[Gulliver]

Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube, as at A, B; and the moment the star appears in the tube A, T, let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the tube B, T, when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star, S, is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight A, S, and B, C, when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the tube, B, C, towards the first tube A, S, would be required for the star, S, to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results--the star, S, will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube, B, C, which the difference in position of one yard had previously required.
[paragraph continues] But as no such difference in the direction of the tube B, C, is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the earth's surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion.

Rowbotham fails to consider that the star might be so far away that its light travels to the Earth in the same direction, within the measurement error of this sloppy experiment. See:

The angles involved in these calculations are very small and thus difficult to measure. The nearest star to the Sun (and thus the star with the largest parallax), Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.7687 ± 0.0003 arcsec

ETA: I thought I should continue to make the point that R. has a poor understanding of Science. First, consider the record keeping of this experiment. From the phrasing, we have no reason to believe that he ever did this experiment. He fails to present the times of the observations, the name of his accomplice, or even the name of the star observed. Furthermore, if we guess that "its meridan time" means when it's directly overhead, then we know there is no star directly overhead visible at six months intervals. So we know Rowbotham lied about the results of this experiment. Once we know that a researcher has faked at least one result and published the fictitious results as real, we must forevermore reject his results without extraordinary scrutiny. Rowboatham's fraud is harming. See:

The consequences of scientific fraud vary based on the severity of the fraud, the level of notice it receives, and how long it goes undetected. For cases of fabricated evidence, the consequences can be wide-ranging, with others working to confirm (or refute) the false finding, or with research agendas being distorted to address the fraudulent evidence.

[Gulliver]

Every point Rowbotham makes in this chapter fails for one of three reasons.

• He forgets (or does not understand momentum, more specifically Newton's First Law of Motion
• He fails to describe his experiment's conditions, results, or both completely.
• He lies about performing experiments. Some that he claims to have performed at impossible even on an FE!

Also of concern here is the the Wiki tells the Lady Blount "peer reviewed' this chapter and did not report any problem.

So EnaG Chapter 3 fails. Rowbotham fairs even worse as his scientific dishonesty recorded in this chapter causes doubt about any result that he claims ever.

[Gulliver]

CHAPTER IV.

THE TRUE FORM AND MAGNITUDE OF THE EARTH.

THE facts and experiments already advanced render it undeniable, that the surface of all the waters of the earth is horizontal; and that, however irregular the upper outline of the land itself may be, the whole mass, land and water together, constitutes an IMMENSE NON-MOVING CIRCULAR PLANE.

If we travel by land or sea, from any part of the earth in the direction of any meridian line, and towards the northern central star called "Polaris," we come to one and the same place, a region of ice, where the star which has been our guide is directly above us, or vertical to our position. This region is really THE CENTRE OF THE EARTH; and recent observations seem to prove that it is a vast central tidal sea, nearly a thousand miles in diameter, and surrounded by a great wall or barrier of ice, eighty to a hundred miles in breadth. If from this central region we trace the outline of the lands which project or radiate from it, and the surface of which is above the water, we find that the present form of the earth or "dry land," as distinguished from the waters of the "great deep," is an irregular mass of capes, bays, and islands, terminating in great bluffs or headlands, projecting principally towards the south, or, at least, in a direction away from the great northern centre.

Rowbotham, after telling us in Chapter 1 of his superior method, which ensures that nothing he claims can be contradicted--even with new evidence, tells up the NP is the center of the world and surrounded by an ice wall in Antarctica. While Tom Bishop maintains that Rowbotham is wrong in the Earth has two poles and the ice wall is not in the South, we'll continue the critique on what EnaG contends. If Tom Bishop (or some team of FEers) ever does document their model and the reason to prefer it to Rowbotham's, I'll deal with it then.

