Rowbotham's original society solved the sinking ship.
Did it, though? He spends some time in ENaG claiming that things like ladies dresses disappear bottom first on a flat path, which they don't. And then he claims that ships which have gone over the horizon can be "restored", which they can't.
All of this is true of this effect though, and you have even admitted that the effect exists before in past conversations. See this past admission from 2022 from you:
But in any case, your "experiment" simply demonstrates the part I already wrote in bold above. The very thin hull in your picture will become hard to resolve at a certain distance. And yes, in that case optical magnification could "restore" it. But the reason it can be "restored" is that it isn't hidden in the first place. It isn't behind anything, it just becomes difficult to discern at a certain distance.
Which is exactly what Rowbotham is describing in Earth Not a Globe. When bodies are smaller than 1/60th of a degree they become lost to optical resolution, and are beyond perception. So, you were wrong. This effect does exist and it is reversible with optical zoom.
The experiment we discussed in that thread is still available for you to perform here:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Limits_to_Optical_Resolution
Lady Blount's society collected the professional surveyor and railway proofs.
Did they? Well where are those then? I looked her up and found something about some photo they took. It's here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth,_Lady_Blount#/media/File:Blount-photo-bedford-level.jpg
What the hell is that supposed to be?!
The railroad references are here:
https://wiki.tfes.org/RailroadsYes, Lady Bount also verified Rowbotham's water convexity experiments with the then-new technology of long distance photography.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Bedford_Level_ExperimentThe Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic faith hired a photographer, Mr Clifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should be more than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."
—The Zetetic Website
Near the surface of the water, for at least the span of six miles, the light created a path which contradicted Round Earth Theory.
EA and UA are admittedly pretty good explanations for certain observations BUT they are just that.
A hypothesis typically does not have supporting evidence. However, the pages show that there is supporting evidence for celestial-scale, and possibly celestial-specific, bending of light.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
This is an issue with your way of enquiring. You form a theory which explains observation rather than forming a hypothesis and then making observations which test that hypothesis - which then becomes a theory as observations build confidence. I know this is deliberate, and working the other way around could lead to the same conclusions. The issue though is when observations are presented which show your theory to be wrong you just claim they're wrong/flawed/fake. That's not a way to make progress.
Incorrect. There are observations to test the EA hypothesis of large celestial-scale bending.
If you ask me what is happening on earth thousands of miles away, there will be less research there. The total world model is a topic for the next generation of FE to figure out.
Is it, though? There are flat earthers all around the...disc, right? And we have instant communications now.
There are surely ways you can do large scale experiments reasonably cheaply. I'm sure you could club together and get a ticket for a Santiago to Sydney plane ticket, a FE person on that flight could gather a load of data which would help you advance things.
People sitting in a plane have a difficult time telling how much the winds and the jet stream are adding to the journey. Planes have a hard time determining their true speeds because they are propelling themselves in pockets of fluids which itself is traveling through larger fluids. Wind-intake odometers for planes are notoriously inaccurate. Comparing yourself to Lat/Lon coordinates would also change your speed depending if you are assuming an RE or and FE which has different spacing between the coordinate points. There needs to be an independent method of speed determination.
Recent Posts
