# Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!

• 142 Replies
• 25554 Views
?

#### Squat

##### Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« on: July 04, 2009, 11:27:47 PM »
You may have seen from some other posts that I am reading, with a lot of interest, Earth Not a Globe by Stanley Birley Rowbotham and I have come to a part of the work that has confused me. Would you please give me some guidance on the section of perspective that appears on pages 32 and 33 of Earth Not a Globe.

In the text on page 32 the author states "that the smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average for different sights the 60th part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times it?s own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable." He then explains that "the greatest distance at which we can behold an object, like a shilling, of an inch in diameter is 3000 inches or 250 feet." This I can understand, it is a very elegant and simple explanation especially as coins of that size are still readily available to test the theory.

However he then goes on to explain how a ship reaches the vanishing point. I'll quote:

Quote
It may, therefore, be very easily understood that a line passing over the hull of a ship, and continuing parallel to the surface of the water, must converge to the vanishing point at the distance of about 3000 times it's own elevation; in other words, if the surface of the hull be 10 feet above the water it will vanish at 3000 times 10 feet; or nearly 6 statute miles; but if the mast-head be 30 feet above the water, it will be visible for 90,000 feet or over 17 miles so that it could be seen upon the horizon for a distance of eleven miles after the hull had entered the vanishing point!

Now Mr Bishop, please help me. Using the mathemetics of Mr Rowbotham's own example of the shilling being visible up to a distance of 250 feet, let's assume that the width of the disappearing ship is 30 feet or 360 inches, not unreasonable I'm sure you'll agree. Using Mr Rowbotham's own calculations, 3000 x 360 inches = 1,080,000 inches. (I hope you agree!). There are 12 inches in a foot so the hull of the ship should still be visible at a distance of 1080000"/12" = 90,000 feet, which as every schoolboy knows is 30,000 yards which is just over 17 miles.

Can we now take the example of the mast-head mentioned by Mr Rowbotham. It would be a strange ship indeed that had a mast-head of the same width as the hull of the ship so I'll be generous and use a crows-nest in my example (Mr Rowbotham lived in the age of sail so I think that's fair) and let's suppose that the crows-nest is 3 feet across, i.e. 36 inches. Using Mr Rowbotham's own mathematics, 3000 x 36 inches  = 108000 inches (I hope you agree!) and 108000 inches = 9000 feet which is equivalent to 1.7 miles or so. My experiences of perspective are that the hull of the ship would appear to get narrower as it recedes, and so would the mast-head/crows nest in my example. In fact, using Mr Rowbotham's mathematics, the crows nest should disappear from my view nearly 15 miles before the hull of the ship. This is where I am confused. How can Mr Rowbotham state so unequivocally that the mast-head would still be visible some 11 miles after the hull had vanished when using his own methods it shows the mast-head would not be able to be seen considerably earlier regardless of it's height above the level of the sea? Leap forward to today and there is even less chance of seeing a mast-head at distance. Mr Rowbotham may have mistakenly used the word 'mast-head' when he was actually referring to the sails (I find it hard that such an eminent scientist such as Mr Rowbotham would make such an error so maybe it is a typo). A modern cargo ship for example without sails . . .

Can I give you another example? From my house, when the atmospheric conditions are good (usually in the winter) I can see a mountain that is about 70 miles away; it's called Babadağ. Like all mountains it is wider at the bottom than it is at the top (I actually can't see the bottom as other hills obscure it but I can see its basic shape easily). Now according to Mr Rowbotham the top of the mountain which is narrower should disappear from my view before the bottom (I can only see a shilling up to a distance of about 250 feet but I can see something 1 metre across up to a distance of about 1.7 miles; see above). The top of the mountain, being narrower should not be visible at 70 miles surely?  How can this be?

