[Parallax]

Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it.

As did Einstein, as have many people over the centuries who have completely changed our thinking about how the world and universe works.
Otherwise we'd still be thinking that everything is made of the 4 elements earth, air, water and fire.
Lots of people have come along and revolutionised science and understanding of things, Newton and Einstein are but too.
Rowbotham COULD have been one, his ideas were indeed revolutionary. Trouble is they were demonstrably wrong.
And there's the difference, Newton and Einstein's ideas stood up to scrutiny so became accepted, Rowbotham's didn't so he was consigned to relative obscurity.
There's no conspiracy here. I know you guys love a good conspiracy but his ideas were simply and demonstrably wrong.

Dr Rowbothams ideas were scientifically and mathematically accurate. If you read his work you should know that, but then these round earthers seem to believe whatever NASA spew. Einstein may be regarded as a genius now, but Dr Rowbotham changed the science books, yet when the technology was available for the elite to see for themselves, they covered it all up.

[Curious Squirrel]

Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it.

As did Einstein, as have many people over the centuries who have completely changed our thinking about how the world and universe works.
Otherwise we'd still be thinking that everything is made of the 4 elements earth, air, water and fire.
Lots of people have come along and revolutionised science and understanding of things, Newton and Einstein are but too.
Rowbotham COULD have been one, his ideas were indeed revolutionary. Trouble is they were demonstrably wrong.
And there's the difference, Newton and Einstein's ideas stood up to scrutiny so became accepted, Rowbotham's didn't so he was consigned to relative obscurity.
There's no conspiracy here. I know you guys love a good conspiracy but his ideas were simply and demonstrably wrong.

Dr Rowbothams ideas were scientifically and mathematically accurate. If you read his work you should know that, but then these round earthers seem to believe whatever NASA spew. Einstein may be regarded as a genius now, but Dr Rowbotham changed the science books, yet when the technology was available for the elite to see for themselves, they covered it all up.

Incorrect. Care to try again? I've read the book. It's a load of bollocks backed up with confirmation bias, a touch of truth, and ignoring anything that disagrees with his already formed conclusions. Again though, I would be more than happy to go into greater detail in a thread devoted to the subject if you so desire, but it doesn't seem particularly appropriate here.

[Frocious]

Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it.

As did Einstein, as have many people over the centuries who have completely changed our thinking about how the world and universe works.
Otherwise we'd still be thinking that everything is made of the 4 elements earth, air, water and fire.
Lots of people have come along and revolutionised science and understanding of things, Newton and Einstein are but too.
Rowbotham COULD have been one, his ideas were indeed revolutionary. Trouble is they were demonstrably wrong.
And there's the difference, Newton and Einstein's ideas stood up to scrutiny so became accepted, Rowbotham's didn't so he was consigned to relative obscurity.
There's no conspiracy here. I know you guys love a good conspiracy but his ideas were simply and demonstrably wrong.

Dr Rowbothams ideas were scientifically and mathematically accurate. If you read his work you should know that, but then these round earthers seem to believe whatever NASA spew. Einstein may be regarded as a genius now, but Dr Rowbotham changed the science books, yet when the technology was available for the elite to see for themselves, they covered it all up.

Incorrect. Care to try again? I've read the book. It's a load of bollocks backed up with confirmation bias, a touch of truth, and ignoring anything that disagrees with his already formed conclusions. Again though, I would be more than happy to go into greater detail in a thread devoted to the subject if you so desire, but it doesn't seem particularly appropriate here.

The "crown jewel" of his experiments -- the Bedford Level experiment -- was done several times after he initially completed it. In fact, one of his supporters lost a bet against Alfred Russel Wallace (a surveyor) repeating the same exact experiment in the same exact place. It was ruled by all observers, including a referee decided upon by both contestants, that Wallace was correct and that the Bedford Level experiment showed, in fact, that the earth was curved.

Variations of the experiment were done several times over the following years, and they all showed that the earth was curved. The only peope to come to the conclusion that the earth was flat via the Bedford Level experiment were Rowbotham (note that I did not call him "Dr Rowbotham," as he never received a doctorate of any sort. Liking someone's views does not make them a doctor, no matter how much you want it to be so) and Lady Blount.

Curiously enough, not taking into account refraction (which is often used by FE theorists as an explanation for phenomena that does not line up with their world view) is the reason Rowbotham and Blount were incorrect.

[Parallax]

Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it.

As did Einstein, as have many people over the centuries who have completely changed our thinking about how the world and universe works.
Otherwise we'd still be thinking that everything is made of the 4 elements earth, air, water and fire.
Lots of people have come along and revolutionised science and understanding of things, Newton and Einstein are but too.
Rowbotham COULD have been one, his ideas were indeed revolutionary. Trouble is they were demonstrably wrong.
And there's the difference, Newton and Einstein's ideas stood up to scrutiny so became accepted, Rowbotham's didn't so he was consigned to relative obscurity.
There's no conspiracy here. I know you guys love a good conspiracy but his ideas were simply and demonstrably wrong.

Dr Rowbothams ideas were scientifically and mathematically accurate. If you read his work you should know that, but then these round earthers seem to believe whatever NASA spew. Einstein may be regarded as a genius now, but Dr Rowbotham changed the science books, yet when the technology was available for the elite to see for themselves, they covered it all up.

Incorrect. Care to try again? I've read the book. It's a load of bollocks backed up with confirmation bias, a touch of truth, and ignoring anything that disagrees with his already formed conclusions. Again though, I would be more than happy to go into greater detail in a thread devoted to the subject if you so desire, but it doesn't seem particularly appropriate here.

This is outrageous. Fair enough you don't believe it, but at least show Dr Rowbotham and his work the proper respect. It seems you have difficulty understanding his experiments and reasoning, he uses many different situations and takes various factors into account. A decade long study produced what is probably the most important scientific book ever written.

Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it.

As did Einstein, as have many people over the centuries who have completely changed our thinking about how the world and universe works.
Otherwise we'd still be thinking that everything is made of the 4 elements earth, air, water and fire.
Lots of people have come along and revolutionised science and understanding of things, Newton and Einstein are but too.
Rowbotham COULD have been one, his ideas were indeed revolutionary. Trouble is they were demonstrably wrong.
And there's the difference, Newton and Einstein's ideas stood up to scrutiny so became accepted, Rowbotham's didn't so he was consigned to relative obscurity.
There's no conspiracy here. I know you guys love a good conspiracy but his ideas were simply and demonstrably wrong.

Dr Rowbothams ideas were scientifically and mathematically accurate. If you read his work you should know that, but then these round earthers seem to believe whatever NASA spew. Einstein may be regarded as a genius now, but Dr Rowbotham changed the science books, yet when the technology was available for the elite to see for themselves, they covered it all up.

Incorrect. Care to try again? I've read the book. It's a load of bollocks backed up with confirmation bias, a touch of truth, and ignoring anything that disagrees with his already formed conclusions. Again though, I would be more than happy to go into greater detail in a thread devoted to the subject if you so desire, but it doesn't seem particularly appropriate here.

The "crown jewel" of his experiments -- the Bedford Level experiment -- was done several times after he initially completed it. In fact, one of his supporters lost a bet against Alfred Russel Wallace (a surveyor) repeating the same exact experiment in the same exact place. It was ruled by all observers, including a referee decided upon by both contestants, that Wallace was correct and that the Bedford Level experiment showed, in fact, that the earth was curved.

Variations of the experiment were done several times over the following years, and they all showed that the earth was curved. The only peope to come to the conclusion that the earth was flat via the Bedford Level experiment were Rowbotham (note that I did not call him "Dr Rowbotham," as he never received a doctorate of any sort. Liking someone's views does not make them a doctor, no matter how much you want it to be so) and Lady Blount.

Curiously enough, not taking into account refraction (which is often used by FE theorists as an explanation for phenomena that does not line up with their world view) is the reason Rowbotham and Blount were incorrect.

Have you read his book? I'm going to assume not, be because if you did you'd be aware that Dr Rowbotham went into immense detail with regards to how he took refraction into account with the Bedford level experiment. Wallace got a different result, but his experiment was flawed from the start thereby rendering the end result incorrect.

[Frocious]

If by "flawed from the start" you mean "correctly took refraction into account" then you are correct.

[Parallax]

If by "flawed from the start" you mean "correctly took refraction into account" then you are correct.

Dr Rowbotham took it into account and his result ended up being scientifically correct.

[Frocious]

If by "flawed from the start" you mean "correctly took refraction into account" then you are correct.

Dr Rowbotham took it into account and his result ended up being scientifically correct.

All right. Whoever this made up "Dr Rowbotham" is might have done so in some sort of fictional story. I can assure you that Samuel Rowbotham did not do so correctly

[Parallax]

If by "flawed from the start" you mean "correctly took refraction into account" then you are correct.

Dr Rowbotham took it into account and his result ended up being scientifically correct.

All right. Whoever this made up "Dr Rowbotham" is might have done so in some sort of fictional story. I can assure you that Samuel Rowbotham did not do so correctly

I can assure you Dr Rowbotham took everything into account and produced the correct result.

[xenotolerance]

Please refer to the specific piece of writing you're talking about, where Rowbotham explained in detail how he accounted for refraction.

[Curious Squirrel]

Yes that's true, but Dr Rowbotham challenged something that was regarded as fact and its easier to ridicule it.

As did Einstein, as have many people over the centuries who have completely changed our thinking about how the world and universe works.
Otherwise we'd still be thinking that everything is made of the 4 elements earth, air, water and fire.
Lots of people have come along and revolutionised science and understanding of things, Newton and Einstein are but too.
Rowbotham COULD have been one, his ideas were indeed revolutionary. Trouble is they were demonstrably wrong.
And there's the difference, Newton and Einstein's ideas stood up to scrutiny so became accepted, Rowbotham's didn't so he was consigned to relative obscurity.
There's no conspiracy here. I know you guys love a good conspiracy but his ideas were simply and demonstrably wrong.

