanlee]

oh, ok. seems to have gone further than the point of the OP, but i think i get the your point.
round abouts.

[stanlee]

sorry, images went down but are back up

[stanlee]

If you want to make any further claims for what the moon does with reference to the local terrain, then you should provide evidence for those assertions. What we got was "well if you look at the scenery.. the moon will do this" and when questioned on that we were told to go travel the world and see for ourselves.

That's not how it works. Your claim, your burden.

Can you show me what the moon looks like in South America?

I have made no claim on that.

my own claim is demonstrated in the original post