Also, in the Sunrise/Sunset thread (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29819.40) you Mr Bishop, state quite categorically that "A man has a Vanishing Point about 30 miles away." Now I can see the top of the mountain from my house which is elevated and I can also see it from sea level; if you were to visit me in the Winter you would surely be able to do the same! Even Mr Rowbotham states in earth Not a Globe that Great Orm's Head can be seen from Douglas Harbour, a distance of 60 miles!  How am I to reconcile your statement that "A man has a Vanishing Point about 30 miles away" with these observations and with the science in Earth Not a Globe? Is 'about' a technical term that stretches to 70 miles?

It would appear that I am obviously missing something and I really need clarification on these points Mr Bishop. I simply cannot get my head around it. Please help me. I hope I don't come across too many more parts of Earth Not a Globe that I can't grasp!
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 11:39:24 PM by Squat »

?

#### Squat

##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2009, 02:09:27 AM »
To illustrate my confusion a bit better may I use this photograph, posted by dyno in the "Sinking Ship Experiment results" thread http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22317.0

The top of some sails can clearly be seen in the photograph, however the hull of the yacht cannot be seen. Now I appreciate that the photograph could have been taken from another boat and that the sails belong to a sand-yacht or something else, however the top of the sails are quite narrow and as we can see two sails this would indicate that the hull of the vessel would be beam on to our line of sight.

If we can see something as narrow as the top of the sails, why can we not see the hull of the vessel that they are propelling? The hull is almost certain to be wider than the top of the sails (even if viewing it bow or stern on) and Mr Rowbotham tells us that something wider will remain in our vision for longer.

I'm confused!

#### 3 Tesla

• 808
• Flat Earth double agent
##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2009, 10:53:07 AM »
"that the smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average for different sights the 60th part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times it?s own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable."

Quote
It may, therefore, be very easily understood that a line passing over the hull of a ship, and continuing parallel to the surface of the water, must converge to the vanishing point at the distance of about 3000 times it's own elevation;

What is the limit of resolution then?

3000 x an object's size, or

3000 x its height above the water?

Surely it can't be both?

Is Rowbotham being devious here?
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

?

#### Squat

##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2009, 11:09:44 AM »
"that the smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average for different sights the 60th part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times it?s own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable."

Quote
It may, therefore, be very easily understood that a line passing over the hull of a ship, and continuing parallel to the surface of the water, must converge to the vanishing point at the distance of about 3000 times it's own elevation;

What is the limit of resolution then?

3000 x an object's size, or

3000 x its height above the water?

Surely it can't be both?

Is Rowbotham being devious here?

Mr Rowbotham uses the word 'diameter' and I assume he's used it for a purpose. However, if we use a shilling the diameter would equate to the width of another object. I doubt he was intending that the edge could be seen at 250 feet.

?

#### zork

• 3319
##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2009, 01:12:13 PM »
I hate to say it but I guess here comes to play the "bendy light" again. Light bends upward and so you can't see bottom of the hull.
But there is another thing that bothers me in this Vanishing point stuff. If you got the boat and the plane in same size heading in same direction then does the plane disappear from your view also in same time as boat? Or does that vanishing point and perspective stuff holds ground only then when something moves on ground or water. Or does light bend less when something moves parallel with ground at some 100 meter height because then it disappears later than thing with same size but which moves on the ground...
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

#### 3 Tesla

• 808
• Flat Earth double agent
##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2009, 01:29:57 PM »
But there is another thing that bothers me in this Vanishing point stuff. If you got the boat and the plane in same size heading in same direction then does the plane disappear from your view also in same time as boat?

I like that.

What if two identical aircraft fly away from you over the sea on the same bearing - one 50 m above the sea and one 500 m above.

Will they both appear to disappear at the same time because they are the same size?

Or will the one closer to the sea disappear first?
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

?

#### Squat

##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2009, 02:12:43 PM »
I'm sorry guys but I'm not questioning 'bendy' light here.  Mr Rowbotham doesn't mention bendy light in Earth Not a Globe, at least I haven't found any reference to it yet.

