The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: edby on May 10, 2018, 11:31:15 AM
-
Not mythbusters, but metabunk https://www.metabunk.org/stand-up-to-detect-the-curve-of-the-earth.t8364/
Not disputing the claim that simply standing up can reveal parts of distant objects hidden by the horizon, but failing to understand the geometry. It seems implausible that changing your height by 5-6 feet can reveal say 20-30 feet of the distant object.
My only explanation is that it's like a 5' wall that is close to you. Sitting down, you can't see any of a 5,000 foot mountain. Stand up, so you can see over the top of the wall, and you can see the whole mountain. But the question is what is the analogue of 'top of the wall' in the case of the horizon? Must be much closer to you than the distant object is to it.
-
And here is a wonderful demonstration of it https://www.metabunk.org/curve
-
Those are called waves and swells.
See Thork's post here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=7s0qnveehrqo13t22vhqplekq7&topic=56962.msg1430186#msg1430186
-
Those are called waves and swells.
See Thork's post here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=7s0qnveehrqo13t22vhqplekq7&topic=56962.msg1430186#msg1430186
Two replies: why does the swell always occur when sitting down, but never standing up? Logically swells would be random. Or we could use two cameras to take pictures at the same time, one at ground level, the other standing up.
And Tom, do you agree there would be no swell effect if the experiment were repeated in the desert, or salt flats?
-
Those are called waves and swells.
See Thork's post here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=7s0qnveehrqo13t22vhqplekq7&topic=56962.msg1430186#msg1430186
I would be careful in showing that link as proof.
Right at the start he makes a pretty wild claim, which puts the rest of the thread in doubt.
Thork states that 60M or more swells are seen in the ocean. Really??? Do a bit of googling for highest wave (swell) recorded, and see what you come up with. It ain’t 200 feet that is for sure.
Oh, and before your get all excited about the Alaskan tsunami, i suggest you read up on how swells and waves are affected by shallow water, and read his remark, which clearly says Ocean Swell.
Therefore what says is pretty much busted.
-
Those are called waves and swells.
See Thork's post here: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=7s0qnveehrqo13t22vhqplekq7&topic=56962.msg1430186#msg1430186
I would be careful in showing that link as proof.
Right at the start he makes a pretty wild claim, which puts the rest of the thread in doubt.
Thork states that 60M or more swells are seen in the ocean. Really??? Do a bit of googling for highest wave (swell) recorded, and see what you come up with. It ain’t 200 feet that is for sure.
Oh, and before your get all excited about the Alaskan tsunami, i suggest you read up on how swells and waves are affected by shallow water, and read his remark, which clearly says Ocean Swell.
Therefore what says is pretty much busted.
The proof in the OP is based on the concept of sitting down and standing up at the shoreline. Hardly conclusive.
-
And your rebuttal was pretty much a thread, and you quoted Thork as the reason it was debunked.
I have shown Thork was unreliable as a witness, and has given misleading, and inaccurate statements.
-
The proof in the OP is based on the concept of sitting down and standing up at the shoreline. Hardly conclusive.
It's very conclusive. It shows a simple observation that requires very little equipment or background assumptions, can show an awful lot. The geometry is fascinating. Please show why that isn't conclusive.
As I noted in another comment, your interest, and the interest of the society, should be in persuading people like me of the evidence for your claims. Haven't seen any. Everything I have seen so far consists in immediately dismissing any contrary evidence whatever, however persuasive.
-
The proof in the OP is based on the concept of sitting down and standing up at the shoreline. Hardly conclusive.
It's very conclusive. It shows a simple observation that requires very little equipment or background assumptions, can show an awful lot. The geometry is fascinating. Please show why that isn't conclusive.
As I noted in another comment, your interest, and the interest of the society, should be in persuading people like me of the evidence for your claims. Haven't seen any. Everything I have seen so far consists in immediately dismissing any contrary evidence whatever, however persuasive.
If your evidence is so easily dismissed, then maybe you should come up with better evidence.
-
The proof in the OP is based on the concept of sitting down and standing up at the shoreline. Hardly conclusive.
It's very conclusive. It shows a simple observation that requires very little equipment or background assumptions, can show an awful lot. The geometry is fascinating. Please show why that isn't conclusive.
As I noted in another comment, your interest, and the interest of the society, should be in persuading people like me of the evidence for your claims. Haven't seen any. Everything I have seen so far consists in immediately dismissing any contrary evidence whatever, however persuasive.
If your evidence is so easily dismissed, then maybe you should come up with better evidence.
You ignored my first point. It is for you to persuade me. And you haven't shown me why the evidence is so easily dismissed. Please explain
[edit] Also, it is a logical fallacy that if you immediately dismisses p, then p is easily dismissed. Suppose I show you a proof of 7+5=12, and you immediately dismiss it. Does it follow that the mathematical proof is 'easily dismissed'?
-
As I've said in other threads, all evidence is easily dismissed.
"Pete shot Tom, 10 witnesses saw him do it"
"Could they all be mistaken? Maybe it was just someone who looked like Tom"
"Pete's fingerprints were on the gun..."
"How do you know Pete didn't handle the gun earlier in the day, dropped it and then someone else with gloves on picked it up and shot Tom?"
The dismissals can get increasingly ridiculous and desperate, but they are easy to do. It's not an indication that the evidence is not strong.
-
As I've said in other threads, all evidence is easily dismissed.
"Pete shot Tom, 10 witnesses saw him do it"
"Could they all be mistaken? Maybe it was just someone who looked like Tom"
"Pete's fingerprints were on the gun..."
"How do you know Pete didn't handle the gun earlier in the day, dropped it and then someone else with gloves on picked it up and shot Tom?"
The dismissals can get increasingly ridiculous and desperate, but they are easy to do. It's not an indication that the evidence is not strong.
I am wondering about the 'troll' theory, although not wanting to be rude to Tom, of course. Some of the replies are preposterous in a cleverly funny sort of way. OTOH Tom is a member of the board of the FE organisation, surely he would not be risking his reputation with other members. The video of the recent conference suggested the members were entirely serious.
