Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #20 on: January 02, 2019, 10:49:05 AM »
The word "statute" appears nowhere in that nautical work. See the Google Books search feature. I will suggest that you two redo your analysis and graphs again and refrain from deception.

I already have a conversion factor in the spreadsheet. However the phrase 'nautical' only appears twice, and not in the context of 'nautical miles'. It is possible the search facility is missing a misscanned item. Until then, I shall leave it at ordinary miles. The conversion does not make a significant difference in any case.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2019, 07:43:31 PM »
The word "statute" appears nowhere in that nautical work. See the Google Books search feature. I will suggest that you two redo your analysis and graphs again and refrain from deception.

I agree, neither 'statute' nor 'nautical' miles appears in the book, at least in the scanned version we have. It's just odd that Rowbotham seemingly converted from what he assumed were nautical miles to statute. Nor did Rowbotham explain that he did so. Though it doesn't really make a difference as edby pointed out. And I assume Rowbotham listing one lighthouse as 420' instead of what his reference states is 450' is just a typo.

No one is deceiving here, just pointing out the data discrepancies.

But you're still not addressing the difference between visible light to observer distance as referenced by the US Coast Guard and Rowbotham's sole use of geographic object to observer distance.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2019, 10:58:55 AM by stack »
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6364
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #22 on: January 03, 2019, 03:08:21 PM »
The word "statute" appears nowhere in that nautical work. See the Google Books search feature. I will suggest that you two redo your analysis and graphs again and refrain from deception.

I already have a conversion factor in the spreadsheet. However the phrase 'nautical' only appears twice, and not in the context of 'nautical miles'. It is possible the search facility is missing a misscanned item. Until then, I shall leave it at ordinary miles. The conversion does not make a significant difference in any case.

Except that when using nautical miles it goes against your theory.

Using statute miles, in a nautical work, to provide evidence for your theory is deceptive and you should have provided both versions rather than choosing to deceive through misrepresentation.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2019, 03:20:13 PM »
Except that when using nautical miles it goes against your theory.
No it doesn't.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #24 on: January 03, 2019, 05:06:16 PM »
Noticing that the non-UK data published by Findlay seemed less accurate than the UK (England and Scotland) data, I performed a correlation test between the theoretical visibility and the published visibility. Result

Correlation (UK data) 97.5%
Correlation (non-UK data) 24.1%

That indicates straight away that Findlay was using a different source for his non-UK data, almost certainly suspect (unless the earth really is flat outside of the UK).

As an example, consider the data from Spain.

Lighthouse: Country: Height: published: theoretical

Cape Mayor   Spain   298   24   25.16
Cape Busto   Spain   307   12   25.48
Corunna   Spain   331   12   26.31
Cisargas Isles   Spain   358   11   27.20
Bilbao   Spain   380   10   27.91
San Sebastian   Spain   431   15   29.47
Cape Prior   Spain   448   15   29.97
Cape Finisterre   Spain   468   20   30.54
Pasages Port   Spain   486   14   31.05
Bayona   Spain   595   20   33.94

You can see right away that the published data is inconsistent with itself. E.g. Cape Mayor (h 298, v 24) / Cape Busto (307, 12)
« Last Edit: January 03, 2019, 05:10:14 PM by edby »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #25 on: January 03, 2019, 08:34:13 PM »
The word "statute" appears nowhere in that nautical work. See the Google Books search feature. I will suggest that you two redo your analysis and graphs again and refrain from deception.

I already have a conversion factor in the spreadsheet. However the phrase 'nautical' only appears twice, and not in the context of 'nautical miles'. It is possible the search facility is missing a misscanned item. Until then, I shall leave it at ordinary miles. The conversion does not make a significant difference in any case.

Except that when using nautical miles it goes against your theory.

Using statute miles, in a nautical work, to provide evidence for your theory is deceptive and you should have provided both versions rather than choosing to deceive through misrepresentation.