What I'm suggesting here is that Mr Rowbotham is apparently trying to cobble together perspective and myopia. Now we can all observe perspective in our everyday lives both in daylight and during darkness. At night, one of the visual clues we have to help us judge the speed of an oncoming car for example is the fact that the headlights will be getting wider apart as it gets nearer. Any object, moving away from us will get smaller, that is it will reduce in height and in width, I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing is that an object as narrow as a mast will still be visible even though the hull isn't due to perspective.

Put the same boat on a lorry and have it driven away from you on a long straight stretch of road that has a slight incline. It will get to a point where the mast is almost invisible but the hull and the lorry carrying it can still be seen. Of course, have a large white sail in view . . .

Mr Rowbotham is using perspective wrongly (and knowingly in my opinion) to try and suggest that there is no curvature of the earth. I suggest knowingly because he states quite categorically that smaller objects "will only just be distinguishable" at relatively close distances from the observer.

There weren't many aircraft around in Mr Rowbotham's day of course, although he does mention balloon flight. However, aircraft do not fit with Mr Rowbotham's perspective argument because they disappear from our sight without disappearing over the horizon. They do fit with his assertion that at some point they will become indistinguishable. A telescope would bring a plane back into view, even though it may be considerably further away from the observer than a ship that's hull cannot be seen is (but it's mast can).
« Last Edit: July 05, 2009, 02:30:57 PM by Squat »

?

#### trident2000

• 30
##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2009, 02:47:32 PM »
I hate to say it but I guess here comes to play the "bendy light" again.

Light does not bend you fool. What is observed is a perspective effect.

?

#### zork

• 3319
##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2009, 02:54:51 PM »
In the text on page 32 the author states "that the smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average for different sights the 60th part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times it?s own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable." He then explains that "the greatest distance at which we can behold an object, like a shilling, of an inch in diameter is 3000 inches or 250 feet." This I can understand, it is a very elegant and simple explanation especially as coins of that size are still readily available to test the theory.
However he then goes on to explain how a ship reaches the vanishing point. I'll quote:
Quote
It may, therefore, be very easily understood that a line passing over the hull of a ship, and continuing parallel to the surface of the water, must converge to the vanishing point at the distance of about 3000 times it's own elevation; in other words, if the surface of the hull be 10 feet above the water it will vanish at 3000 times 10 feet; or nearly 6 statute miles; but if the mast-head be 30 feet above the water, it will be visible for 90,000 feet or over 17 miles so that it could be seen upon the horizon for a distance of eleven miles after the hull had entered the vanishing point!
You may want to read other edition - http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm#fn_94
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

#### ogeitla

• 127
##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2009, 06:18:30 PM »

Is that water real? Looks like cheap cgi.

?

#### Squat

##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2009, 09:31:55 PM »

You may want to read other edition - http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm#fn_94

I may do but at the moment I'm reading, as so many people suggest, Earth Not a Globe.

?

#### Squat

##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #11 on: July 05, 2009, 09:41:38 PM »
I hate to say it but I guess here comes to play the "bendy light" again.

Light does not bend you fool. What is observed is a perspective effect.

An aircraft disappearing as it moves away from you in the sky is a perspective effect but a ship going over the horizon is not. Stanley Birley Rowbotham's own mathematical model clearly shows that the narrower mast head should disappear from your sight before the larger hull of the ship.

Unless you can clearly show me why a narrower mast-head would be visible well after the hull of the ship becomes invisible, please go and spam another thread. I realise, having made an addition to an earlier post, that Stanley Birley Rowbotham, the author of earth Not a Globe did not have the everyday ability to compare receding aircraft as well as ships. If you live near the sea like I do, you can observe the two different effects yourself.

?