-
I am wondering about the 'troll' theory, although not wanting to be rude to Tom, of course. Some of the replies are preposterous in a cleverly funny sort of way. OTOH Tom is a member of the board of the FE organisation, surely he would not be risking his reputation with other members. The video of the recent conference suggested the members were entirely serious.
The possibilities with Tom are:
1) Troll
2) Not a flat earth believer but just enjoys debate, likes debating from an impossible to defend standpoint.
3) A true believer who is a mess of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.
Can't quite decide which.
And just to add the strength of evidence should not be assessed by how easy it is to dismiss - any evidence can be dismissed - but how probable or valid those dismissals are. So in my example is it possible that all 10 witnesses mistook the shooter for Pete? Yes, it's possible. And is it possible that he just happened to handle the gun before the shooting. Again yes, it's possible. But are these things probable, especially in combination? As I've said elsewhere, there's a reason courts convict if something is proven beyond reasonable doubt. There will always be some doubt.
-
If your evidence is so easily dismissed, then maybe you should come up with better evidence.
I don't see anyone agreeing with you that it has been 'easily dismissed'. You haven't given any explanation of why it has been dismissed, other than "Tom says so" ...
-
It's probably of little use to try and prove that my argument is persuasive. For this could easily dismissed: I need to prove that my argument for persuasiveness is itself persuasive, and so on ad infinitum.
But here is some reasoning about why the argument is good scientific methodology:
(1) The demonstration can be performed by absolutely anyone who is able to sit up then stand. Tom saw that is a weakness, but scientifically it is a strength. The easier an experiment can be replicated - and this is key to science - the more powerful it is.
(2) the results conform exactly to the modelled prediction. Although it seemed odd to me at first, elementary trig proves it.
Of course Tom and others can object that he is not here to do science or empirical methodology. That's a classic rebuttal you get in religious arguments and the paranormal. You can't replicate a revelation from God, e.g.
But as I understand, that is not Tom's position. Elsewhere he has commented on the importance of a scientific methodological approach etc.
So looking forward to Tom's comment. Tom?
-
Also, here is the maths.
Are you dismissing mathematics, Tom?
(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/20150415-170857-1nz5e.jpg)
-
Those are called waves and swells.
That doesn't explain this picture:
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170313-094520-f0g0s-jpg.25848/
As I showed elsewhere, waves can only block more than their own height if they are higher than your eye level:
(https://image.ibb.co/f804X7/waves_b.jpg)
And given that in the picture on metabunk the middle part of the image is 40 foot high, unless you're suggesting the waves are that high, that explanation doesn't work.
EDIT: Also, how come waves and swells don't get in the way when you're doing your (strangely undocumented) Bishop Experiment where over a 20 mile expanse of water you claim to be able to see the distant beach all the way down to the shoreline.
-
40 foot high waves? The Metabunk author is just standing up and sitting down at the shore of the beach.
-
40 foot high waves? The Metabunk author is just standing up and sitting down at the shore of the beach.
You are disputing the maths, then?
-
40 foot high waves? The Metabunk author is just standing up and sitting down at the shore of the beach.
Look at the picture I linked to. In that example he takes 3 photos from 6 feet, 40 feet and 80 feet.
So even if we accept that 6 feet waves are occluding the distant hills in the first photo, that cannot be the explanation for the second and 3rd.
And how come waves and swells aren't an issue in your Bishop experiment when your eye level is allegedly 20 inches.
Your claim is that in the photo I linked to waves are the explanation for occlusion with a viewer height of 6 feet, but in the Bishop Experiment you claim:
With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.
You don't see any problem here?
-
40 foot high waves? The Metabunk author is just standing up and sitting down at the shore of the beach.
Look at the picture I linked to. In that example he takes 3 photos from 6 feet, 40 feet and 80 feet.
So even if we accept that 6 feet waves are occluding the distant hills in the first photo, that cannot be the explanation for the second and 3rd.
And how come waves and swells aren't an issue in your Bishop experiment when your eye level is allegedly 20 inches.
Your claim is that in the photo I linked to waves are the explanation for occlusion with a viewer height of 6 feet, but in the Bishop Experiment you claim:
With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.
You don't see any problem here?
For newcomers like me, this (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5431.0) is a useful reference.
-
Gulliver
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 15, 2007, 10:34:56 AM
Here's a derived experiment I preform regularly for house guests demonstrating the reality of the Flat Earth:
I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles. See this map.
On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away. I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible. Even with the unaided naked eye one can see the beaches along the opposite coast.
IF the earth is a globe, and is 24,900 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity--every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Ergo; looking at the opposite beach 30 miles away there should be a bulge of water over 600 feet tall blocking my view. There isn't.
Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.
TomB regularly lies. Please ignore any representations he makes without complete evidence. We've challenged him, for example, to document his "derived experiment", replete with a monetary incentive.
Also he misrepresents evidence, often lying about their context. He even misrepresented the photo of the bay in the above quote. Clearly, it's not taken at the bay level as required by the experiment.
Oh, and anytime he asks for evidence for RE, just point him to the RE Primer. It's the consensus of the REers, complete with documented experiments proving that the Earth is a globe.
Link (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16172.msg269290#msg269290)
-
Another link from 2007 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17248.msg298435#msg298435).
I have probably seen enough. But interesting.
-
40 foot high waves? The Metabunk author is just standing up and sitting down at the shore of the beach.
Look at the picture I linked to. In that example he takes 3 photos from 6 feet, 40 feet and 80 feet.
So even if we accept that 6 feet waves are occluding the distant hills in the first photo, that cannot be the explanation for the second and 3rd.
And how come waves and swells aren't an issue in your Bishop experiment when your eye level is allegedly 20 inches.
Your claim is that in the photo I linked to waves are the explanation for occlusion with a viewer height of 6 feet, but in the Bishop Experiment you claim:
With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.
You don't see any problem here?
It appears that now you are talking about a different experiment than the first "stand up proof" experiment in the Metabunk link. In that link the author "proves" his claim by sitting down and standing up at the shore of a beach.