[Gulliver]

How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.
The superficial extent or magnitude of the earth from the northern centre to the southern circumference, can only be stated approximately. For this purpose the following evidence will suffice. In laying the Atlantic Cable from the Great Eastern steamship, in 1866, the distance from Valencia, on the south-western coast of Ireland, to Trinity Bay in Newfoundland, was found to be 1665 miles. The. longitude of Valencia is 10° 30´ W.; and of Trinity Bay 53° 30´ W. The difference of longitude between the two places being 43°, and the whole distance round the earth being divided into 360°. Hence if 43° are found to be 1665 nautical, or 1942 statute miles, 360° will be 13,939 nautical, or 16,262 statute miles; then taking the proportion of radius to circumference, we have 2200 nautical, or 2556 statute miles as the actual distance from Valencia, in Ireland, to the polar centre of the earth's surface.
Another and a very beautiful and accurate way of ascertaining the earth's circumference is the following:--
The difference of longitude between Heart's Content Station, Newfoundland, and that at Valencia or, in other words, between the extreme points of the Atlantic) Cable--has been ascertained

Rowbotham makes four grade-school-level geometry errors.

• He did not consider the north-south component of the measurement and subtract it accordingly in estimating the east-west component
• He did not consider that latitude effects the result. Surely measuring within the Arctic Circle would always lead to a smaller result than near the Equator.
• He forgot that the east-west measure would be curved.
• IN the most obvious error, he multiplies the result based on 360^o to convert radius to diameter--even though he already had the full circle measure.

Why didn't Lady Blount catch these errors in the peer review that Tom Bishop claims see did? How can we trust any mathematics the Rowbotham does now without careful review? He failed miserably on this page, for sure!

ETA: I should have pointed out that Rowbotham failed to mention a source of error in his technique. An increase in the variability of the depth of the cable increases the length of the cable. So the cable will be longer than the distance between the two surface along the FE's surface.

[Gulliver]

This page is just another example of the same errors as page 92, with the added unknown of the distance of the detour of which Rowbotham guesses.

[Gulliver]

The chapter contimues Rowbotham follies as with the early pages. I do now see enough documentation that Rowbotham means the locus of all imaginary points at the same latitidue for "this ciccumference", without regard for the arbitrary choice of the more northern or more southern endpoint.

He continues the errors of applying the diagonal distance rather than the distance along the latitude line, not considering that the latitude line is curved in FET, and more.

He in these pages produces two new errors. He accepts the number of miles a steamer traveled based on its log entry, which was surely estimated by RET maps since there was no odometer. He also all but disproved FET finding that the latitude line at Sydney's latitude is shorter that the Equator.

Rowbotham does convince the careful reader that the Earth is a globe. I have to wonder why the FES even references him or this work.

[Gulliver]

IT is now demonstrated that the earth is a plane, and therefore the distance of the sun may be readily and most accurately ascertained by the simplest possible process. The operation is one in plane trigonometry, which admits of no uncertainty and requires no modification or allowance for probable influences. The principle involved in the process may be illustrated by the following diagram, fig. 56.
 
Click to enlarge
FIG 56.

Let A be an object, the distance of which is desired, on the opposite side of a river. Place a rod vertically at the point C, and take a piece of strong cardboard, in the shape of a right-angled triangle, as B, C, D. It is evident that placing the
p. 100
triangle to the eye, and looking along the side D, B, the line of sight D, B, H, will pass far to the left of the object A. On removing the triangle more to the right, to the position E, the line E, F, will still pass to the left of A; but on removing it again to the right, until the line of sight from L touches or falls upon the object A, it will be seen that L, A, bears the same relation to A, C, L, as D, B, does to B, C, D: in other words, the two sides of the triangle B, C, and C, D, being equal in length, so the two lines C, A, and C, L, are equal. Hence, if the distance from L to C is measured, it will be in reality the same as the desired distance from C to A. It will be obvious that the same process applied vertically is equally certain in its results.

First, and I do repeat myself, I wish that the illustrations had not been corrupted by the publishing process of the EnaG, as Tom Bishop pointed out. I could really use an accurate drawing to aid in understanding about what Rowbotham is carrying on about. I think he's trying to use the ASA similar triangles theorem of plane geometry.  There are several problems here.

• He must ensure that the side of the larger triangle is indeed a line.
• He must ensure that the nearer acute angle of the larger triangle is indeed 45^o.
• He must ensure that the right angle of the larger triangle is indeed 90^o
• He should also realize that he's measured the "through the air" distance, not the walking distance to the far object. That is as a high velocity bullet would fly.

