*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8902
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #20 on: May 20, 2018, 03:50:02 PM »
The argument of "Rowbotham was just seeing atmospheric refraction [inserts wikipedia link to mirages/refraction]" is a losing argument.

Tom, it's sounds like you're saying "atmostpheric refraction doesn't exist"?

Is that what you are saying?

This was explained to you. If you are going to claim that Rowbotham experienced an atmospheric refraction effects where light passed through some warm air and a mirage was created then you are going to have to explain the coincidences that argument creates.

It is quite the coincidence that an atmospheric effect occured at the time Rowbotham did the experiment.

It is quite the coincidence that this effect projected the body to the exact height it needed to be if the earth were flat, and no more or no less. The image is not floating in the air or overlayed with the ground. It is an effect which creates perfect positioning!

It is quite the coincidence that this effect produced a solid picture rather than a wavy mess like most mirages produce.

Quite the coincidence that this perfect Flat Earth effect occurred every time Rowbotham and Co. performed the experiment.

That is a bad argument. Any honest person should feel embarrassed to maintain that all of these coincidences happened.

Max_Almond

Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2018, 04:05:52 PM »
It's not a coincidence, Tom: we're saying it happens every time.

Refraction is well studied, and proven. If you can't accept that, then I'm sorry for you.

I do also notice that you've been trotting out the same lines for over a decade now:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
I am more than willing to conduct additional experiments demonstrating the validity of my model. I already have conducted the ones outlined in Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, which have reinforced the reality of the Flat Earth. I am certainly willing to provide photographic evidence.

My model of telescope does not have camera mounts available. Give me a little time to find a suitable telescope and camera mount and I'd be happy to confirm the claims made in the Flat Earth literature. I'll even have a High School physics teacher there to videotape and/or document and notarize the experiment.

Oct 04, 2007: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17248.30

So I suppose the chances of getting anything sensible out of you are pretty much nil.

But, anyway, I'm always a man to give another man a chance.

Please explain what is happening in this video, and why creating a layer of cool air above a surface allows light to curve around that surface, exactly as atmospheric refraction predicts:



Then when you've done with that, please explain why stars "slow down" as they approach the horizon:

« Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 04:18:16 PM by Max_Almond »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8902
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2018, 04:58:53 PM »
It's not a coincidence, Tom: we're saying it happens every time.

Refraction is well studied, and proven. If you can't accept that, then I'm sorry for you.

I do also notice that you've been trotting out the same lines for over a decade now:

Quote from: Tom Bishop
I am more than willing to conduct additional experiments demonstrating the validity of my model. I already have conducted the ones outlined in Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, which have reinforced the reality of the Flat Earth. I am certainly willing to provide photographic evidence.

My model of telescope does not have camera mounts available. Give me a little time to find a suitable telescope and camera mount and I'd be happy to confirm the claims made in the Flat Earth literature. I'll even have a High School physics teacher there to videotape and/or document and notarize the experiment.

Gulliver was demanding photographs from us of the water convexity experiment and offered a $250,000 reward. He also demanded science teachers there for verification, video of set up, etc. Dogplatter and I were in the process of taking him up on the offer but he reneged.

That was years ago. I don't even live in the area we were discussing anymore. Today there are plenty of water convexity experiments on YouTube. And Lady Bount did photographic evidence. Go off and explore.

If you want us to travel, order equipment, and perfom any specific experiment, with video of setups and photographs of results, how about funding our efforts?

No one is saying that refraction effects do not happen. That is far from saying that there is a permanent Flat Earth refraction effect which occurs along the surface of the Bedford canal. A permanent density or range of warm air which creates a perfect flat earth effect when viewed? And adjusts itself to suspend the object in the air to the height it needs to be, no higher and no lower, according to the distance looked across? An extremely ridiculous supposition.

Stop trying to theorize strings of increasingly absurd coincidences. You are only embarrassing yourself.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 07:54:37 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2018, 05:12:43 PM »
Arguing that it was just a situation where light refracted through some warm air does not cut it at all.

That's too bad because that's the explanation. Understanding refraction as but "chance mirage" is a key error on your part.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8902
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2018, 05:29:01 PM »
Arguing that it was just a situation where light refracted through some warm air does not cut it at all.

