Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2017, 07:30:45 PM »

color mixing has nothing to do with how astronomers deduce the chemical composition of the sun.  i may not have explained myself very well.

your guy says, "...the colours seen through [a prism], red, orange, yellow, blue, are said to be the result of the various metals contained in the sun in a state of fusion..."  this is not at all correct.  the colors seen through a prism are said to be the result of the fact that the sun is hot.  that's it.

any hot, dense object will emit light across the entire visible spectrum (there are caveats, but none of import here).  it has nothing to do with fusion, only the temperature of the object.  when you use a prism to break the light up into a rainbow, that rainbow is called a "continuous" spectrum.

if there is a cooler gas between the light from the hot object, and the prism, then the rainbow you get will be missing some specific wavelengths of light.  if there is a cloud of cool hydrogen between a light bulb and a prism, then the gas may absorb all the photons with a wavelength of 410nm, for example.  the rainbow produced by the prism will be missing that one wavelength of light.  like this:



the point here is the location of these absorption features is only a function of the composition of the cool gas through which the light passes.  astronomers do not use spectral analysis to explain fusion in the core; they use it to deduce the chemical composition of the sun.  winship's spectra do not indicate that light bulbs involve fusion; they indicate that light bulb filaments are hot.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 02:03:31 AM by Tom Bishop »
shitposting leftists are never alone

Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2017, 03:38:33 PM »
why was my post edited? nbd, just curious. was the image i linked doing something funky?
shitposting leftists are never alone

Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2017, 07:49:11 AM »
It's quite possible to draw wrong conclusions from an observation.   This is why the conclusion needs to be tested via experimentation, prediction, and further testing.  The conclusion one draws is a hypothesis.  To say that zetetic conclusion is more pure is simply silly.   That conclusion is a hypothesis until fully tested, evaluated, and peer reviewed.  In the end the only scientific things that ultimately have value are ones that can be used to create predictions for use.   Ultimately people use science that has predictive capabilities to build, create, and invent solutions to problems.  A hypothesis that never undergoes the scrutiny of predictive testing is useless to mankind.  It only fills discussion boards with rubbish.     
« Last Edit: January 21, 2017, 07:50:52 AM by Flatout »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2259
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #23 on: April 03, 2017, 05:30:50 PM »
A few quotes I may include in this chapter:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/nikolatesl401270.html

Quote
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

--Nikola Tesla

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/591410

Quote
Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king.. its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.

--Nikola Tesla

« Last Edit: April 04, 2017, 01:05:58 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2259
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #24 on: April 04, 2017, 01:16:46 AM »
why was my post edited? nbd, just curious. was the image i linked doing something funky?

Your post was accidentally edited. The quote and modify buttons are right next to each other. I wasn't able to restore your image.

You are arguing that we should assume that the color (or lack of color) in a star's spectrum has anything to do with what it is made out of, without experimental evidence to back that up. Who sampled these stars? That is pretty flimsy, and the collection of data is really little more than an observation rather than an experiment.

We can't even recreate stellar fusion in a lab. It's a hypothesis. How are we supposed to know what colors this hypothetical process produces?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2259
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #25 on: April 04, 2017, 01:24:06 AM »
Some history:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12967.msg191240;topicseen#msg191240

Quote
Even in Rowbotham's day, the idea of a Round Earth was as dogmatic as stone. A whirl of constantly changing fact and conjecture which were systematically brainwashed into children from the age of three. 

Here is a direct quote from Dr. Rowbotham:

"It is ... candidly admitted that there is no direct and positive evidence that the world is round, that it is only 'imagined' or assumed to be do in order to afford an explanation of 'scores of phenomena'. This is precisely the language of Copernicus, of Newton, and of all astronomers who have labored to prove the rotundity of the earth, It is pitiful to the extreme that after so many ages of almost unopposed indulgence, philosophers instead of beginning to seek, before anything else, the true constitution of the physical world, are still to be seen laboring only to frame hypotheses, and to reconcile phenomena with imaginary and ever-shifting foundations. Their labor is simply to repeat and perpetuate the self-deception of their predecessors."