#### zork

• 3319
##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #12 on: July 05, 2009, 11:08:09 PM »
I may do but at the moment I'm reading, as so many people suggest, Earth Not a Globe.
My link was also to Earth Not a Globe, but second and more complete edition.
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

#### 3 Tesla

• 808
• Flat Earth double agent
##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2009, 02:08:12 AM »
Good to see this thread in FED&D - well done mods (thanks)!
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

?

#### Squat

##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2009, 02:46:32 AM »
I may do but at the moment I'm reading, as so many people suggest, Earth Not a Globe.
My link was also to Earth Not a Globe, but second and more complete edition.

Thanks.  Is this second and more complete edition testament to the fact that there were holes in Mr Rowbotham's theories and so he had to come up with other ideas?

A3Tesla - I opened the thread in Questions and Clarification because I am basically asking for clarification. Perspective has been debated many times it seems and this is onlypartly about perspective. I'm questioning Mr Rowbothams conclusions which do not make sense.

However, I'm not that fussed where it is, I would like to see some clear, definitive answers though - ones that I and other less scientific people can understand.

?

#### Squat

##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2009, 04:41:37 AM »
I may do but at the moment I'm reading, as so many people suggest, Earth Not a Globe.
My link was also to Earth Not a Globe, but second and more complete edition.

My apologies, I didn't mean to be short with you. I have had a look at the 'new, improved version and Mr Rowbotham still makes the same assertions. He even goes so far as to say:

Quote
It will therefore be readily seen that the hull of a receding ship obeying the same law must disappear on a plane surface, before the mast head. If it is put in the form of a syllogism the conclusion is inevitable:--

Any distinctive part of a receding object becomes invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same object.

However he still maintains on page 203 that a smaller distinctive pat of a whole will disappear from sight before the whole object does. He seems to be mixing up 'disappear from sight' (the ability of the eye to see the object because of it's size) with disappear from view (because something is obstructing the view).  I still fail to see how a mast head of sat 12 inches width would be visible when the hull of a ship maybe 30 times as wide cannot be seen if something is not obstructing the view. This is not perspective, this is stupidity.

#### 3 Tesla

• 808
• Flat Earth double agent
##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2009, 06:05:42 AM »
This is not perspective, this is stupidity.

Given that Rowbotham chooses his words carefully so as to deceive in the subtlest way possible, I do not think that we can dismiss him as simply stupid.

Edit: note how he subtly changes emphasis from an object's size ("diameter") - which is key - to its height above the water - which is irrelevant.

« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 06:09:23 AM by 3 Tesla »
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

?

#### Squat

##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2009, 06:18:19 AM »
I want to do a thought experiment and need a willing partner or two. Any takers?

?

#### zork

• 3319
##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2009, 06:28:16 AM »
It is kind of stupid. He says that object must be removed from the eye 3000 times its own diameter and then you can't see it but in same time he says that it holds true only in ground level. As I understand the part which touches the ground or water is distinctive part of object and "Any distinctive part of a receding body will be-come invisible before the whole or any larger part of the same body". But why, that I don't get.
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

#### James

• Flat Earther
• The Elder Ones
• 5613
##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2009, 06:28:39 AM »
I hate to say it but I guess here comes to play the "bendy light" again. Light bends upward and so you can't see bottom of the hull.

"Bendy Light" is the worst kind of pseudoscience. It's not a reasonable explanation for this phenomenon.

Using common sense one can clearly see that the bottom of the hull is invisible simply because there are waves in the way. The significant distance from the boat means that it is highly likely at any given time that waves will obscure the very bottom.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

#### Squat

##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #20 on: July 06, 2009, 07:05:30 AM »

"Bendy Light" is the worst kind of pseudoscience. It's not a reasonable explanation for this phenomenon.

Using common sense one can clearly see that the bottom of the hull is invisible simply because there are waves in the way. The significant distance from the boat means that it is highly likely at any given time that waves will obscure the very bottom.

I have already said that I am not debating 'bendy' light. Mr Rowbotham doesn't mention bendy light in the text of Earth Not a Globe.