You appear to be saying "Okay okay you got me... but explain THIS picture." Is that right? To add on top of that you attempt an attack on another experiment performed 10 years ago? Are you just randomly spazzing out stuff in self defense now? I see that edby seems to be embarrassed and is adopting that tactic as well.
-
I see that edby seems to be embarrassed and is adopting that tactic as well.
Ingenious.
-
I forgot about Gulliver. A cursory glance at Gulliver's posts shows who he is. Gulliver was a serial bully who called everyone liars, offered $250,000 rewards for evidence that convinces him (Dogplatter actually takes him up on the offer and he reneged), and paraded around an "RE Primer" which contained amusing hypothetical experiments along the lines of "If you go to this place on earth at this time of the year and look at this point in the sky, you will see this star here... therefore the earth is round," despite no claim of anyone even performing the various tests in the document.
Per the turtle shell comment, the impenetrable turtle shell line is obvious sarcasm, and is revealed in that same thread as an example that claims are worthless without evidence.
-
I forgot about Gulliver. A cursory glance at Gulliver's posts shows who he is. Gulliver was a serial bully who called everyone liars, offered $250,000 rewards for evidence that convinces him (Dogplatter actually takes him up on the offer and he reneged), and paraded around an "RE Primer" which contained amusing hypothetical experiments along the lines of "If you go to this place on earth at this time of the year and look at this point in the sky, you will see this star here... therefore the earth is round," despite no claim of anyone even performing the various tests in the document.
Gee, sorta sounds like the early Flat Earth people: calling everyone liars (https://wiki.tfes.org/Bedford_Level_Experiment), offering large sums of money for convincing evidence (http://blog.modernmechanix.com/5000-for-proving-the-earth-is-a-globe/), and a book containing various amusing experiments (EnaG).
-
With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.
As a matter of interest, which lighthouse and which ‘adjacent beach’? The thrust of that old thread I linked to is that when pressed, you declined to identify these. Please tell.
Ah apologies.
I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles.
-
It appears that now you are talking about a different experiment than the first "stand up proof" experiment in the Metabunk link. In that link the author "proves" his claim by sitting down and standing up at the shore of a beach.
That was the original experiment, later on in the thread someone posts the pictures I’m referencing. It is basically the same experiment, just with pictures taken at 3 different heights and the first one taken at 6 feet instead of 2 as with the original experiment.
You appear to be saying "Okay okay you got me... but explain THIS picture." Is that right? To add on top of that you attempt an attack on another experiment performed 10 years ago?
You appear to be dodging the issue, as usual.
Even in the original experiment the initial photo is taken at 2 feet.
Fun fact 20 inches is less than 2 feet.
So please explain how in these photos taken from 2 feet your explanation for the occlusion is waves and swells, but in The Bishop Experiment you claim to be able to see across a 23 mile expanse of sea and see the distant beach “all the way down to the shore line” from a viewer height of 20 inches.
When your experiment was conducted is irrelevant, were waves different 10 years ago?
-
With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.
As a matter of interest, which lighthouse and which ‘adjacent beach’? The thrust of that old thread I linked to is that when pressed, you declined to identify these. Please tell.
Ah apologies.
I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles.
Here is the view from Lovers point, with the Santa Cruz beach in question.
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/b/b6/Lighthouse_beach.jpg)
-
With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.
As a matter of interest, which lighthouse and which ‘adjacent beach’? The thrust of that old thread I linked to is that when pressed, you declined to identify these. Please tell.
I did clarify in that thread. The tests were tried from multiple locations in that area. Others have verified the relative flatness of the portions of the Monterey Bay with lasers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uersWDp-3c). There should be curvature over the portion tested in the video, but there is not.
That was the original experiment, later on in the thread someone posts the pictures I’m referencing. It is basically the same experiment, just with pictures taken at 3 different heights and the first one taken at 6 feet instead of 2 as with the original experiment.
You appear to be saying "Okay okay you got me... but explain THIS picture." Is that right? To add on top of that you attempt an attack on another experiment performed 10 years ago?
You appear to be dodging the issue, as usual.
Even in the original experiment the initial photo is taken at 2 feet.
Fun fact 20 inches is less than 2 feet.
So please explain how in these photos taken from 2 feet your explanation for the occlusion is waves and swells, but in The Bishop Experiment you claim to be able to see across a 23 mile expanse of sea and see the distant beach “all the way down to the shore line” from a viewer height of 20 inches.
When your experiment was conducted is irrelevant, were waves different 10 years ago?
You need to read Earth Not a Globe. The sinking effect is explained there. The explanation for the sinking ship effect on the sea (and inland seas) is also "waves". This is explained in the Earth Not a Globe chapter Perspective at Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm).
The perspective lines meet at the vanishing point. The perspective lines are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. It is possible for waves at the vanishing point to obscure bodies behind it, even if the waves are smaller than the mass it is obscuring, much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
Under the theory of Euclid the perspective lines will meet at an infinite distance away. However, per Earth Not a Globe, the perspective lines were actually found to meet at a finite distance away, as so:
(https://i.imgur.com/bA5lACp.jpg)
Where the perspective lines meet at points H is not infinity. This occurs a finite distance away. Bodies beyond that will shrink behind any imperfections at the vanishing point.
Your question of why some bodies are hidden by the ocean, but not others, such as in some long range examples such as the coast of Santa Cruz and various long range experiments on Youtube and the Flat Earth Literature; this is simply because the opposite coast or target body is not yet beyond the point where the perspective lines meet.
Samuel Birley Rowbotham explains that the test of the earth's flatness is more easily observed on standing bodies of water such as a lakes and canals which do not have waves which might interfere or obscure bodies in the distance. This is why many of the water convexity experiments are done on the Old Bedford Canal and various lakes rather than the ocean. Rowbotham explicitly spells out the issue in his work.
-
With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.
As a matter of interest, which lighthouse and which ‘adjacent beach’? The thrust of that old thread I linked to is that when pressed, you declined to identify these. Please tell.
I did clarify in that thread. The tests were tried from multiple locations in that area. Others have verified the relative flatness of the portions of the Monterey Bay with lasers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uersWDp-3c). There should be curvature over the portion tested in the video, but there is not.