I'm confused, are you saying Rowbotham was deceptive and deceiving through his misrepresentation? After all he used statute miles, taken from a nautical work, to provide evidence for his theory.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6364
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #26 on: January 03, 2019, 09:08:38 PM »
The word "statute" appears nowhere in that nautical work. See the Google Books search feature. I will suggest that you two redo your analysis and graphs again and refrain from deception.

I already have a conversion factor in the spreadsheet. However the phrase 'nautical' only appears twice, and not in the context of 'nautical miles'. It is possible the search facility is missing a misscanned item. Until then, I shall leave it at ordinary miles. The conversion does not make a significant difference in any case.

Except that when using nautical miles it goes against your theory.

Using statute miles, in a nautical work, to provide evidence for your theory is deceptive and you should have provided both versions rather than choosing to deceive through misrepresentation.

I'm confused, are you saying Rowbotham was deceptive and deceiving through his misrepresentation? After all he used statute miles, taken from a nautical work, to provide evidence for his theory.

Rowbotham only has one example in that quote. You keep labeling Eric Dubey as Rowbotham.

Secondly, the distances are in nautical miles, and Dubey is converting to statute miles for his calculator.

Please point out where, in this nautical work, where statute miles are specified.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2019, 09:11:43 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #27 on: January 03, 2019, 09:46:03 PM »
The word "statute" appears nowhere in that nautical work. See the Google Books search feature. I will suggest that you two redo your analysis and graphs again and refrain from deception.

I already have a conversion factor in the spreadsheet. However the phrase 'nautical' only appears twice, and not in the context of 'nautical miles'. It is possible the search facility is missing a misscanned item. Until then, I shall leave it at ordinary miles. The conversion does not make a significant difference in any case.

Except that when using nautical miles it goes against your theory.

Using statute miles, in a nautical work, to provide evidence for your theory is deceptive and you should have provided both versions rather than choosing to deceive through misrepresentation.

I'm confused, are you saying Rowbotham was deceptive and deceiving through his misrepresentation? After all he used statute miles, taken from a nautical work, to provide evidence for his theory.

Rowbotham only has one example in that quote. You keep labeling Eric Dubey as Rowbotham.

Secondly, the distances are in nautical miles, and Dubey is converting to statute miles for his calculator.

Please point out where, in this nautical work, where statute miles are specified.

No, I already presented Rowbotham's data in a previous post. Has nothing to do with Dubey.

This is from ENAG, which I'm pretty sure Dubey didn't write:

"The Egerö Light, on west point of Island, south coast of Norway, is fitted up with the first order of the dioptric lights, is visible 28 statute miles, and the altitude above high water is 154 feet. On making the proper calculation it will be found that this light ought to be sunk below the horizon 230 feet.

The Dunkerque Light, on the south coast of France, is 194 feet high, and is visible 28 statute miles. The ordinary calculation shows that it ought to be 190 feet below the horizon.

The Cordonan Light, on the River Gironde, west coast of France, is visible 31 statute miles, and its altitude is 207 feet, which would give its depression below the horizon as nearly 280 feet.

The Light at Madras, on the Esplanade, is 132 feet high, and is visible 28 statute miles, at which distance it ought to be beneath the horizon more than 250 feet.

The Port Nicholson Light, in New Zealand (erected in 1859), is visible 35 statute miles, the altitude being 420 feet above high water. If the water is convex it ought to be 220 feet below the horizon.

The Light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet above high water, and is visible 35 statute miles. These figures will give, on calculating for the earth's rotundity, 491 feet as the distance it should be sunk below the sea horizon.
"

If his source is using nautical miles, which is the assumption, Rowbotham converted them to statute miles (for some reason) in ENAG and didn't specify that he was doing so. How is that not deceptive, yet edby's is?