Rowbotham, a notable astronomer and medical doctor, believed that Newtonian astronomy was a 'juggle and a jumble of fancies and falsehoods; an elaborate theoretical trick ' enough to make the unprejudiced observer revolt with horror from the terrible conjunction which has been practiced upon him'.

In the face of this elitist conspiracy, the only solution, Rowbotham declared, was to replace conventional science with a true and practical free-thought method. He promoted as a back-to-basics approach to knowledge, in which experiments were tried and facts were collected not only to corroborate any existing theory but to start from scratch to uncover the great universal and primary truths.

A man well ahead of his time, Rowbotham's life work and inquiry was able to predict the movements of the continents one hundred years before tectonic plate shifting was discovered. He was able to accurately and mathematically predict lunar eclipses, the tides, and a number of phenomena in his model of the Earth. He also published a book called Zetetic Astronomy which accurately explained the movements of the stars and completely rewrote Newtonian mechanics from the ground up.

Besides his honest investigation to the true shape of the earth, Rowbotham patented safety mechanisms for trains, vulcanized rubber, nutritional elixirs, and a number of other notable inventions. As a true Zetetic, Rowbotham did not simply make theories while sitting in a closet like Newton and Copernicus. Dr. Rowbotham used his wealth to sail the world in his life-long study of the earth and the cosmos.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2017, 01:29:04 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2259
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #26 on: April 04, 2017, 01:27:10 AM »
Another attack on Astronomy:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search2

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
There is more to astronomy then you think apparently. I already talked about comets and meteors and how they cant work in a fe. You claim the Au is wrong yet way before they au they new the order of the planets and they could tell some size.

Astronomical figures have varied wildly throughout the years. The AU has wildly jumped throughout the ages, from 3, 20, 50, to 200 million miles. Astronomical theories are things of uncertain mode. They depend, in a great measure, upon the humor and caprice of an age, which is sometimes in love with one predisposition one day, and at other times with another.

The system of Copernicus was admitted to be merely an assumption, temporary and incapable of demonstration. The following is a direct quote from Copernicus himself:

    "It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."

Quote
Well, you started right off the bat by saying "Look out your window", a statement that has been overturned time and time again.

By looking outside of our windows and studying the natural world around us we can do away with dogma and begin to seek afresh, for our own selves, the true nature of the earth and universe. We are Zetetics here at the Flat Earth Society. Skeptics who seek to learn the truth.

The term Zetetic is actually derived from the Greek verb Zeteo; which means to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes.

Zetetics are in direct opposition to "theoretics." Theoretics are people who are speculative, imaginary, not tangible; scheming - but not proving.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13592.msg209776;topicseen#msg209776

Quote
Quote
Logic will not solve physics and chemistry.

Physics and Chemistry are constantly and forever changing, updating and reverting. Even the hard sciences are a loose collection of "maybe" and "what if."

Astronomy in particular is completely observational. Theories are contrived and molded into pre-existing ones. The lights in the sky are given meaning and turned into worlds upon which imaginative dreamers of the day can escape into. Every couple of months we will hear about astronomers discovering a new object in the night sky that "might" harbor life. Or maybe we will hear about a newly discovered object that "might" collide with us. Forever reaching, forever imagining, these astronomers are nothing more sophisticated fortune tellers.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2017, 01:37:08 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2259
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #27 on: April 04, 2017, 01:34:11 AM »
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13592.msg209768;topicseen#msg209768

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
His mind was not open about his possible findings, even if he was truthful he may have introduced a bias into the results. The point I was making was that Rowbotham's theories are a poor attempt to corroborate scientifically what he interpreted as the word of the Bible. He is untrustworthy because he has a vested interest in the outcome (the truth of his Holy Book).

Dr. Rowbotham starts his work as an honest inquiry into the shape of the Earth, starting afresh without interpreting the results of experiments to any one particular theory or predisposition. Tests are tried and facts are collected without ascribing to any one existing theory. The entirety of Rowbotham's work is to let the results of an experiment speak for itself.

A Zetetic is a free-thinker; one whose views are based on logic and reason independent of authority.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2259
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #28 on: April 04, 2017, 01:38:59 AM »
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=12921.msg212605;topicseen#msg212605

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
Perhaps there are some - point them out to me and give me suffiecient evidence that they exist, then show me how a flat earth can explain them. That is, explain them in a way that does not rely on quotes from Earth: Not a globe. I don't believe that Rowbotham has ANY scientific credibility - stop using his flawed experiments as evidence and start using real evidence.