That was the original experiment, later on in the thread someone posts the pictures I’m referencing. It is basically the same experiment, just with pictures taken at 3 different heights and the first one taken at 6 feet instead of 2 as with the original experiment.
You appear to be saying "Okay okay you got me... but explain THIS picture." Is that right? To add on top of that you attempt an attack on another experiment performed 10 years ago?
You appear to be dodging the issue, as usual.
Even in the original experiment the initial photo is taken at 2 feet.
Fun fact 20 inches is less than 2 feet.
So please explain how in these photos taken from 2 feet your explanation for the occlusion is waves and swells, but in The Bishop Experiment you claim to be able to see across a 23 mile expanse of sea and see the distant beach “all the way down to the shore line” from a viewer height of 20 inches.
When your experiment was conducted is irrelevant, were waves different 10 years ago?
You need to read Earth Not a Globe. The sinking effect is explained there. The explanation for the sinking ship effect on the sea (and inland seas) is also "waves". This is explained in the Earth Not a Globe chapter Perspective at Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm).
The perspective lines meet at the vanishing point. The perspective lines are perfect, but the surface of the earth is not perfect. It is possible for waves at the vanishing point to obscure bodies behind it, even if the waves are smaller than the mass it is obscuring, much like a dime can obscure an elephant.
Under the theory of Euclid the perspective lines will meet at an infinite distance away. However, per Earth Not a Globe the perspective lines are actually found to meet a finite distance away, as so:
(https://i.imgur.com/bA5lACp.jpg)
Where the perspective lines meet is not infinity. This occurs a finite distance away. Bodies beyond that will shrink into any imperfections at the vanishing point.
Your question of why some bodies are hidden by the ocean, but not others, such as in some long range examples such as the coast of Santa Cruz and various long range experiments on Youtube and the Flat Earth Literature; this is simply because the opposite coast or target body is not yet beyond the point where the perspective lines meet.
Samuel Birley Rowbotham explains that the test of the earth's flatness is more easily observed on standing bodies of water such as a lakes and canals which do not have waves which might interfere or obscure bodies in the distance. This is why many of the water convexity experiments are done on the Old Bedford Canal and various lakes rather than the ocean. Rowbotham explicitly spells out the issue in his work.
Details of recent experiments please. What is the distance to the 'vanashing point'?
-
Just a thought here.
If the waves are “at the vanishing point” how can they obscure anything behind it, as whatever is behind it has already vanished, and therefore cannot be obscured.
Or is the vanishing point movable to wherever one wants it?
For example for a 5M tall object, at what distance does it vanish from a hieght of 5M? There must be some physical laws and dimensions for this?
For a 10 M tall object, how far away is the the vanishing point from sea level?
Surely such an important cornerstone to our understanding of light and physics will have been studied?
The diagram that is reproduced from EnaG is NOT what happens in reality, and as there is no tables of proof, or data, or showing why this happens, then it can be discounted as of no relevance.
-
There is proof and data showing that it happens. Read Earth Not a Globe. There are numerous chapters in ENAG dedicated to the topic of perspective. Rowbotham spends a lot of time showing why and how.
-
There is proof and data showing that it happens. Read Earth Not a Globe. There are numerous chapters in ENAG dedicated to the topic of perspective. Rowbotham spends a lot of time showing why and how.
But nowhere how to calculate it!
If it exists, then he should be able to have a formula for calculating it?
He does not spend a lot of time showing why and how, he just repeats the same thing over and over again.
-
Aha. Chapter XIV (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm) concedes the observation that is central to this thread.
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.
So it’s the mathematics that is wrong. Fine.
-
There is a debunking of Rowbotham’s ideas on perspective here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGwS2Btnigo). He makes rather a meal of it, but the key points are here (https://youtu.be/yGwS2Btnigo?t=228), where he explains how the vanishing point is on the image, and not out in space, some finite distance from the observer. Rowbotham’s account is discussed here (https://youtu.be/yGwS2Btnigo?t=507). It involves the simple confusion that the vanishing point is somewhere in space.
Case closed.
This channel is effectively closed. I am bored of flat Earth and everyone involved in it. It is an utter joke, and I am sick of reading the same lies, day in day out, from flat Earthers. Flat Earthers should be treated with derision and contempt. The very act of entering into a discussion with them is to extend to them a level of respect that they do not deserve. They lie, they manipulate, they distort information, they invent pseudoscientific ideas. Everything that comes from the flat Earth community should be dismissed as white noise. They thrive on their notoriety, and the abuse they incur. I have never encountered a phenomenon even remotely similar. Flat Earthers are revolting excuses for human beings.
-
There is proof and data showing that it happens. Read Earth Not a Globe. There are numerous chapters in ENAG dedicated to the topic of perspective. Rowbotham spends a lot of time showing why and how.
But nowhere how to calculate it!
If it exists, then he should be able to have a formula for calculating it?
He does not spend a lot of time showing why and how, he just repeats the same thing over and over again.
Rowbotham does describe how to compute it. The vanishing point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute of a degree.
There is a debunking of Rowbotham’s ideas on perspective here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGwS2Btnigo). He makes rather a meal of it, but the key points are here (https://youtu.be/yGwS2Btnigo?t=228), where he explains how the vanishing point is on the image, and not out in space, some finite distance from the observer. Rowbotham’s account is discussed here (https://youtu.be/yGwS2Btnigo?t=507). It involves the simple confusion that the vanishing point is somewhere in space.
Case closed.
This channel is effectively closed. I am bored of flat Earth and everyone involved in it. It is an utter joke, and I am sick of reading the same lies, day in day out, from flat Earthers. Flat Earthers should be treated with derision and contempt. The very act of entering into a discussion with them is to extend to them a level of respect that they do not deserve. They lie, they manipulate, they distort information, they invent pseudoscientific ideas. Everything that comes from the flat Earth community should be dismissed as white noise. They thrive on their notoriety, and the abuse they incur. I have never encountered a phenomenon even remotely similar. Flat Earthers are revolting excuses for human beings.