If you are referring to the picture I posted earlier in the thread, I would suggest that the bottom of the hull of the tanker ship is invisible because it is under the water. The ship would appear to be unballasted and a large portion of it's hull is visible. If you are referring to the hull of the sailing boat I would suggest that any waves large enough to obscure the yacht hull and most of the sails would leave wet areas on the exposed hull of the tanker. These are not evident.

#### James

• Flat Earther
• The Elder Ones
• 5613
##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #21 on: July 06, 2009, 07:09:34 AM »
I was referring to the tanker, and I know that I am correct in that instance (yes, of course some of the boat is literally underwater also).

To clarify, I do also mean waves at any point between ship and observer, not necessarily right up next to the hull.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

?

#### Squat

##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #22 on: July 06, 2009, 07:25:03 AM »
I was referring to the tanker, and I know that I am correct in that instance (yes, of course some of the boat is literally underwater also).

To clarify, I do also mean waves at any point between ship and observer, not necessarily right up next to the hull.

I was reluctant to post the picture because of the inevitable claims that they can be faked, that we don't have enough verifiable information about the height of the camera etc, etc etc. Ogeitla has already made a comment of that nature and I am sincerely hoping that this thread will not go that way.

Waves of course are a disturbance on the surface of the water and there does not appear to be enough disturbance, using the tanker as a guide, to allow for the disappearance of the sailing boat.

Also, the narrow top of the mast of the sailing boat is visible. Mr Rowbotham clearly shows us that if something that narrow is visible to the eye, something as large as the hull should also be. f we were to draw back from the tanker it would become visibly narrower and less tall. That is perspective. It does not explain how the top of the mast of the yacht can be seen but the hull can't. Can you offer an explanation that I can understand?

#### 3 Tesla

• 808
• Flat Earth double agent
##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #23 on: July 06, 2009, 08:15:19 AM »
Using common sense one can clearly see that the bottom of the hull is invisible simply because there are waves in the way. The significant distance from the boat means that it is highly likely at any given time that waves will obscure the very bottom.

Yeah - waves are an unwanted, confounding issue.

Would a frozen lake be better?

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30122.0
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

#### Lord Wilmore

• Vice President
• Flat Earth Believer
• 12107
##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #24 on: July 06, 2009, 11:39:43 AM »
I hate to say it but I guess here comes to play the "bendy light" again. Light bends upward and so you can't see bottom of the hull.

"Bendy Light" is the worst kind of pseudoscience. It's not a reasonable explanation for this phenomenon.

Using common sense one can clearly see that the bottom of the hull is invisible simply because there are waves in the way. The significant distance from the boat means that it is highly likely at any given time that waves will obscure the very bottom.

James, I have to say, I think the EA has merit. Whilst the nickname "bendy light" is an irritating mockery, the idea itself is sound. I think Euclid put it quite well in the thread linked above by 3 Tesla:

Well this kind of experiment has already been repeatedly performed by zetetic scientists over the last 150 years and has been a mainstay of Flat Earth evidence. The fact that you're proposing it shows how ill-read you are on our movement's history and many of our key claims.

As an aside: it is my view that nobody needs to take this absurd "bendly light" notion seriously, it has been invented by devil's advocates and is completely surplus to requirement, it does not any better explain observable evidence than the existing alternatives as far as I can see.

