[Tom Bishop]

Figureheads of the YouTube Flat Earth community recently got together with a Round Earth community to conduct a sinking ship experiment on the Salton Sea. A boat was sent out while observers on the shore observed to see whether it would sink or not. To the surprise of the FlatTubers, the ship sank.

Why haven't the top Flat Earthers on YouTube read Earth Not a Globe? Samuel Birley Rowbotham has an entire chapter on the sinking ship effect at sea called Perspective at Sea, where the matter is studied and determined that the sinking effect happens on the sea and is irreversible by telescope. According to Rowbotham the experiment should be done on a standing body of water, where the environment is more consistent, and it can be observed that the earth is flat.

It's not like we haven't been saying the same thing on the forums for the last eleven years, either.

That considered, why would the big names in the YouTube Flat Earth community agree to participate in this experiment on a sea? Earth Not a Globe is required reading for every Flat Earth proponent. Read the book!

[Curious Squirrel]

If you insist that this is a 'sea' and would be subject to Rowbotham's claims, then I will once again state all you're doing is showing your account of 'The Bishop Experiment' must be a load of bollocks. Size of a body of water does not necessitate whether it be named 'sea' or 'lake' compared to other factors such as saline content, elevation, and what feeds it. It's dimensions are roughly 15 miles, by 35 miles.

So then I would ask. What do you define as an 'inland sea' as stated by Rowbotham?

[Tumeni]

It's an inland (standing) body of water. There were observers on opposite banks.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@33.3090819,-116.1194879,8z

[Tom Bishop]

If you insist that this is a 'sea' and would be subject to Rowbotham's claims, then I will once again state all you're doing is showing your account of 'The Bishop Experiment' must be a load of bollocks. Size of a body of water does not necessitate whether it be named 'sea' or 'lake' compared to other factors such as saline content, elevation, and what feeds it. It's dimensions are roughly 15 miles, by 35 miles.

So then I would ask. What do you define as an 'inland sea' as stated by Rowbotham?

There are waves present in the news clip. It is certainly not "standing". This is why there are inconstant Flat Earth convexity experiment results on the surface of the sea. Sometimes there is a sinking ship effect on the sea. Sometimes there is not. While there is documented Sinking Ship effect at sea, are also loads of accounts at sea which should possible under a Round Earth. In the book Zetetic Cosmogony the author Thomas Winship reports a number of Flat Earth sightings on the ocean that should not be possible. Per The Bishop Experiment, there are some days when the opposite coast cannot be seen. The opposite coast can be seen on days when the day is clear and calm.

Samuel Birley Rowbtotham spells all of this out quite clearly in his book. Seas are inconsistent.

Even in the book The Anti-Newtonian, a Flat Earth book that came out decades before Earth Not a Globe in the early 1800's, the author says the same thing about ships at sea. Rowbotham didn't even come up with that. It was from the Flat Earth movement before him. We've been saying the same thing for hundreds of years. Why doesn't anyone read the material that was written for them? It is all there in black and white.

[Round Eyes]

Agreed Tom, why would they choose this location and conditions.  Pretty sloppy work

[Bobby Shafto]

There are waves present in the news clip. It is certainly not "standing"...

Oh yeah. Surf's up at Salton Sea:



I can't tell if you are serious.

I've been to the Salton Sea when there's a good bit of wind chop. There's enough fetch for a stiff desert wind to churn up some white caps for sure. I don't see any of that in this news clip. There are what look to be knuckle-high ripples that would be considered downright glassy in Santa Cruz.

I've been to Monterey Bay too, and NEVER have I seen the water as calm as it appears there in the Salton Sea clip. Monterey Bay is exposed to open Pacific Ocean swells and prevailing onshore winds. How can you, with a straight face, discount 5-6 miles of tests over a rippled inland sea but then stand by your personal claim of being able to see the opposite shoreline across 23 miles of exposed bay from a height of 20"? If the former is not abiding by Rowbotham's reqs, the latter certainly isn't, especially when based on anecdotal vice empirical evidence.



On a separate note, why do all of these tests -- by both flat earth skeptics and flat earth advocates -- turn into such cluster****?

[AATW]

There are waves present in the news clip.

Ripples at best. The viewer height is clearly higher than them which means that is not the explanation for the boat sinking



If your claim is that is the explanation then you are claiming that over a distance of 23 miles there was no wave or swell over 20 inches high in a bay open to the ocean (Bishop experiment). Does that seem plausible to you?

Sometimes there is a sinking ship effect on the sea. Sometimes there is not.

Is that true? What experiments have you done where you have observed a ship going further and further away and no sinking ship effect is observed?

In the book Zetetic Cosmogony the author Thomas Winship reports a number of Flat Earth sightings on the ocean that should not be possible.

OK. Some bloke said it in a book over 100 years ago and provided no proof apart from him saying so. So what? I thought you were an empiricist, interested in your own personal observations. What have you done to verify this?