Your video is just of a man drawing lines on a sheet and explaining Euclid's ancient version of perspective. What does that prove? How does drawing lines on a sheet prove what happens in reality? "Here is a line I drew. Proof!" ::)
We can equally imagine a random man drawing lines on a sheet explaining that the vanishing point is a finite distance away.
Are you asserting that the point where a straight railroad tracks meet in the distance to perspective is an infinite distance away?
Where did this "infinite distance away" perspective lines come from and what evidence is there for them? Lines on a white sheet won't cut it. We need real evidence for that proposition. Neither Euclid or the Ancient Greeks provided any evidence for that concept. Why should we believe or propagate it?
-
Are you asserting that the point where a straight railroad tracks meet in the distance to perspective is an infinite distance away?
Are you confusing 'straight' with 'parallel'?
-
Your video is just of a man drawing lines on a sheet and explaining Euclid's ancient version of perspective. What does that prove? How does drawing lines on a sheet prove what happens in reality? "Here is a line I drew. Proof!" ::)
That's all I see in ENaG. Line drawings and Rowbotham claiming "Proof!"
...
-
Your video is just of a man drawing lines on a sheet and explaining Euclid's ancient version of perspective. What does that prove? How does drawing lines on a sheet prove what happens in reality? "Here is a line I drew. Proof!" ::)
That's all I see in ENaG. Line drawings and Rowbotham claiming "Proof!"
...
Samuel Birley Rowbotham backs up the various aspects of the ideas with various experiments that were performed over his 30 year study of this subject matter.
He does more than tell. He shows. Important distinction.
Read the material.
-
Your video is just of a man drawing lines on a sheet and explaining Euclid's ancient version of perspective. What does that prove? How does drawing lines on a sheet prove what happens in reality? "Here is a line I drew. Proof!" ::)
That's all I see in ENaG. Line drawings and Rowbotham claiming "Proof!"
...
Samuel Birley Rowbotham also backs up his ideas with various experiments that were performed over his 30 year study of this material.
He does more than tell. He shows.
Read the material.
I have read the material, such as it is. Again, are you confusing 'straight' with 'parallel'? What do you understand by the word 'parallel'? Please answer. I notice you very frequently avoid direct questions in this forum.
-
I have read the material, such as it is. Again, are you confusing 'straight' with 'parallel'? What do you understand by the word 'parallel'? Please answer. I notice you very frequently avoid direct questions in this forum.
Rail road tracks are straight and parallel, and meet in the distance in a railroad perspective scene. The point where they meet is not "an infinite distance away." They meet a finite distance away.
You may use a telescope to modify your perspective angles and push back that point where the rail road tracks meet together, but so too does Rowbotham describe that one can use a telescope to reverse the sinking ship effect on flat bodies of water, showing the effect is not due to any curvature of the earth and more to do with angular limits of the scene. See Chapter 14 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm) and Perspective at Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm). Thomas Winship also reports sunken ship reversals (https://books.google.com/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA24#v=onepage&q&f=false) in his book Zetetic Cosmology. A telescope cannot see behind a hill of water.
If you read Earth Not a Globe then you would know that there are various experiments inserted all throughout when analyzing how perspective works.
Experiments > Non-Experiments
The Ancient Greeks did not provide experimental verification that the perspective lines met an infinite distance away, or that they would never touch. That is merely their idea of how the a perfect world should work and nothing more.
-
Rail road tracks are straight and parallel, and meet in the distance in a railroad perspective scene. The point where they meet is not "an infinite distance away." They meet a finite distance away.
So you don't understand the definition of 'parallel'. Enough said.
When you say 'The point where they meet', what is the reference of the word 'they'??
-
Rail road tracks are straight and parallel, and meet in the distance in a railroad perspective scene. The point where they meet is not "an infinite distance away." They meet a finite distance away.
So you don't understand the definition of 'parallel'. Enough said.
Perspective causes parallel lines to meet in the distance. Parallel lines are angled towards each other and will recede until they meet.
And, please, avoid the argument of "Ackshually parallel lines don't meet!" Perspective clearly adjusts two parallel lines to be angled towards each other. Two lines angled towards each other will meet in the distance.
No one is saying that they physically meet, and no one is saying that the sun physically touches the earth when it sets.
-
There is proof and data showing that it happens. Read Earth Not a Globe. There are numerous chapters in ENAG dedicated to the topic of perspective. Rowbotham spends a lot of time showing why and how.
But nowhere how to calculate it!
If it exists, then he should be able to have a formula for calculating it?
He does not spend a lot of time showing why and how, he just repeats the same thing over and over again.
Rowbotham does describe how to compute it. The vanishing point is created when the perspective lines are angled less than one minute
So why does the sun disappear then?
The sun has a diameter of over 30 minutes of arc, but it is claimed that it disappears due to perspective and then goes beyond the vanishing point. Why can we not see it all the time? And why does it set?
Small pinpoints of light, such as lasers will be seen at less than 1 minute of arc, yet don’t disappear. Why is that?
Using simple trigonometry the distance at which an object will disappear (vanishing point) is easily calculated by object hieght/Tan0.0166666
If the hieght is in metres the distance will be in metres, and if in feet, distance is in feet.
Using this, an object, no matter where you observe it from, no matter what hieght will disappear when the size is less than 1 minute of arc.
So, an object of 10M in size will be visible to 34.4Km
An object 100M in size will be visible to 344Km
An object of 30 miles across will be visible to 103,173 MILES
Guess what? FE Hypothesis has the suns diameter as 30 miles, so why does the sun disappear? It has not reached the vanishing point.
-
You may use a telescope to modify your perspective angles and push back that point where the rail road tracks meet together, but so too does Rowbotham describe that you can use a telescope to reverse the sinking ship effect (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm) on flat bodies of water, showing the effect is not due to any curvature of the earth and more to do with angular limits of the scene. A telescope cannot see behind a hill of water.
Right. Which brings us back to the original experiment which started this thread. The pictures are taken by zooming so why hasn't the zoom "restored" the distant objects
(https://image.ibb.co/fbi8Fd/standup.jpg)
With a viewer height of 2 feet quite a lot of the hotel is occluded, from 6 feet it isn't. On a flat earth it should be the same.