Dr Rowbothams ideas were scientifically and mathematically accurate. If you read his work you should know that, but then these round earthers seem to believe whatever NASA spew. Einstein may be regarded as a genius now, but Dr Rowbotham changed the science books, yet when the technology was available for the elite to see for themselves, they covered it all up.

Incorrect. Care to try again? I've read the book. It's a load of bollocks backed up with confirmation bias, a touch of truth, and ignoring anything that disagrees with his already formed conclusions. Again though, I would be more than happy to go into greater detail in a thread devoted to the subject if you so desire, but it doesn't seem particularly appropriate here.

This is outrageous. Fair enough you don't believe it, but at least show Dr Rowbotham and his work the proper respect. It seems you have difficulty understanding his experiments and reasoning, he uses many different situations and takes various factors into account. A decade long study produced what is probably the most important scientific book ever written.

Ah, my favorite. "You're obviously too stupid to understand" is your excuse now? Alright, I've got some time this weekend. Let's go through the waste of space that is his book. We can take a look at what he did wrong, what he hasn't done, and why his conclusions are either erroneous, or cannot be trusted, and perhaps we can squeeze in some discussion on the biases and fallacies riddling his work as well.

[Parallax]

Please refer to the specific piece of writing you're talking about, where Rowbotham explained in detail how he accounted for refraction.

It's in the book, I'm not typing it out here. I'm sure you could find it online.

[HorstFue]

Please refer to the specific piece of writing you're talking about, where Rowbotham explained in detail how he accounted for refraction.

It's in the book, I'm not typing it out here. I'm sure you could find it online.

I also could not find it with these various Bedford level experiments in EnaG.
Found it at http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm
But obviously the author has a false understanding of atmospheric refraction, which is quite different to normal refraction.

[Parallax]

No he doesn't, he understood it perfectly.

[HorstFue]

No he doesn't, he understood it perfectly.

please compare
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

[Parallax]

No he doesn't, he understood it perfectly.

please compare
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Dr Rowbotham understood it perfectly.

[Frocious]

No he doesn't, he understood it perfectly.

please compare
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Dr Rowbotham understood it perfectly.

All right. Definitely entering confirmed troll territory here.

Most of the members here will at least try to provide evidence for their claims. Or just not make claims.

[xenotolerance]

I ask for clarity of reference because he wrote more than one book. Not asking for a full quote, just something more specific than 'the book.'

Okay, I looked through the first one credited to Rowbotham in the library, Experimental Proofs, that reviews the wager about the Bedford canal. He addresses refraction in a paragraph at the top of page 20, after quoting a Britannica article on levelling. Unsurprisingly, he says it can be ignored.

It's clear he did not, in fact, take refraction into account. Quite the opposite; he claims he didn't need to.

Did you not read this?

[HorstFue]

Another nice experiment from EnaG, where Rowbotham ignored refraction:
Experiment 6, conducted between two sea piers at Brighton/Worthing.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za11.htm

But he did not only ignore refraction, he also ignored tides.
This is English Channel, well known or high tides.
Tide tables for Brighton give 6 meters (20 feet) between low and high tide.
Water level could change 5 feet each hour.
There's neither a hint for state of the tide during the experiment, nor how long the experiment lasted, nor what was the position of the mast top referenced to the theodolite at the destination/end of experiment.

[Tom Bishop]

Another nice experiment from EnaG, where Rowbotham ignored refraction:
Experiment 6, conducted between two sea piers at Brighton/Worthing.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za11.htm

But he did not only ignore refraction, he also ignored tides.
This is English Channel, well known or high tides.
Tide tables for Brighton give 6 meters (20 feet) between low and high tide.
Water level could change 5 feet each hour.
There's neither a hint for state of the tide during the experiment, nor how long the experiment lasted, nor what was the position of the mast top referenced to the theodolite at the destination/end of experiment.

Rowbotham does account for refraction in his experiments. See Experiment 9.

[Curious Squirrel]

Another nice experiment from EnaG, where Rowbotham ignored refraction:
Experiment 6, conducted between two sea piers at Brighton/Worthing.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za11.htm

But he did not only ignore refraction, he also ignored tides.
This is English Channel, well known or high tides.
Tide tables for Brighton give 6 meters (20 feet) between low and high tide.
Water level could change 5 feet each hour.
There's neither a hint for state of the tide during the experiment, nor how long the experiment lasted, nor what was the position of the mast top referenced to the theodolite at the destination/end of experiment.

Rowbotham does account for refraction in his experiments. See Experiment 9.

Refraction is mentioned in but 3 of his experiments, and one of them is using it as a way to assert a theodolite is inaccurate to such a degree that is cannot be relied upon to observe angles. The other contains almost no notes on anything beyond claiming to have seen X when he expected Y. But neither X nor Y are particularly well defined, and neither is the area of the supposed experiment.