Per The Bishop Experiment, there are some days when the opposite coast cannot be seen. The opposite coast can be seen on days when the day is clear and calm.

And yet you've provided no evidence of this apart from you saying so.

Why doesn't anyone read the material that was written for them? It is all there in black and white.

It would be nice if some of it was in colour...

[Tom Bishop]

There are waves present in the news clip. It is certainly not "standing"...

Oh yeah. Surf's up at Salton Sea:

http://oi64.tinypic.com/263dh5e.jpg

I can't tell if you are serious.

I've been to the Salton Sea when there's a good bit of wind chop. There's enough fetch for a stiff desert wind to churn up some white caps for sure. I don't see any of that in this news clip. There are what look to be knuckle-high ripples that would be considered downright glassy in Santa Cruz.

Large bodies of water such as seas tend to be affected by tidal forces. There are swells you cannot easily see.

There is a large body of work in the Flat Earth literature which says that the study should not be conducted on the sea. So just don't conduct water convexity experiments on the sea, okay?

Ripples at best. The viewer height is clearly higher than them which means that is not the explanation for the boat sinking

Whatever the explanation is, the fact remains that it is well documented that the effect is inconsistent on the surface of the sea.

Don't do the experiment there.

Don't try and justify why the experiment should work because you do not know the reason. There is evidence of contradictory observations, and that is enough.

Rowbotham says that the effect is inconsistent on the sea, but not on other types of bodies of water. If you want to contradict Rowbotham you need to read his material and attempt to contradict the claims given.

[AATW]

Dude. Rowbotham says that moonlight is cold and that the moon is translucent.
And I guess that doesn't mean he is wrong about everything but him just saying stuff and then backing it up by saying "this is what I saw" wouldn't be anywhere near good enough for you if anyone else did it (unless the "anyone else" was also a FE proponent).

[Tom Bishop]

Dude. Rowbotham says that moonlight is cold and that the moon is translucent.

Rowbotham is quoting conventional science sources on those experiments and observations. Your assassination attempt fails.

And I guess that doesn't mean he is wrong about everything but him just saying stuff and then backing it up by saying "this is what I saw" wouldn't be anywhere near good enough for you if anyone else did it (unless the "anyone else" was also a FE proponent).

We don't go around calling every study fake. If we have anything to say about a fake science, we present evidence that the organization is providing fake content.

[Tumeni]

just don't conduct water convexity experiments on the sea, okay?

Don't do the experiment there.

Where, then?

[AATW]

Dude. Rowbotham says that moonlight is cold and that the moon is translucent.

Rowbotham is quoting conventional science sources on those experiments and observations.

Well, he isn't. If he was then the current scientific thinking would be that moonlight is cold and that the moon is translucent.
And literally no-one believes that. Not even you.
At best he is quoting sources from the time, but the time being 150 years ago when our collective understanding of the world was nowhere near as advanced.
You can't just cherry pick sources which have long since been superseded and shown to be wrong.

We don't go around calling every study fake.

You pretty much do if it demonstrates a round earth. You spent two days not understanding a simple experiment with a laser and a boat trying all kinds of different ways of showing the result isn't what you'd expect on a round earth. When you finally understood it you just shouted "FAKE!" and ran away.

[Round Eyes]

You guys are missing the point of toms post.  It's simply that if you are going to prove rowbotham's experiments, then it's necessary to understand Enag.  Enag very clearly demonstrated why you wouldn't do the test over a sea with waves, etc.  It's that simple.  If you want to do other tests that don't match the criteria of Enag, then don't be surprised when you get errors (errors that are predicted by enag)

[AATW]

Rowbotham does a lot of this "heads I win, tails you lose" reasoning.
"The earth is flat, ships don't really sink behind a hill of water".
"Yes they do..."
"Er, those are hidden behind waves"
"What?!"

Waves can't hide a ship or building or anything else. If waves are your viewer height then they can only hide that height, my diagram above shows why.
Only if waves are higher than your eye height can they hide more of an object than their own height.

[Curious Squirrel]

You guys are missing the point of toms post.  It's simply that if you are going to prove rowbotham's experiments, then it's necessary to understand Enag.  Enag very clearly demonstrated why you wouldn't do the test over a sea with waves, etc.  It's that simple.  If you want to do other tests that don't match the criteria of Enag, then don't be surprised when you get errors (errors that are predicted by enag)

All I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy in Tom's comments. He can't in one statement claim the effect isn't there (apparently basically ever according to his own words) in a location open to the ocean, across a much greater distance. Then in the next decry an experiment that is contrary to FE, under the grounds of that same effect, where the location is much more protected from such oceanic effects.

I put this to you though Tom, as you ignored it in my first post. Define the size/depth of an 'inland sea' for us. You keep saying not to do it on an 'inland sea' but you've never once (that I've found) defined at what point a body of water becomes such. You can get waves on as small a body of water as Lake Calhoun in Minnesota (about 3 miles in CIRCUMFERENCE) that are large enough to produce white caps. I've personally observed these occurring. So where do you draw the line?