And if you're going to talk about waves and vanishing points then you'll have to explain why this is the explanation for the observation at 2 feet looking at a hotel 11 miles away, but in your experiment you claim that with a viewer height of 20 inches (again, less than 2 feet) and looking at a distant beach 23 miles away (i.e. more than 11) you can see the beach "all the way down to the shoreline.
Why aren't waves and vanishing points an issue for you?
Experiments > Non-Experiments
Agreed. How funny then that every time you're show experiments which don't show what you want them to show you just shout "FAKE!" or dismiss them on spurious grounds, while refusing to do any experiments yourself.
-
Rail road tracks are straight and parallel, and meet in the distance in a railroad perspective scene. The point where they meet is not "an infinite distance away." They meet a finite distance away.
So you don't understand the definition of 'parallel'. Enough said.
Perspective causes parallel lines to meet in the distance. Parallel lines are angled towards each other and will recede until they meet.
And, please, avoid the argument of "Ackshually parallel lines don't meet!" Perspective clearly adjusts two parallel lines to be angled towards each other. Two lines angled towards each other will meet in the distance.
As I said, you don't understand the definition of 'parallel', and enough said.
Or you are wilfully trolling. Hard to understand which.
-
You may use a telescope to modify your perspective angles and push back that point where the rail road tracks meet together, but so too does Rowbotham describe that you can use a telescope to reverse the sinking ship effect (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm) on flat bodies of water, showing the effect is not due to any curvature of the earth and more to do with angular limits of the scene. A telescope cannot see behind a hill of water.
Right. Which brings us back to the original experiment which started this thread. The pictures are taken by zooming so why hasn't the zoom "restored" the distant objects
https://image.ibb.co/fbi8Fd/standup.jpg
With a viewer height of 2 feet quite a lot of the hotel is occluded, from 6 feet it isn't. On a flat earth it should be the same.
And if you're going to talk about waves and vanishing points then you'll have to explain why this is the explanation for the observation at 2 feet looking at a hotel 11 miles away, but in your experiment you claim that with a viewer height of 20 inches (again, less than 2 feet) and looking at a distant beach 23 miles away (i.e. more than 11) you can see the beach "all the way down to the shoreline.
Why aren't waves and vanishing points an issue for you?
Read the chapter Perspective at Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) in which obscured bodies at sea are identified to be hidden by disturbances on the ocean.
The amount and height of swells on the ocean varries throughout the day and by location. If we were set up a timelapse a video camera we would see that sometimes one can see more or less of that hotel throughout the day.
GlobeBusters had a nice time lapse video of such a scene, which demonstrated the matter, showing that the water would seem to rise and fall throughout the day to obscure and hide or reveal distant bodies, showcasing the explanation for why people have reported contradicting observations on such surfaces. The video was also shown at the last big US Flat Earth conference. I will see if I can find that video.
Rowbotham studied all of this 150 years ago. This is why the experiments are performed on large bodies of standing water, as there can be issues with waves and swells on ocean conditions.
-
Why aren't waves and vanishing points an issue for you?
I don't think he even understands what a vanishing point is. There is no point in arguing with someone whose understanding of basic geometry is so wilfully flawed. By 'wilfully flawed' I mean, he is clearly intelligent enough to understand the subject with a bit of work, and not much at that, but he is not inclined to bother.
-
You may use a telescope to modify your perspective angles and push back that point where the rail road tracks meet together, but so too does Rowbotham describe that one can use a telescope to reverse the sinking ship effect on flat bodies of water, showing the effect is not due to any curvature of the earth and more to do with angular limits of the scene. See Chapter 14 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm) and Perspective at Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm). Thomas Winship also reports sunken ship reversals (https://books.google.com/books?id=GzkKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA24#v=onepage&q&f=false) in his book Zetetic Cosmology. A telescope cannot see behind a hill of water.
If you read Earth Not a Globe then you would know that there are various experiments inserted all throughout when analyzing how perspective works.
Experiments > Non-Experiments
Sorry Tom, you have got it wrong.
There are drawings in EnaG, and descriptions, but very few experiments, and what experiments are undertaken are flawed, and the results are based in the fact that the Earth is Flat. Confirmation bias. He does not ever provide proper details of his equipment, heights, distances or how any are verified. He only draws perspective lines, and get asks the reader to believe his conclusions.
I probably see ships hull down in the water most days, so i have a fair amount of experience on this, and I have NEVER seen a hull down ship restored with binoculars. EVER. If it happened i would see it all the time, but it does not happen. Sorry.
The hulls of modern large tankers (not the superstructure) are about 15 to 20M from the water line to deck
Taking your example of angular distance of less than 1 minute, then the hull disappears at about 28 nautical miles. Sorry, that is not true. I have never seen a ships hull at 28 miles away.
Finally the picture taken below, was not clear, as i needed to take it through binoculars, as i dont have a good zoom lens, but it was taken at about 20 miles. The hull is nowhere to be seen, which should according to you have been, 1, restored by magnification, and 2, be visible to 28 miles by naked eye.
-
There are drawings in EnaG, and descriptions, but very few experiments, and what experiments are undertaken are flawed, and the results are based in the fact that the Earth is Flat. Confirmation bias. He does not ever provide proper details of his equipment, heights, distances or how any are verified. He only draws perspective lines, and get asks the reader to believe his conclusions.
I probably see ships hull down in the water most days, so i have a fair amount of experience on this, and I have NEVER seen a hull down ship restored with binoculars. EVER. If it happened i would see it all the time, but it does not happen. Sorry.
The hulls of modern large tankers (not the superstructure) are about 15 to 20M from the water line to deck
Taking your example of angular distance of less than 1 minute, then the hull disappears at about 28 nautical miles. Sorry, that is not true. I have never seen a ships hull at 28 miles away.
Finally the picture taken below, was not clear, as i needed to take it through binoculars, as i dont have a good zoom lens, but it was taken at about 20 miles. The hull is nowhere to be seen, which should according to you have been, 1, restored by magnification, and 2, be visible to 28 miles by naked eye.