Dr. Rowbotham has plenty of credibility. In his day Rowbotham toured Europe giving lectures at many prominent universities. At the conclusion of every lecture he would debate with the brightest minds of the day over the shape of the earth. Dr. Rowbotham was successful in swaying many members of the audience over to his position. A widespread Zetetic movement began, demanding that the government look into the sphere issue.

The following are a few quotes of the press after Rowbotham's lectures. I believe these reviews speak for themselves:

"ZETETIC ASTRONOMY.--No doubt many of our readers have been mystified and surprised within the last week by the announcement that, in three lectures, at the Northampton Mechanics' Institute, a gentleman who calls himself 'Parallax,' would undertake to prove the earth not a globe, &c., &c. . . . We were highly gratified by the manner in which this important subject was handled by 'Parallax'--a pseudonym which the lecturer informed his audience he had adopted in order to avert the effect of an insinuation that his startling announcement is but the morbid desire of an individual to be known as the propounder of a philosophy boldly at variance with that of the great astronomers of the past and present. His subject was handled in a plain and easy manner, his language and allusions proving him a man of education and thought, and certainly not a pedant. The experiments mentioned, divested of technicality in their recital, and understandable by all, were of such a nature as to cause a start of surprise at their simplicity and truthfulness. . . . It is not for us to pronounce a verdict upon so important an issue; 'Parallax' may be in error, but as far as his reasonings from fact and experiment go, there is much to set scientific men thinking. His arguments consist of facts, and such as are patent to all degrees of mental capacity. . . . In the discussions which followed, 'Parallax' certainly lost no ground, either in answer to questions or to some broad assertions quoted from learned authorities."--South Mid-land Free Press, August 14th, 1858.

-

"'PARALLAX' AT THE LECTURE HALL.--This talented lecturer is again in Greenwich, rivetting the attention of his audiences, and compelling them to submit to the facts which he brings before them--we say submit, for this they do; it seems impossible for any one to battle with him, so powerful are the weapons he uses. Mathematicians argue with him at the conclusion of his lectures, but it would seem as though they held their weapons by the blade and fought with the handle, for sure enough they put the handle straight into the lecturer's hand, to their own utter discomfiture and chagrin. It remains yet to be seen whether any of our Royal Astronomers will have courage enough to meet him in discussion, or whether they will quietly allow him to give the death-blow to the Newtonian theory, and make converts of our townspeople to his own Zetetic philosophy. If 'Parallax' be wrong, for Heaven's sake let some of our Greenwich stars twinkle at the Hall, and dazzle, confound, or eclipse altogether this wandering one, who is turning men, all over England, out of the Newtonian path. 'Parallax' is making his hearers disgusted with the Newtonian and every other theory, and turning them to a consideration of facts and first principles, from which they know not how to escape. Again we beg and trust that some of our Royal Observatory gentlemen will try to save us, and prevent anything like a Zetetic epidemic prevailing amongst us."--Greenwich Free Press, May 19th, 1862.

-

"EARTH NOT A GLOBE.--On Monday last a gentleman adopting the nom de plume of 'Parallax'--a very appropriate name, seeing that the basis of his arguments is the relation to each other of parallel lines--commenced a series of lectures at the Public Hall on 'Zetetic Astronomy,' a system directly opposed to the great Newtonian theory. That he is a clever man, and has studied the matter deeply, and that he is master of his subject, and thoroughly convinced of its truth, is apparent; and his arguments are certainly very plausible. The lecture drew large audiences, and among those present we noticed (here a list is given of many of the leading men and families of the district). 'Parallax' commenced by explaining the word 'Zetetic,' which had been adopted, because they did not sit in their closets and endeavour to frame a theory to explain certain phenomena, but went abroad into the world, and thoroughly investigated the subject. Lengthy and animated discussions ensued; votes of thanks were passed to the lecturer and the chairman-- Nixon Porter, who declared that he was much struck with the simplicity and candour with which the lecturer had stated his views; and, after a promise by 'Parallax' that he would pay another visit to Warrington, the audience dispersed."--Warrington Advertiser, March 24th, 1866.