Other than those, I would have no issue with this technique. This technique, thought, does not seems to have an immediate application in determining the distance to the Sun.

[Gulliver]

It will be obvious that the same process applied vertically is equally certain in its results. On one occasion, in the year 1856, the author having previously delivered a course of lectures in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, and this subject becoming very interesting to a number of his auditors, an invitation was given to meet him on the sea-shore; and among other observations and experiments, to measure, by the above process, the altitude of the Nelson's Monument, which stands on the beach near the sea. A piece of thick cardboard was cut in the form of a right-angled triangle, the length of the two sides being about 8 inches. A fine silken thread, with a pebble attached, constituted a plumb line, fixed with a pin to one side of the triangle, as shown at P, . The purpose of this plumb line was to enable the observer to keep the triangle in a truly vertical position; just as the object of the rod C, in fig. 56 was to enable the base of the triangle to be kept in one and the same line by looking along from E and L towards C. On looking over the triangle held vertically, and one side parallel with the plumb line P, from the position A, the line of sight fell upon the point B; but on walking gradually backwards, the top of the helmet D, on the head of the figure of Britannia, which surmounts the column, was at length visible

p. 101

from the point C. On prolonging the line D, C, to H, by means of a rod, the distance from H to the centre of the Monument at O, was measured, and the altitude O, D, was affirmed to be

 FIG. 57.
Click to enlarge
FIG. 57.

the same. But of this no proof existed further than that the principle involved in the triangulation compelled it to be so. Subsequently the altitude was obtained from a work published in Yarmouth, and was found to differ only one inch from the altitude ascertained by the simple operation above described. The foregoing remarks and illustrations are, of course, not necessary to the mathematician; but may be useful to the general reader, showing him that plane trigonometry, carried out on the earth's plane or horizontal surface, permits of operations which are simple and perfect in principle, and in practice fully reliable and satisfactory.

With the same caveats as the previous example, this seems adequate.

[Gulliver]

The distance from London Bridge to the sea-coast at Brighton, in a straight line, is 50 statute miles. On a given day, at 12 o'clock, the altitude of the sun, from near the water at London Bridge, was found to be 61 degrees of an arc; and at the same moment of time the altitude from the sea-coast at Brighton was observed to be 64 degrees of an arc, as shown in fig. 58. The base-line from L to B, 50 measured statute miles; the angle at L, 61 degrees; and the angle at B, 64 degrees. In addition to the method by calculation, the distance of the under edge of the sun may be ascertained from these elements by the method called "construction." The diagram, fig. 58, is the above case "constructed;" that is, the base-line from L to B represents 50 statute miles; and the line L, S, is drawn at an angle of 61 degrees, and the line B, S, at an angle of 64 degrees. Both lines are produced until they bisect or cross each other at the point S. Then, with a pair of compasses, measure the length of the base-line B, L, and see how many times the same length may be found in the line L, S, or B, S. It will be found to be sixteen times, or sixteen times 50 miles, equal to 800 statute miles. Then measure in the same way the vertical line D, S, and it will be found to be 700 miles. Hence it is demonstrable that the distance of the sun over that part of the earth to which it is vertical is only 700 statute miles. By the same mode it may be ascertained that the distance from London of that part of the earth where the sun was vertical at the time (July 13th, 1870) the above observations were taken, was only 400 statute miles, as shown by dividing the base-line L, D, by the distance B, L. 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.

Rowbotham continues to make errors. Let's consider some of them in this passage.

Let's start with a physics mistake. Rowbotham claims that refraction is present when the Sun's rays pass through a mediu, is false. The Sun's rays "bend" according to Snell's Law went going between media, for example from a vacuum to air.

Next, let's consider the distance to where the Sun is directly overhead on the day in question. No, it's not only 400 miles. The Sun was at 21^o North. London is roughly 51^o North, a difference of 30^o, or a third of the distance from the NP to the Equator along the Prime Meridian, or 2000 miles. He's made an error of 500%!