Read the material please.
You seem to have missed the chapter Perspective at Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm), which describes that often waves are the cause for the sinking ship effect and that at those times a telescope cannot restore the ship
The restoration experiment must be done on a standing body of water, such as a canal or lake. But you would know this if you guys were to actually ever read the book that Samuel Birley Rowbotham went to great efforts creating for you rather than making off the cuff arguments.
If you are attempting to contradict us, how about actually reading and understanding our material? Its only been in black and white for 150 years.
-
The amount and height of swells on the ocean varries throughout the day and by location. If we were set up a timelapse a video camera we would see that sometimes one can see more or less of that hotel throughout the day.
Except...
Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.
—Tom Bishop
https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
Doesn't seem to have been a problem for you.
This is why the experiments are performed on large bodies of standing water, as there can be issues with waves and swells on ocean conditions.
But your experiment wasn't on standing water, it was across a bay open to the ocean...
Are we expected to believe that over a stretch of 23 miles there was no wave or swell over 20 inches high?
-
There are drawings in EnaG, and descriptions, but very few experiments, and what experiments are undertaken are flawed, and the results are based in the fact that the Earth is Flat. Confirmation bias. He does not ever provide proper details of his equipment, heights, distances or how any are verified. He only draws perspective lines, and get asks the reader to believe his conclusions.
I probably see ships hull down in the water most days, so i have a fair amount of experience on this, and I have NEVER seen a hull down ship restored with binoculars. EVER. If it happened i would see it all the time, but it does not happen. Sorry.
The hulls of modern large tankers (not the superstructure) are about 15 to 20M from the water line to deck
Taking your example of angular distance of less than 1 minute, then the hull disappears at about 28 nautical miles. Sorry, that is not true. I have never seen a ships hull at 28 miles away.
Finally the picture taken below, was not clear, as i needed to take it through binoculars, as i dont have a good zoom lens, but it was taken at about 20 miles. The hull is nowhere to be seen, which should according to you have been, 1, restored by magnification, and 2, be visible to 28 miles by naked eye.
Read the material please.
You seem to have missed the chapter Perspective at Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm), which describes that often waves are sometimes the cause for the sinking ship effect and that at those times a telescope cannot restore the ship
The restoration experiment must be done on a standing body of water, such as a canal or lake. But you would know this if you guys were to actually ever read the book that Samuel Birley Rowbotham went to great efforts creating for you rather than making off the cuff arguments.
If you are attempting to contradict us, how about actually reading and understanding our material? It's only been in black and white for 150 years.
Details of the experiments carried out recently please. And please reply.
-
The amount and height of swells on the ocean varries throughout the day and by location. If we were set up a timelapse a video camera we would see that sometimes one can see more or less of that hotel throughout the day.
Except...
Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.
—Tom Bishop
https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
Doesn't seem to have been a problem for you.
Read through the entire page. I also specify in the first sentence "On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa."
A very clear and chilly day. Qualifier. It is not possible to see the opposite coast on some days. On those days where the opposite coast can be seen, it must be because the day and and the ocean is calm. It is possible to observe the effect at times through the year, but mainly on clear/calm days as was qualified.
The opposite coast should not be seen at all, ever, according to the hundreds of feet it needs to drop in the Round Earth Theory.
This is why the experiments are performed on large bodies of standing water, as there can be issues with waves and swells on ocean conditions.
But your experiment wasn't on standing water, it was across a bay open to the ocean...
Are we expected to believe that over a stretch of 23 miles there was no wave or swell over 20 inches high?
The quality of the ocean varies a lot. Look into Surf Forecasts.
http://www.prh.noaa.gov/hnl/pages/SRF.php
SURF ZONE FORECAST
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HONOLULU HI
400 PM HST FRI MAY 11 2018
OAHU-
400 PM HST FRI MAY 11 2018
Surf along north facing shores will be 3 to 5 feet tonight, building to 5 to 7 feet Saturday.
Surf along west facing shores will be 2 to 4 feet tonight, building to 3 to 5 feet Saturday.
Surf along east facing shores will be 1 to 3 feet tonight, building to 2 to 4 feet Saturday.
Surf along south facing shores will be 1 to 3 feet through Saturday.
-
There are drawings in EnaG, and descriptions, but very few experiments, and what experiments are undertaken are flawed, and the results are based in the fact that the Earth is Flat. Confirmation bias. He does not ever provide proper details of his equipment, heights, distances or how any are verified. He only draws perspective lines, and get asks the reader to believe his conclusions.
I probably see ships hull down in the water most days, so i have a fair amount of experience on this, and I have NEVER seen a hull down ship restored with binoculars. EVER. If it happened i would see it all the time, but it does not happen. Sorry.
The hulls of modern large tankers (not the superstructure) are about 15 to 20M from the water line to deck
Taking your example of angular distance of less than 1 minute, then the hull disappears at about 28 nautical miles. Sorry, that is not true. I have never seen a ships hull at 28 miles away.
Finally the picture taken below, was not clear, as i needed to take it through binoculars, as i dont have a good zoom lens, but it was taken at about 20 miles. The hull is nowhere to be seen, which should according to you have been, 1, restored by magnification, and 2, be visible to 28 miles by naked eye.
Read the material please.
You seem to have missed the chapter Perspective at Sea (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm), which describes that often waves are sometimes the cause for the sinking ship effect and that at those times a telescope cannot restore the ship
The restoration experiment must be done on a standing body of water, such as a canal or lake. But you would know this if you guys were to actually ever read the book that Samuel Birley Rowbotham went to great efforts creating for you rather than making off the cuff arguments.
If you are attempting to contradict us, how about actually reading and understanding our material? It's only been in black and white for 150 years.
I have read the material, and it makes a load of nonsense!
Please look at the picture i attached and attempt to explain how a 20M high black hull can be hidden by “waves” it is not possible.