[Round Eyes]

You guys are missing the point of toms post.  It's simply that if you are going to prove rowbotham's experiments, then it's necessary to understand Enag.  Enag very clearly demonstrated why you wouldn't do the test over a sea with waves, etc.  It's that simple.  If you want to do other tests that don't match the criteria of Enag, then don't be surprised when you get errors (errors that are predicted by enag)

All I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy in Tom's comments. He can't in one statement claim the effect isn't there (apparently basically ever according to his own words) in a location open to the ocean, across a much greater distance. Then in the next decry an experiment that is contrary to FE, under the grounds of that same effect, where the location is much more protected from such oceanic effects.

I put this to you though Tom, as you ignored it in my first post. Define the size/depth of an 'inland sea' for us. You keep saying not to do it on an 'inland sea' but you've never once (that I've found) defined at what point a body of water becomes such. You can get waves on as small a body of water as Lake Calhoun in Minnesota (about 3 miles in CIRCUMFERENCE) that are large enough to produce white caps. I've personally observed these occurring. So where do you draw the line?

inland sea has to do with not having tide effects more than waves.  examples of this are in ENAG.  As Tom says many times, it should be required reading.  how can you criticize information from a book that you havent read???

[Bobby Shafto]

You guys are missing the point of toms post.  It's simply that if you are going to prove rowbotham's experiments, then it's necessary to understand Enag.  Enag very clearly demonstrated why you wouldn't do the test over a sea with waves, etc.  It's that simple.  If you want to do other tests that don't match the criteria of Enag, then don't be surprised when you get errors (errors that are predicted by enag)

I never heard Rowbotham or ENaG mentioned by any of the Salton Sea testers as a foundation for their test setup or objective. None of the experiments in ENaG were being reproduced.

Ah, but if Tom's point is that any such attempt to detect curvature over a body of water needs to be done on one without waves, then the counterpoint is that the Bishop Experiment is even more ENaG/Rowbowtham tenet violating.

Dr. Bishop did his "experiment" over an ocean, but he critiques this test because it was on the Salton Sea? (Or the pictures of the CN Tower because it's over Lake Ontario?)

I'm fine with anyone discounting such curvature tests/demos/experiments if they are over large areas of fetch that can mar the results. Just be consistent.

[Curious Squirrel]

You guys are missing the point of toms post.  It's simply that if you are going to prove rowbotham's experiments, then it's necessary to understand Enag.  Enag very clearly demonstrated why you wouldn't do the test over a sea with waves, etc.  It's that simple.  If you want to do other tests that don't match the criteria of Enag, then don't be surprised when you get errors (errors that are predicted by enag)

All I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy in Tom's comments. He can't in one statement claim the effect isn't there (apparently basically ever according to his own words) in a location open to the ocean, across a much greater distance. Then in the next decry an experiment that is contrary to FE, under the grounds of that same effect, where the location is much more protected from such oceanic effects.

I put this to you though Tom, as you ignored it in my first post. Define the size/depth of an 'inland sea' for us. You keep saying not to do it on an 'inland sea' but you've never once (that I've found) defined at what point a body of water becomes such. You can get waves on as small a body of water as Lake Calhoun in Minnesota (about 3 miles in CIRCUMFERENCE) that are large enough to produce white caps. I've personally observed these occurring. So where do you draw the line?

inland sea has to do with not having tide effects more than waves.  examples of this are in ENAG.  As Tom says many times, it should be required reading.  how can you criticize information from a book that you havent read???

I've read it, multiple times in fact. Stop using that as a fallback. I know just what I'm saying, and as far as I'm aware it doesn't define what counts as an 'inland sea' so I'm asking Tom because of his experiment, but feel free to answer yourself. What size does a body of water need to be? Because he's using that to claim this experiment is invalid, yet that same logic should discount his own Bishop Experiment. So what's the difference?

[Tumeni]

You guys are missing the point of toms post.  It's simply that if you are going to prove rowbotham's experiments, then it's necessary to understand Enag.  Enag very clearly demonstrated why you wouldn't do the test over a sea with waves, etc.  It's that simple.  If you want to do other tests that don't match the criteria of Enag, then don't be surprised when you get errors (errors that are predicted by enag)

But the folks didn't go to the Salton Sea to prove or disprove ENaG. ENaG is only in this conversation because Tom mentioned it. I've seen no mention of ENaG in the YT videos of this 'experiment'.

[model 29]

How can you, with a straight face, discount 5-6 miles of tests over a rippled inland sea but then stand by your personal claim of being able to see the opposite shoreline across 23 miles of exposed bay from a height of 20"?

Last I read about this, he was laying on on the beach at the edge of the water.  Of course, there is no proof he even did this experiment in the direction or distance claimed, or that it even happened at all.