That's too bad because that's the explanation. Understanding refraction as but "chance mirage" is a key error on your part.

A permanent mirage that projects images of objects to the exact height they need to be at per RET curvature according the particular distance looked across in the experiment?

A ridiculous, shameful, explanation.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 07:52:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

Max_Almond

Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #25 on: May 20, 2018, 05:55:36 PM »
I'll agree, Tom, that arguing about refraction is a little bit pointless.

It's good to hear you say you at least agree that it exists, though: you had me worried there for a while.

So let's break it down: if I go to the Old Bedford River and place six flags in the water, all with their tops 13 feet above the water, as well as a larger target flag with its bottom 13 feet above the water, and I stand looking with a telescope at 13 feet above the water, as per Rowbotham's 'Experiment 2', is this what you predict will occur?


Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #26 on: May 20, 2018, 05:55:41 PM »
Tom is correct. The assumption that there is permanently no refraction at water level is consistent with FE hypothesis.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #27 on: May 20, 2018, 06:23:59 PM »
A permanent mirage that projects images of objects to the exact height they need to be at per RET curvature according the particular distance looked across in the experiment?

A rediculous, shameful, explanation.
Refraction conditions (of which a "mirage" is but one phenomenon) that are permanent and unchanging would be a "rediculous, shameful, explanation" [sic], including discounting the effects of refraction.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #28 on: May 20, 2018, 06:25:49 PM »
is this what you predict will occur?

Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm
Not sure what 'this' is. The drawing shows an observation from the side, with the viewer on the left, and the target etc on the right.

The observation we need is what the viewer is seeing, not what is seen by the viewer of the viewer!

Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #29 on: May 20, 2018, 06:26:03 PM »
Arguing that it was just a situation where light refracted through some warm air does not cut it at all.

That's too bad because that's the explanation. Understanding refraction as but "chance mirage" is a key error on your part.

A permanent mirage that projects images of objects to the exact height they need to be at per RET curvature according the particular distance looked across in the experiment?

A rediculous, shameful, explanation.
I'd like to quote this Wikipedia article:

Quote from: Wikipedia
Although the straight line from your eye to a distant mountain might be blocked by a closer hill, the ray may curve enough to make the distant peak visible. A convenient method to analyze the effect of refraction on visibility is to consider an increased effective radius of the Earth Reff … Under this model the ray can be considered a straight line on an Earth of increased radius.

It is not a "chance mirage" nor is it a "permanent mirage". It is merely "refraction". It is a well-understood effect that must be accounted for in low-altitude surveying.

Oh, and you mispelled "ridiculous".
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

Max_Almond

Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #30 on: May 20, 2018, 06:38:38 PM »
is this what you predict will occur?

Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm
Not sure what 'this' is. The drawing shows an observation from the side, with the viewer on the left, and the target etc on the right.

The observation we need is what the viewer is seeing, not what is seen by the viewer of the viewer!

Tom knows what it means, and what it will look like. It's from Rowbotham. :)

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #31 on: May 20, 2018, 06:49:07 PM »
is this what you predict will occur?

Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm
Not sure what 'this' is. The drawing shows an observation from the side, with the viewer on the left, and the target etc on the right.

The observation we need is what the viewer is seeing, not what is seen by the viewer of the viewer!

Tom knows what it means, and what it will look like. It's from Rowbotham. :)

I know it's from Rowbotham, but the question is what observation is predicted. The picture above is not the right observation.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #32 on: May 20, 2018, 06:57:56 PM »
Rowbotham:
Quote
[1] On looking with a good telescope over and along the flags, from A to B, the line of sight fell on the lower part of the larger flag at B. [2] The altitude of the point B above the water at D was 5 feet, and the altitude of the telescope at A above the water at C was 5 feet; and each intervening flag had the same altitude. [3] Hence the surface of the water C, D, was equidistant from the line of sight A, B; [4] and as A B was a right line, C, D, being parallel, was also a right line; or, in other words, the surface of the water, C, D, was for six miles absolutely horizontal.