EA theory is a necessary successor to Rowbotham's theories.  Through a simple geometric calculation and knowledge of refractive properties of air, Rowbotham's perspective model is inadequate to explain sunsets.  Something to bend light beyond what refraction can do is necessary.  This is the justification for EA theory.  That it also explains the sinking ship effect and the spotlight effect is secondary. It also seems more likely to succumb to mathematical formalism, rather than Rowbotham's rather contrived perspective laws.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

#### Squat

##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2009, 12:41:05 PM »

James, I have to say, I think the EA has merit. Whilst the nickname "bendy light" is an irritating mockery, the idea itself is sound. I think Euclid put it quite well in the thread linked above by 3 Tesla:

I would like to make a list of phenomena which "EA theory" with its bendy light is intended to produce. I would be grateful if other members could add to this list. This is what I have so far. EA must produce light which bends in such a way as to produce the following effects:

1) Make the earth look round when you go to space. That means that it must make distances appear different, so that an Eucledian plane looks like a sphere. Longitude lines which are radian on the flat disk, must be curved to be made to look like spherical longitude lines. Furthermore, after the equator, the lines must begin to converge, so that the entire ice wall looks like a point.

2) It must make daylight average out to 12 hours, everywhere on earth.

3) It must make the length of day vary between seasons, in a way that exactly matches what would be expected in a spherical earth with an inclination of 23 degrees.

4) It must cause the observed angle of incident light be drastically altered, so that near the poles the light seems to be incident at almost zero degrees. Furthermore, the light incidence angle must vary linearly with "latitude", even though the concept of latitude does not exist on a flat surface.

5) It must bend around, doing a U-turn, in order to iluminate the moon. It must do additional complex turns in order to cause the observed phases of the moon.

6) It must bend star light in order to create the illusion of a rotating celestial sphere. This includes creating the illusion that the stars rotate both around the north pole, as well as the non-existent south pole which is in fact a large circle surrounding the entire earth (the ice wall). It must create the opitcal illusion that this huge, all-surrounding circle is actually a point, around which stars rotate.

7) It makes the sun look as if it is sinking on the horizon, rather than getting smaller, or looking like an oval, as a normal spotlight would.

Did I miss anything? Personally I think this will be a tall order for EA. I cannot imagine any form of light bending that would conspire in such a weirdly complex way to do nothing more than create the illusion of a round, rotating earth. Especially if this proposal is to be consistent with General Relativity and physics as we know it.

I'm sure I've missed a few things that the EA postulate is supposed to solve. Can anyone suggest a few more? I'm sure that the FE researchers will be happy to see a full list of phenomena that their model is required to solve.

#### Lord Wilmore

• Vice President
• Flat Earth Believer
• 12107
##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2009, 01:06:56 PM »
The first point is absurd, in that it misses one of the central points of FET, and some of the others are suspect as well. However, I have to be fair to the OP who I've just realised has specifically asked us not to drag this discussion on to the subject of the EA, so you'll excuse me if I don't get into it here.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

#### Squat

##### Thought Experiment Part 1
« Reply #27 on: July 07, 2009, 12:55:24 AM »
Mr Rowbotham has continually used the example of objects going away from an observer to 'prove' his theories of perspective showing the earth is flat. Within the same argument he uses the fact that an object that recedes will, at a measurable point disappear from the sight of an observer. This is indeed observable by any sighted person. I would like to use Mr Rowbotham?s mathematics to investigate this phenomenon in a slightly different way and you, dear reader can make your own conclusions.  I?m going to use this thought experiment.

An observer is stood on a hill 500 feet above sea level. He is holding the end of a tape measure that is 20 miles in length. The zero end of the tape measure is attached to a floating platform that is painted the same colour as the background sky, making it to all intents and purposes invisible to the observer. Located on the floating board are 3 square plates, painted black. One plate is 240 inches square, the second is 120 inches square and the third 12 inches square. The plates are arranged in such a way that their top edges are in line.  See Fig 1

Fig 1

The observer pulls on the tape measure drawing the floating platform and plates towards him and records the distance at which each individual black plate becomes visible.  Mr Rowbotham tells us that these measurements will be

Plate 1:  3000 x 360 inches = 1080000 inches. There are 63360 inches in a mile so 1080000?/63360? = 17.04 miles.

Plate 2:  3000 x 120 inches = 360000 inches. 360000?/63360? = 5,68 miles.