You still haven't addressed the question of Rowbotham's sole use of geographic observation versus light range observation. There is a difference.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6364
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2019, 10:16:33 PM »
Those weren't the quotes that I provided. However, it looks like Rowbotham is also using statute miles in those. Probably because the 8 inches per mile square rule applies to statute miles.

In ENAG Rowbotham does specify that he is converting to statute miles around those quotes and that nautical miles were likely intended.

From just above what you quoted we read:

Quote
Many instances could be given of lights being visible at sea for distances which would be utterly impossible upon a globular surface of 25,000 miles in circumference. The following are examples:--

"The coal fire (which was once used) on the Spurn Point Lighthouse, at the mouth of the Humber, which was constructed on a good principle for burning, has been seen 30 miles off." 1

Allowing 16 feet for the altitude of the observer (which is more than is considered necessary, 2 10 feet being the standard; but 6 feet may be added for the height of the eye above the deck), 5 miles must be taken from the 30 miles, as the distance of the horizon. The square of 5 miles, multiplied by 8 inches, gives 416 feet; deducting the altitude of the light, 93 feet, we have 323 feet as the amount this light should be below the horizon.

p. 30

The above calculation is made on the supposition that statute miles are intended, but it is very probable that nautical measure is understood; and if so, the light would be depressed fully 600 feet.

Rowbotham appears correct in his last paragraph in that quote. Nautical men and the writers for nautical men would be reporting nautical miles, not statute miles.

In the video edby provided earlier, that YouTube presenter is also using nautical miles for a nautical matter of lighthouse ranges.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2019, 11:16:08 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #29 on: January 03, 2019, 11:50:40 PM »
Those weren't the quotes that I provided. However, it looks like Rowbotham is also using statute miles in those. Probably because the 8 inches per mile square rule applies to statute miles.

In ENAG Rowbotham does specify that he is converting to statute miles around those quotes and that nautical miles were likely intended.

From just above what you quoted we read:

Quote
Many instances could be given of lights being visible at sea for distances which would be utterly impossible upon a globular surface of 25,000 miles in circumference. The following are examples:--

"The coal fire (which was once used) on the Spurn Point Lighthouse, at the mouth of the Humber, which was constructed on a good principle for burning, has been seen 30 miles off." 1

Allowing 16 feet for the altitude of the observer (which is more than is considered necessary, 2 10 feet being the standard; but 6 feet may be added for the height of the eye above the deck), 5 miles must be taken from the 30 miles, as the distance of the horizon. The square of 5 miles, multiplied by 8 inches, gives 416 feet; deducting the altitude of the light, 93 feet, we have 323 feet as the amount this light should be below the horizon.

p. 30

The above calculation is made on the supposition that statute miles are intended, but it is very probable that nautical measure is understood; and if so, the light would be depressed fully 600 feet.

Rowbotham appears correct in his last paragraph in that quote. Nautical men and the writers for nautical men would be reporting nautical miles, not statute miles.

In the video edby provided earlier, that YouTube presenter is also using nautical miles for a nautical matter of lighthouse ranges.

I get it, I'm under the assumption as well that the nautical reference uses nautical miles and Rowbotham converted them to statute miles. And I think your logic is sound that he did so to more easily conform to the geographic distances.

There still is a lot that needs to be addressed. Similar to the US Coast Guard light range doc I previously referenced, I found this too:

'LUMINOUS INTENSITY AND RANGE OF LIGHTS GEOGRAPHICAL RANGE'

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/ihr/article/download/23979/27764

"The geographical range P„ would thus be a fixed value for a given light and a given ship.
In reality, however, Pe depends a little on atmospheric conditions. The various air strata are often of unequal temperature, pressure and humidity and consequently of a different refractive index, so that the luminous rays are not rectilinear but concave, the concavity being generally downwards. In these circumstances the light can be seen beyond its geo­graphical range; frequently up to 40% farther, and occasionally even farther, and this phenomenon is difficult to predict."

There's tons of information in the article about how light range is calculated with meteorological and geographic data. Rowbotham is only using geographic data/calcs. I assume Findlay's book is based upon reports of observations not solely on what can be geographically calculated.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2019, 07:56:56 AM »
So I went through the USCG New England section of the “Light List” I referenced earlier and randomly selected lighthouses I could find in Findlay’s book. Interesting results:

(Per Rowbotham, 16’ Observer height)

Findlay:
Cape Ann Light, Height: 98’   Range: 16 NM (18.4125 statute miles)
Geographic Range/Curve Calc: 23’ below horizon

US Coast Guard:
Cape Ann Light, Height: 166’   Range: 17 NM (19.5633 statute miles)
Geographic Range/Curve Calc: 23’ above horizon

Findlay:
Minots Ledge Light, Height: 84’   Range: 14 NM (16.1109 statute miles)
Geographic Range/Curve Calc: 0 above horizon, 0 below horizon

US Coast Guard:
Minots Ledge Light, Height: 85’   Range: 10 NM (11.5078 statute miles)
Geographic Range/Curve Calc: 56’ above horizon

Findlay:
Race Point Light, Height: 35’   Range: 11 NM (12.6586 statute miles)
Geographic Range/Curve Calc: 5’ below horizon

US Coast Guard:
Race Point Light, Height: 41’   Range: 14 NM (16.1109 statute miles)
Geographic Range/Curve Calc: 43’ below horizon


See if you can figure out what’s going on. I think the thrust here is that using just Rowbotham’s geographic calculation alone does not tell the whole story. It’s only one part of the equation. It’s a convenient argument, but it seems that’s all it is, convenient. It’s incomplete.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2019, 08:48:42 AM »
I challenge whether Findlay was using nautical miles. He never specifies that he is, and I looked at other works of his where he uses geographic miles. So the jury is out. It could be that Rowbotham deliberately 'converted' in order to strengthen his case, who can tell.

In any case, this is a red herring and we are missing my main point above. When I calculate the theoretical range and compare to Findlay's UK data I get a correlation of 97.5%, which is very strong. When I use Findlay's non-UK data, the correlation collapses. This is prima facie evidence (1) that some of Findlay's data is corrupt and (2) that the section of his data set likely to be least corrupt, namely the UK data which in the days without email was the easiest to verify, is perfectly consistent with globe earth assumptions.

Tom needs to explain why the UK data so strongly correlates with globe earth.

Quote
Correlation (UK data) 97.5%
Correlation (non-UK data) 24.1%
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 08:50:40 AM by edby »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9385
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #32 on: January 04, 2019, 11:58:32 AM »
Tom needs to explain why the UK data so strongly correlates with globe earth.
Does he? You've found a correlation that allegedly applies to >0.05% of the Earth.

Why don't you explain why you find this statistically significant, and why you think correlation implies a causal link?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #33 on: January 04, 2019, 03:06:42 PM »
First off, let me say that I have been reading these forums for a while now, and decided to jump into the fray.

I could not let the last reply from Pete stand due to its logical inconsistency.

Pete, you say that UK data does not imply a causal link since it represents a statistical insignificant amount of the geographical surface of the Earth.

Logically, this implies that the data that supports a flat earth is statistically significant and therefore proves the flat earth theory.

However, the reverse could be said that your flat earth data only represents a small amount of the geographical surface of the earth and therefore does not imply a causal link.
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9385
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2019, 03:09:33 PM »
Pete, you say that UK data does not imply a causal link since it represents a statistical insignificant amount of the geographical surface of the Earth.
I said neither of those things.

Logically, this implies that the data that supports a flat earth is statistically significant and therefore proves the flat earth theory.
No, this does not follow in the slightest. Asking someone to substantiate their claims does not make me an advocate for the opposite claim.