You may find additional reviews here.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2017, 01:41:48 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #29 on: April 04, 2017, 05:11:33 PM »
why was my post edited? nbd, just curious. was the image i linked doing something funky?
Your post was accidentally edited. The quote and modify buttons are right next to each other. I wasn't able to restore your image.

no worries at all.  didn't figure you were being nefarious, just thought maybe the image i linked was enormous or something like that.
shitposting leftists are never alone

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1346
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #30 on: April 05, 2017, 01:59:22 AM »
I made that mistake once.  I don't think it was that big a deal but I felt terrible about it.
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #31 on: April 06, 2017, 03:35:11 PM »
Quote
Since all experiments depend on an observer to report the results, your criticism of Astronomy applies to any and all experiments by any kind of researcher employing any kind of method. Practitioners of any method are ultimately observing and interpreting their experiences. It is all subjective, so using that as a criticism is not valid.

Since all experiments depend on an observer to report the results, your criticism of Astronomy applies to any and all experiments by any kind of researcher employing any kind of method. Practitioners of any method are ultimately observing and interpreting their experiences. It is all subjective, so using that as a criticism is not valid.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2017, 04:33:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2259
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #32 on: April 06, 2017, 04:33:35 PM »
Quote
Since all experiments depend on an observer to report the results, your criticism of Astronomy applies to any and all experiments by any kind of researcher employing any kind of method. Practitioners of any method are ultimately observing and interpreting their experiences. It is all subjective, so using that as a criticism is not valid.

Since all experiments depend on an observer to report the results, your criticism of Astronomy applies to any and all experiments by any kind of researcher employing any kind of method. Practitioners of any method are ultimately observing and interpreting their experiences. It is all subjective, so using that as a criticism is not valid.

The Chemist can put his subject matter under controlled experimental conditions to come to a truth. The Astronomer cannot. This is why Chemistry is a science and why Astronomy is not.

Your argument about both "observing the results" is not a good one. The Chemist can clearly do a lot more testing on his subject matter than the Astronomer can. There is a huge difference. The Astronomer is not doing testing or experimentation at all before coming up with theories.

Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #33 on: April 07, 2017, 04:25:11 PM »
Doesn't your criticism then apply also to all flat earth theories? The earth, whether flat or round, is definitely not a controlled experiment. Last time I checked, the earth does not fit into a test tube...or even inside a laboratory. Aren't you in the same boat as the astronomers when you offer flat earth explanations? How would the Zetetic Method get around this fatal flaw in all flat earth models?

For example, let's say...oh I don't know....that you conduct an experiment where you view a distant beach through a telescope? Here are the variables that cannot be controlled or at least that should be factored into and well documented in any results reported:

1-Air temperature all along the line of sight (which affects the refractive properties of air)
2-Humidity
3-Angle of the sun (unless you repeat the experiment once a year at the exact same time)
4-Human error or miscalculation.....like maybe looking at the wrong beach?
5-Pollution levels
6-Wave size and direction, along with any spray being thrown up by the wind
7-Amount of cloud cover or fog
8-Acuity of eyesight of the observer
9-Condition of the telescope
10-Exact location and height and compass direction of the telescope
11- Height of the tides at both locations, and more variable effects like unusually high or low tides caused by wind and storm surges
12- Wind or other factors affecting the steadiness of the telescope
13- Acuity of any photographic equipment used to document the results (if someone actually thought to document their results with a camera)
14- Editing or photoshopping done to any of the resulting photographic or video-graphic evidence collected
15-Fudging of the data collected or reported to support a preconception of what should have been observed

Maybe you could start adjusting for some of these variables by carefully documenting your experiments (including with photographs) and convincing others to repeat it and carefully check your experimental method and results....or you could just post about such an experiment on a forum somewhere and claim it is proof of something without actually having even controlled or documented what you could, or asked anyone else to repeat it and report back to you first.

Would you consider that experiment an example of the Zetetic method in action without any effort at controls, documentation, or independent repetition of the experiment?

And what about all of the factors that are mentioned above that cannot be controlled? