Re: Trying to Understand FE
« Reply #40 on: April 05, 2018, 05:43:30 PM »
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.
Why do you believe Rowbotham to be more accurate that the measurements and models we have today which are highly accurate?  eg. WGS-84

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11112
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trying to Understand FE
« Reply #41 on: April 05, 2018, 06:03:12 PM »
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.
Why do you believe Rowbotham to be more accurate that the measurements and models we have today which are highly accurate?  eg. WGS-84

What does that have to so with what you quoted? Please stop butting into our conversations.

HorstFue

Re: Trying to Understand FE
« Reply #42 on: April 05, 2018, 06:10:16 PM »
Rowbotham does account for refraction in his experiments. See Experiment 9.

Quote from: Rowbotham in EnaG Experiment 9
A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water. Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed.

Sorry, this is "Refraction", which is a quite different case than "Atmospheric Refraction".
Atmospheric Refraction is caused by a vertical density change of the air, all along the line of sight. So measuring parameters only at observer's and target's position is pointless. You have to evaluate a vertical air density profile all along the line of sight.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Trying to Understand FE
« Reply #43 on: April 05, 2018, 11:42:00 PM »
That's another issue I have, if the only motive for the conspiracy is based on a hypothesis, then doesn't that challenge the validity of the conspiracy theory?
What Dr Samuel Rowbotham revealed to the world was the revelation that earth was not round but infact was flat. But the scientific community just dismissed it. However, when the cold war was in full swing, technology had massively advanced. But what they found would have blown science apart. The Antarctic treaty was created to hide it. NASA kept being funded to astronomical sums and the government's kept a secret. It wasn't hid for money, it was hid because of how much the science books would have to have been rewritten.
So you are claiming that science covers up anything that disagrees with their opinion?

About the same time as Rowbotham was dreaming up his crackpot ideas, Darwin published “the origin of Species” which flew in the face of at the time current thinking, and was peer reviewed and accepted, but there were many challenges, however his theories stood the test of time.

At the time there was money enough around for funding experiments, and explorers, most likely this was an incentive to Rowbotham, to get a slice of the action.....

As for the space race, and the Cold War, Do you actually understand what that was about? 2 superpower who were at each other’s throats to the point of nuclear war, and to talk annihilation of the world people, who were using the race as a propaganda tool. USSR was winning it, 1st satellite (oh i forgot sputnik didnt exist did it?) 1st person in space, and until about 1963 or so was winning the moon landings preparation. Do you really think that at that time they got together and were capable of concocting a conspiracy between them that had the aim of USSR losing the race??
USSR at the time would have just defied the agreement to win, as would the USA. Obviously world history is not among your strong points, along with debating, mathematics etc.

Also who sent the first rocket into Space?

Nazi Germany did in 1941 (or 1942) as part of their V rocket programme. The V2 were the first ballistic missiles. Was Germany in collusion with the Allies (USA, USSR, UK, To name a few) in that it was all a hoax? Being in a total war that ruined many economies for decades and killed millions of people is a bit of an extreme was to cover something up dont you think?

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.