Plate 3:  3000 x 12 inches = 36000 inches.  36000?/63360? = 0.56 miles.

Using Mr Rowbotham's devised formula we can see that the largest plate will become visible to the observer at approximately 17 miles distance, the second largest plate will become visible at approximately 5.5 miles distance and the smallest plate will become visible at approximately half a mile distance.

Please let me know if you do not understand anything that I have explained so far in this thought experiment before I continue.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2009, 02:51:37 AM by Squat »

?

#### Squat

##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #28 on: July 07, 2009, 05:24:42 AM »
For the second part of this thought experiment I'd like to bring the observer and floating platform down to sea level. Now the floating platform is 20 miles away but instead of floating in mid air it is floating on the surface of the sea. The observer now pulls on the tape measure and measures the distance of when the largest black square comes into view and he can see all of it. Regrettably I need to have no swell or waves for this part of the thought experiment but hey ho, it's not an actual experiment is it.

Quite clearly, on a flat surface there is no reason why the largest square could not be seen from a distance of 17 miles. The large square should appear just as it does at an elevation of 500 feet. There is, with the observer looking across on a flat level surface absolutely no reason to suggest it wouldn't.  Mr Rowbotham's own mathematics and assertions make this clear. The range of the human eye is 1degree to 110 degrees so at a distance of 17 miles the observer has a very wide field of view. Of course he cannot see beneath the waves but on a flat earth he can  see straight across the top of them.

So why does a receding ship seem to sink below the horizon as Mr Rowbotham is happy to accept as a principle? If there is no reason why a large square plate of a similar size to the hull of a ship should come into view at 17 miles if pulled towards the observer why should a receding ship appear to have already sunk? The answer may be in the way the large square plate appears to the observer. Does it, when pulled towards the observer suddenly become apparent as a small black object or does it appear to rise out of the sea?

I don't know the answer to this but Mr Rowbotham tells us that if it was a ship going away it would not be visible anyway. So what is obstructing the view to Mr Rowbotham's ship but not my black square plate? It is quite obviously not an effect of perspective.

Now Mr Rowbotham does not give any measurements for the width of a mast head but there is no reason to suggest that 12 inches width is unreasonable. If the observer continues to pull on the tape measure the 12 inch square plate should come into view at around half a mile or so. How could a mast head of the same size be visible at 17 miles, which is Mr Rowbotham's claim in Earth Not a Globe? Even if it is 30 feet above the surface of the water it could not be visible at 17 miles. It would need to be at least 360 feet across to be seen at that distance. At 30 feet above the water it would come into sight at around a half mile or so.

I'm sure you can see my confusion. As this is one of the first arguments that Mr Rowbotham has for his assertion that the Earth is not a globe I really need it clarifying. Why is no-one taking the opportunity to help me understand this?

And why do my punctuation marks keep appearing as question marks? I'm getting tired of having to keep changing them!
« Last Edit: July 07, 2009, 05:30:22 AM by Squat »

#### 3 Tesla

• 808
• Flat Earth double agent
##### Re: Mr Bishop! Anyone! Help Please!
« Reply #29 on: July 07, 2009, 05:47:46 AM »
Using common sense one can clearly see that the bottom of the hull is invisible simply because there are waves in the way. The significant distance from the boat means that it is highly likely at any given time that waves will obscure the very bottom.

The (reasonable) assertion here is that:

As a ship recedes from view it gets smaller and so it becomes progressively more obscured by waves in the foreground.

Here is a diagram to help us think about that:

And we can see that it all depends upon wether the waves inbetween the observer and the ship are taller than the observer or not.

(Is the observer tall enough to see over the waves?)

And that is something which might remain unknown for any given photo on any given day ...

Although if one were to stand on a cliff top - clearly making one taller than any waves - and you still saw a ship "disappearing over The Horizon" then you would be fairly sure that intervening waves would not be a confounding issue.
"E pur si muove" ("And yet it moves"); Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)