Next let's consider the technique. His rudimentary attempt at trig is laughable. The definition of the tangent, gives us two equations and one unknown, here x as the distance to the Sun from the spot directly below it. tan 64^o = x/2000 and tan 61^o = (x-50)/2000. So we get the following two answers:

Since the answers are not consistent, Rowbotham's data leads to the conclusion that his assumption of FE must be wrong. Again, Rowbotham demonstrates that the Earth is not flat.

So tell me the reason FEers continue to reference this work please.

[Gulliver]

The above method of measuring distances applies equally to the moon and stars; and it is easy to demonstrate, to place it beyond the possibility of error, so long as assumed premises are excluded, that the moon is nearer to the earth than the sun, and that all the visible luminaries in the firmament are contained within a vertical distance of 1000 statute miles. From which it unavoidably follows that the magnitude of the sun, moon, stars, and comets is comparatively small--much smaller than the earth from which they are measured, and to which, therefore, they must of necessity be secondary. and subservient. They cannot, indeed, be anything more than "centres of action," throwing down light, and chemical products upon the earth.

Since the technique is flawed, this conclusion is not supported. Rowbotham has not presented any reason for the reader to believe that the stars are within one thousand miles and small. Furthermore, his argument that and close objects can have only a very limited influence is flawed as irrational. The size of an object is not directly related to its effect. The Moon raises the tides, for example. Chapter 5 has done nothing to determine the distance to the Sun. Rowbotham has failed again.

[Gulliver]

CHAPTER VI.

THE SUN'S MOTION, CONCENTRIC WITH THE POLAR CENTRE.

As the earth has been proved to be fixed, the motion of the sun is a visible reality. If it be observed from any latitude a few degrees north of the line called the "Tropic of Cancer," and for any period before or after the time of southing, or passing the meridian, it will be seen to describe an arc of a circle. The following simple experiment will be interesting as demonstrating the fact that the sun's path is concentric with the centre of the earth's surface. Let the observer take his stand, half-an-hour before sunrise (in the month of June, or any of the summer months will be better than winter, as the results will be more striking), on the head of either the old or the new pier at Brighton, in Sussex. Let him draw a line due north and south; and a second line due east and west, across the first. Now stand with his back to the north. Being thus at his post and ready for observation, let him watch carefully for the sun's first appearance above the horizon; and he will find that the point where the sun is first observed is considerably to the north of east, or the line drawn at right angles to north and south. If he will continue to watch the sun's progress until noon, it will be seen to ascend in a curve southwards until it reaches the meridian; and thence to descend in a westerly curve until it arrives at the horizon, and to set considerably to the north of due west, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 59. An object which moves in an arc of a circle, and returns to a given point in a given time, as the sun does to the meridian, must, of necessity, have completed a circular path in the twenty-four hours which constitute a solar day. To place the matter beyond doubt, the observations of Arctic navigators may be referred to. Captain Parry and several of his officers, on ascending high land near the arctic circle repeatedly saw, for twenty-four hours together, the sun describing a circle upon the southern horizon. Captain Beechy writes

"Very few of us had ever seen the sun at midnight; and this night happening to be particularly clear, his broad red disk, curiously distorted by refraction, and sweeping majestically along the northern horizon, was an object of imposing grandeur, which rivetted to the deck some of our crew, who would perhaps have beheld with indifference the less imposing effect of the icebergs. The rays were too oblique to illuminate more than the irregularities of the floes, and falling thus partially on the grotesque shapes either really assumed by the ice, or distorted by the unequal refraction of the atmosphere, so betrayed the imagination, that it required no great exertion of fancy to trace in various directions, architectural edifices, grottos, and caves, here and there, glittering as if with precious metals.