However, the reverse could be said that your flat earth data only represents a small amount of the geographical surface of the earth and therefore does not imply a causal link.
It could be said, and it would require the same substantiation that I currently await from our friend.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2019, 03:23:00 PM »
Tom needs to explain why the UK data so strongly correlates with globe earth.
Does he? You've found a correlation that allegedly applies to >0.05% of the Earth.
I said above that it is possible that the UK is a part of a globe earth, but the rest of the UK part of a flat earth, but I think that's highly unlikely. What's your view?

Quote
Why don't you explain why you find this statistically significant, and why you think correlation implies a causal link?

All correlation as high as this requires some kind of explanation.

[EDIT] This page is a guide to how meaningful correlations are.Look for the entry in the table under 'physics'.
97.5% correlation is pretty high, no?
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 03:26:20 PM by edby »

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2019, 03:32:21 PM »
Tom needs to explain why the UK data so strongly correlates with globe earth.
Does he? You've found a correlation that allegedly applies to >0.05% of the Earth.

Why don't you explain why you find this statistically significant, and why you think correlation implies a causal link?


I am pretty sure when you say "allegedly applies to >0.05% of the earth" combined with your question using the phrase "statistically significant" means that you currently are of the opinion that his data is not representative of the entire surface of the earth and that he needs to prove the link with something else. Which, obviously, you or Tom will refute again, ad nauseam. Yes, while you did not use that specific combination of words, language and word combinations are strongly indicative of what you mean to say, and given that you believe in a Flat Earth, this further shows what your words mean.

And yes, you are an advocate of the opposite claim. You believe in a Flat Earth. You believe that Rowbotham's data is representative of proof of a flat earth.

And where is the substantiation that Rowbotham's data is correct? This is a flat earth forum, therefore it should be substantiated.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2019, 04:03:28 PM by WellRoundedIndividual »
BobLawBlah.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1066
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #37 on: January 04, 2019, 03:45:49 PM »
He is showing that there is a discrepancy between the two sets of data, and therefore one or the other is incorrect. Thats it.
Almost, but not quite. A high correlation always demands an explanation. It implies non randomness.

The very low correlation outside the UK suggests the Findlay's data is corrupt in some way. My guess: he was working in the UK at a time when universal travel was not common, and expensive, so he relied on agents outside the UK to supply information, and perhaps didn't pay them enough.

I am currently working through the whole data set to sort out these inconsistencies.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9385
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2019, 05:50:06 PM »
I am pretty sure when you say "allegedly applies to >0.05% of the earth" combined with your question using the phrase "statistically significant" means that you currently are of the opinion that his data is not representative of the entire surface of the earth and that he needs to prove the link with something else.
Well, you can be as sure as you'd like. It's still false. I said what I meant, and I didn't mean things I didn't say.

And yes, you are an advocate of the opposite claim.
No, I'm not. Asking for someone to substantiate their claims is different from arguing the opposite. Especially when the issue is not binary.

You believe in a Flat Earth. You believe that Rowbotham's data is representative of proof of a flat earth.
Please could you point me to an instance of me agreeing with Rowbotham's data? My beliefs are quite divergent from Rowbotham.

And where is the substantiation that Rowbotham's data is correct? This is a flat earth forum, therefore it should be substantiated.
That appears to be largely unrelated to my own request, and I'm not sure flooding this board with tu quoques is particularly helpful.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Rowbotham experiment #9
« Reply #39 on: January 04, 2019, 06:25:23 PM »
Pete,

My apologies. I assumed, seeing as how you and Tom are the most vocal and prominent members of the website, that you would be supportive in using Rowbotham as supporting evidence in the earth being flat. I stand corrected.

And again his only claim is that there needs to be an investigation as to why one set of data has a high correlation and another does not. He does not have to substantiate anything, he already has shown it.  You are inserting irrelevancy by asking him to prove why 0.05% of the earth is statistically significant for the whole, when that is not what he was setting out to do.

And yes, this is unrelated to your request due to the fact that your request is unrelated to the subject matter.
BobLawBlah.