If you read this carefully, most of it states the conditions of the experiment. All the flags are the same height above the water, hence the surface of the water is equidistant from any line, be it straight or curved, across the tops of the flags.

At [4] he states that the line AB is 'right', i.e. straight. But he does not say how he observed this. The diagram he draws is taken from an impossible position, somewhere in the fens. The diagram we want to see is what he saw through the telescope.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #33 on: May 20, 2018, 11:35:38 PM »
[/quote]

Gulliver was demanding photographs from us of the water convexity experiment and offered a $250,000 reward. He also demanded science teachers there for verification, video of set up, etc. Dogplatter and I were in the process of taking him up on the offer but he reneged.

That was years ago. I don't even live in the area we were discussing anymore. Today there are plenty of water convexity experiments on YouTube. And Lady Bount did photographic evidence. Go off and explore.

If you want us to travel, order equipment, and perfom any specific experiment, with video of setups and photographs of results, how about funding our efforts?

No one is saying that refraction effects do not happen. That is far from saying that there is a permanent Flat Earth refraction effect which occurs along the surface of the Bedford canal. A permanent density or range of warm air which creates a perfect flat earth effect when viewed? And adjusts itself to suspend the object in the air to the height it needs to be, no higher and no lower, according to the distance looked across? An extremely ridiculous supposition.

Stop trying to theorize strings of increasingly absurd coincidences. You are only embarrassing yourself.
[/quote]

Any more embarrassing or ridiculous than making out that there is a magic phenomena that magnifies the sun so that it Exactly stays the same size all day, even though the distance is varying by thousands of miles? Or the fact that “waves” make the sun slowly disappear over th horizon?

You are arguing that refraction does not exist, and yet in different chapters of EnaG it says that it should be discounted and does not exist when the object are in the same medium such as air (Exp 9) , yet in others (tangential horizon) argues that refraction will cause the effect seen.

No wonder the FEers are confused and dont know which explanation to use, other than refraction must occur if it supports FE, yet is some sore of Magic mirage to be ridiculed if it does not support the FE!

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8902
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2018, 03:22:04 AM »
Pointing out what you perceive to be coincidences in other theories unrelated to this is not a valid argument. A typical "well about this.." avoidance tactic. Avoiding the subject matter. In fact, by doing that you are implicitly admitting that your position is an absurd one.

You have lost. How embarrassing. You guys are just throwing a tantrum now.

Max_Almond

Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #35 on: May 21, 2018, 03:25:38 AM »
Now now, Tom, don't lump us all in together. ;)

All I'm doing is asking you a simple question about Rowbotham's Bedford Levels experiment.

If we do it, will we see this:



Or will we see this:

« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 03:28:03 AM by Max_Almond »

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2018, 03:34:14 AM »
Pointing out what you perceive to be coincidences in other theories unrelated to this is not a valid argument. A typical "well about this.." avoidance tactic. Avoiding the subject matter. In fact, by doing that you are implicitly admitting that your position is an absurd one.

You have lost. How embarrassing. You guys are just throwing a tantrum now.

Not really. Just pointing out hypocrisy where i see it........

As for avoidance tactics, there are numerous ones employed by people on this forum some of which are;
I am bored and dont want to discuss it anymore,
I dont have the time to answer you,
I dont have the money to do research, give me some,
Or the most common one refusing to engage in difficult questions.

I have seen all of these very recently used as avoidance, and are readily seen in the posts. I would be embarrassed if they were posts made by myself.....


Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Max_Almond

Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #37 on: May 21, 2018, 03:44:48 AM »
You're gonna be eating humble pie soon, Tonto - Tom's right on the verge of answering my question thoroughly and thoughtfully, and showing us he can engage after all. :)

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Obvious Truth III
« Reply #38 on: May 21, 2018, 03:48:22 AM »
You're gonna be eating humble pie soon, Tonto - Tom's right on the verge of answering my question thoroughly and thoughtfully, and showing us he can engage after all. :)

I hope he does! He has been avoiding my difficult questions so far, so would be happy for him to respond in a meaningful way, and if he does engage in a meaningful way going forwards i will eat the whole pie, not just a slice....

He still has not answered my questions about Bishop jellybeans. That’s what he ran away from the last time.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.