In July, 1865, Mr. Campbell, United States Minister to Norway, with a party of American gentlemen, went far enough north to see the sun at midnight. It was in 69 degrees north latitude, and they ascended a cliff 1000 feet above the arctic sea. The scene is thus described:--

"It was late, but still sunlight. The arctic ocean stretched away in silent vastness at our feet: the sound of the waves scarcely reached our airy look-out. Away in the north the huge old sun swung low along the horizon, like the slow beat of the tall clock in our grandfather's parlour corner. We all stood silently looking at our watches. When both hands stood together at twelve, midnight, the full round orb hung triumphantly above the wave--a bridge of gold running due north,, spangled the waters between us and him. There he shone in silent majesty which knew no setting. We involuntarily took off our hats--no word was said. Combine the most brilliant sunrise you ever saw, and its beauties will pall before the gorgeous colouring which lit up the ocean, heaven, and mountains. In half an hour the sun had swung up perceptibly on its beat; the colours had changed to those of morning. A fresh breeze had rippled over the florid sea; one songster after another piped out of the grove behind us--we had slid into another day."

Except for two issues, this chapter is correct.

First, from the analysis of other chapters, we know that Rowbotham has no basis to claim the the Earth doesn't more, his failure to consider momentum paramount. Without that assumption, his conclusion here falls without support.

Second, he fails to consider the observer in the southern mid-latitudes. If he had, he would have seen that the Sun also appears to move about the SP as well. The only configuration allowing both is RET. (Yes, Tom Bishop, even the "bi-polar" model can't explain how the Sun appears in the North's winter to move about the NP.)

[Gulliver]

CHAPTER VII.
THE SUN'S PATH EXPANDS AND CONTRACTS DAILY FOR SIX MONTHS ALTERNATELY.
Tins is a matter of absolute certainty; proved by what is called, in technical language, the northern and southern declination, which is simply saying that the sun's path is nearest the polar centre in summer, and farthest away from it in winter.
At noon, on the 21st of any December, let a rod be so fixed that on looking along it, the line of sight touches the lower edge of the sun. For several days this line of sight will continue nearly the same, showing that the sun's path for this period is little changed; but on the ninth or tenth day to touch the sun's lower edge, the rod will have to be lifted several degrees towards the zenith. Every day afterwards until the 22nd of June, the rod will have to be raised. On that date there will again be several days without any visible change; after which, day by day, the rod must be lowered until the 21st December. In this simple way it may be demonstrated that the sun's path gets larger every day from December 21st to June 22nd; and smaller every day from June 22nd to December 21st, of every year.
From a number of observations made by the author during the last twenty-five years, it is certain that both the minimum or June path of the sun, and maximum or December path have been gradually getting farther from the northern centre. The amount of expansion is very small, but easily detected; and if it has been going on for centuries, which seems consistent with known phenomena, it explains at once and perfectly, the fact that England as well as more northern latitudes have once been tropical. There is abundant evidence that the conditions and productions now found within the tropics, have once existed in the northern region, which is now so cold and desolate, and inimical to ordinary animal and vegetable life. Hence it is a proper and logical conclusion that the sun's path was once very near to the earth's arctic or polar centre.
The following diagram, fig. 60, will show the sun's peculiar path, N represents the polar centre, A the sun in its path in June; which daily expands like the coils of the mainspring of a watch, until it reaches the outer and larger path B, in December, after which the path gradually and day by day con-tracts until it again becomes the path A, on the 21st of June.
That such is the sun's annual course is demonstrable by actual observation; but if it is asked why it traverses such a peculiarly concentric path, no practical answer can be given, and no theory or speculation can be tolerated. At no distant period perhaps, we may have collected sufficient matter-of-fact evidence to enable us to understand it; but until that occurs, the Zetetic process only permits us to say:--"The peculiar motion is visible to us, but, of the cause, at present we are ignorant."

There several mistakes herein. First, Rowbotham incorrectly assumes that only the Sun's path, closer to the NP, could have caused prehistoric warming in England. Second, he fails to take any observations south of the Equator. While the observations in England do demonstrate that Tom Bishop is still wrong in support a "bi-polar" model, only paired observations in the SH can support Rowbotham's claim in the chapter's title. If Rowbotham had made the missing observations, he would have seen the Sun's arc points  to the SP and increases in the SH's summer and decrease in SH's winter, just as RET predicts.

[Gulliver]

CHAPTER XIV.

EXAMINATION OF THE SO-CALLED "PROOFS" OF THE EARTH'S ROTUNDITY.--WHY A SHIP'S HULL DISAPPEARS BEFORE THE MAST-HEAD.

IT has already been proved that the astronomers of the Copernican school merely assumed the rotundity of the earth as a doctrine which enabled them to explain certain well-known phenomena. "What other explanation can be imagined except the sphericity of the earth?" is the language of Professor de Morgan, and it expresses the state of mind of all who hold that the earth is a globe. There is on their part an almost amusing innocence of the fact, than in seeking to explain phenomena by the assumption of rotundity, another assumption is necessarily involved, viz., that nothing else will explain the phenomena in question but the foregone and gratuitous conclusion to which they have committed themselves. To argue, for instance, that because the lower part of an outward-bound vessel disappears before the mast-head, the water must be round, is to assume that a round surface only can produce such an effect. But if it can be shown that a simple law of perspective in connection with a plane surface necessarily produces this appearance, the assumption of rotundity is not required, and all the misleading fallacies and confusion involved in or mixed up with it may be avoided.

Rowbotham is just setting up for his failure. Perspective does not, indeed cannot, explain the "sinking ship" effect. Indeed, it not even just confined to out-bound ships. For example: from: http://www.city-data.com/picfilesv/picv18300.php

[Gulliver]

Before explaining the influence of perspective in causing-the hull of a ship to disappear first when outward bound, it is necessary to remove an error in its application, which artists and teachers have generally committed, and which if persisted in will not only prevent their giving, as it has hitherto done, absolutely correct representations of natural things, but also deprive them of the power to understand the cause of the lower part of any receding object disappearing to the eye before any higher portion--even though the surface on which it moves is admittedly and provably horizontal.

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

Aside from applying these two pages to expose Tom Bishop's lie about seeing people entering the water across Monterey Bay, California with just binoculars. , these pages are irrelevant to Rowbotham's argument.

[Gulliver]

The above may be called the law of perspective. It may be given in more formal language, as the following:. when any object or any part thereof is so far removed that its greatest diameter subtends at the eye of the observer, an angle of one minute or less of a degree, it is no longer visible.
From the above it follows:--
1.--That the larger the object the further will it require to go from the observer before it becomes invisible.
2.--The further any two bodies, or any two parts of the same body, are asunder, the further must they recede before they appear to converge to the same point.
3.--Any distinctive part of a receding body will be-come invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body.
The first and second of the above propositions are self-evident. The third may be illustrated by the following diagram, fig. 73.
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 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.

Rowbotham has confused resolution with perspective. While the cross-section of an object, it's magnification (by telescope, microscope, human eye, or combination thereof, and its distance determines what the observer can resolve, it does not predict at what distance an observer can see an object. Tom Bishop's sophomoric claim that you can't see satellites in the night sky, for example, relies on this confusion. You can see an object as long as photons can travel from the object to the observer. For the RET Andromeda Galaxy for example that's 2,538,000 light years. Since there is a threshold and an issue of contrast, some smaller objects more readily more visible than larger ones.

Next Rowbotham makes a dishonest (from a scientific sense) claim. There is no reason that the effect he exposes needs to have the lower portion disappear. He is just setting up his forthcoming lie that perspective causes hulls to disappear before mastheads.

[Gulliver]

The erroneous application of perspective already referred to is the following:--It is well known that on looking along a row of buildings of considerable length, every object below the eye appears to ascend towards the eye-line; and every thing above the eye appears to descend towards the same eye-line; and an artist, wishing to represent such a view on paper, generally adopts the following rule:--draw a line across the paper or canvas at the altitude of the eye. To this line, as a vanishing point, draw all other lines above and below it, irrespective of their distance, as in the diagram 75.
Let A, B, and C, D, represent two lines parallel but not equi-distant from the eye-line E, H. To an observer at E, the vanishing point of C, D, would be at H, because the lines C, D, and E, H, would come together at H, at an angle of one minute of a degree. But it is evident from a single glance at the diagram that H cannot be the vanishing point of A, B, because the distance E, A, being greater than E, C, the angle A, H, E, is also greater than C, H, E--is, in fact, considerably more than one minute of a degree. Therefore the line A, B, cannot possibly have its vanishing point on the line E, H, unless it is carried forward towards W. Hence the line A, W, is the true perspective line of A, B, forming an angle of one minute at W, which is the true vanishing point of A, B, as H is the vanishing point of C, D, and G, H, because these two lines are equidistant from the eye-line.
The error in perspective, which is almost universally committed, consists in causing lines dissimilarly distant from the eye-line to converge to one and the same vanishing point. Whereas it is demonstrable that lines most distant from an eye-line must of necessity converge less rapidly, and must be carried further over the eye-line before they meet it at the angle one minute, which constitutes the vanishing point.
A very good illustration of the difference is given in fig. 76. False or prevailing perspective would bring the lines A, B, and C, D, to the same point H; but the true or natural perspective brings the line A, B, to the point W, because there and there only does A, W, E, become the same angle as C, H, E. It must be the same angle or it is not the vanishing point.
The law represented in the above diagram is the "law of nature." It may be seen in every layer of a long wall; in every hedge and bank of the roadside, and indeed in every direction where lines and objects run parallel to each other; but no illustration of the contrary perspective is ever to be seen in nature. In the pictures which abound in our public and private collections, however, it may too often be witnessed, giving a degree of distortion to paintings and drawings--otherwise beautifully executed, which strikes the observer as very unnatural, but, as he supposes, artistically or theoretically correct.

Based on Tom Bishop's post, we continue to ignore all illustrations as corrupt.

Even without the illustrations, Rowbotham commits an "appeal to nature" fallacy with the unsupported claim that his writing here is a "law of nature". If he wishes to discuss the science of the shape of the Earth, then he should eschew the art of illustration and return to the books of science, which he's already demonstrated he does not understand.

[Gulliver]

Since we've already reviewed Rowbotham's folly, applying a drawing technique to reality, let's just sum up with one last obvious failing of this chapter.

That part of any receding body which is nearest to the surface upon which it moves, contracts, and becomes in-visible before the parts which are further away from such surface--as shown in figs. 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70.

Of course, I continue to take Tom Bishop's advice not to heed any illustration.

Let's review that errors in this sentence.

• The body need not be receding for the effect. The skyline of Toronto from the shore of New York state presented earlier in the thread, shows a still object with the effect.
• Nothing contracts, either physically or visually. As the Toronto example shows, the bottom portion disappears.

Historically, Rowbotham struggled mightily with this RET physical proof, and the EnaG attempt fails completing his folly.

Why does Tom Bishop or anyone else in the Zetetic Council reference EnaG? 

[jroa]

Why does Tom Bishop or anyone else in the Zetetic Council reference EnaG? 

Because, it is a reference for people to start learning about the FET.  If you go through any scientific book from that time period, you are bound to find mistakes.  Not because the author was stupid, but because everyone in those times was ignorant compared to today.  They did not even know much about the Germ Theory of Disease when that book was written. 

[Gulliver]

Why does Tom Bishop or anyone else in the Zetetic Council reference EnaG? 

Because, it is a reference for people to start learning about the FET.  If you go through any scientific book from that time period, you are bound to find mistakes.  Not because the author was stupid, but because everyone in those times was ignorant compared to today.  They did not even know much about the Germ Theory of Disease when that book was written.

I believe that the thread makes it perfectly clear: Rowbotham was both stupid and a liar. There is no reason to refer to such horrible example. It's like pointing someone to the movie "Apollo 18" as a reference documenting the NASA cover-up. Oh, and just for the record, Pasteur demonstrated his anthrax vaccine the same year Rowbotham published EnaG.

ETA:
A more comprehensive list of problems with EnaG

• Pretends to have gathered all relevant data, but did not.
• Claims to reason perfectly, but does not.
• Does not properly record and present its data
• Fails to apply current state of knowledge, such as Newton's First Law of Motion
• Accepts at times anecdotal evidence, a mileage in a ship's log for example.
• Rejects at times opposing evidence due to its "second-hand" nature, similar to Tom Bishop's rejection of daylight in Australia because poster wasn't in Australia at the time.
• No record of a contemporary peer review catching even one of the obvious errors presented in this thread

[Rama Set]

Most of the science being applied had been around for over a century,  in some cases much more, when EnaG was written as well.