You use the dime hiding the elephant phrase as a “proof” of a small wave hiding a larger object behind, however;
My height of eye is 34 metres, and it would need an incredibly high wave to hide that ship. It would have to be between me at 34 meters high, looking DOWN upon a hull of a ship 18 meters high, so to obscure the hull the wave would need to be at least 20M high, if it was close to the other ship, and MUCH higher if it was close to mine. There were no swells that day.
The picture of the ship is a type and size that i know, ship i know and know the height of the hull above the water, and if you bothered looking at the sea, you will see it is a flat calm day, no wind, no waves and no swell. I was there, you were not. So dont tell me it was waves!
I have been on many canals (and the New Bedford is NOT a canal, it is a river) and seen much bigger waves. I think i am qualified to determine what’s waves and swell were in the area at the time, as i was in the same area.
The horizon according to flat earth is at the vanishing point, but how do you determine a vanishing point of the sea surface?
I have already proved by measurement that the horizon does not rise up to meet eye level, so you dont need to keep on quoting AnaG, as he is wrong. He only says i have seen this so that, i have seen that so this, no actual measurements, or photographs (yes they were invented when his book were printed) so please excuse me if i dont immediately accept his “proofs”
-
Are these waves?
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-12-2018/Gbt5X1.gif)
-
Your video is just of a man drawing lines on a sheet and explaining Euclid's ancient version of perspective. What does that prove? How does drawing lines on a sheet prove what happens in reality? "Here is a line I drew. Proof!" ::)
That's all I see in ENaG. Line drawings and Rowbotham claiming "Proof!"
...
Samuel Birley Rowbotham backs up the various aspects of the ideas with various experiments that were performed over his 30 year study of this subject matter.
He does more than tell. He shows. Important distinction.
Read the material.
All that we have there is line diagrams and writing.
You're taking someone else to task for only providing a video with line diagrams and commentary.
There's no difference.
If you can take someone else to task for this, it's equally valid to take ENaG to task for the same reason.
-
Tom, what about observations over land rather than water?
-
Tom, what about observations over land rather than water?
I suspect these will be dismissed on the basis that the land might not be flat. By contrast, a keystone of the FE belief-system is that water must always be level. Stands to reason, right?
-
Your video is just of a man drawing lines on a sheet and explaining Euclid's ancient version of perspective. What does that prove? How does drawing lines on a sheet prove what happens in reality? "Here is a line I drew. Proof!" ::)
That's all I see in ENaG. Line drawings and Rowbotham claiming "Proof!"
...
Samuel Birley Rowbotham backs up the various aspects of the ideas with various experiments that were performed over his 30 year study of this subject matter.
He does more than tell. He shows. Important distinction.
Read the material.
All that we have there is line diagrams and writing.
You're taking someone else to task for only providing a video with line diagrams and commentary.
There's no difference.
If you can take someone else to task for this, it's equally valid to take ENaG to task for the same reason.
In order to take ENAG to the task you will need to provide contradicting experiments. There are more than just explanations in the work. There are experiments which prove the various attributes of those explanations. Those need to be contradicted.
The Youtube video we were linked to, of a man explaining Euclid's version of perspective, provides no experiments. There are no experiments given showing that perspective lines will merge an infinite distance away, or that they will never merge. None. This is an assumption without demonstration.
Since the assertions in the video are given without evidence, we can disregarded them without evidence.
We have evidence for our explanation of perspective, and you do not have evidence for your explanation of perspective. You should be embarrassed.
-
Your video is just of a man drawing lines on a sheet and explaining Euclid's ancient version of perspective. What does that prove? How does drawing lines on a sheet prove what happens in reality? "Here is a line I drew. Proof!" ::)
That's all I see in ENaG. Line drawings and Rowbotham claiming "Proof!"
...
Samuel Birley Rowbotham backs up the various aspects of the ideas with various experiments that were performed over his 30 year study of this subject matter.
He does more than tell. He shows. Important distinction.
Read the material.
All that we have there is line diagrams and writing.
You're taking someone else to task for only providing a video with line diagrams and commentary.
There's no difference.
If you can take someone else to task for this, it's equally valid to take ENaG to task for the same reason.
In order to take ENAG to the task you will need to provide contradicting experiments. There are more than just explanations in the work. There are experiments which prove the various attributes of those explanations. Those need to be contradicted.
The Youtube video we were linked to, of a man explaining Euclid's version of perspective, provides no experiments. There are no experiments given showing that perspective lines will merge an infinite distance away, or that they will never merge. None. This is an assumption without demonstration.
Since the assertions in the video are given without evidence, they are disregarded without evidence.
We have evidence for our explanation of perspective, and you do not have evidence for your explanation of perspective. You should be embarrassed.
As discussed many times, why is nobody repeating these experimets?
Perspective is a word you misuse. It is something on an image, not an explanation for actual measured distances and angles.
-
Perspective is a word you misuse. It is something on an image, not an explanation for actual measured distances and angles.
I explained this to Bishop above, but he seems unable to understand.
-
In order to take ENAG to the task you will need to provide contradicting experiments. There are more than just explanations in the work. There are experiments which prove the various attributes of those explanations. Those need to be contradicted.
They have been.
And every time you dismiss those experiments on spurious grounds and when you finally agree there are no reasonable grounds for dismissing them you just declare them fake.
???
-
There are no experiments given showing that perspective lines will merge an infinite distance away, or that they will never merge.
There can’t be any such experiments. Parallel lines by definition do not meet. I.e. they are defined as lines which are equidistant at every point.
If, by experiment perhaps, you find a pair of lines that meet at any point, then they cannot be parallel, for the definition rules that out.
By analogy, there is no point in an experiment to find a married bachelor. If you find any married men at all, then they are not bachelors. They lost that status when they got married. Likewise, lines which join at any point have lost the status of being parallel.
[edit] Regarding railway tracks, they of course have to be parallel, otherwise the train would come off the tracks.
-
Read through the entire page. I also specify in the first sentence "On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa."
A very clear and chilly day. Qualifier. It is not possible to see the opposite coast on some days. On those days where the opposite coast can be seen, it must be because the day and and the ocean is calm. It is possible to observe the effect at times through the year, but mainly on clear/calm days as was qualified.
Can I suggest this be removed from that Wiki page then:
Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions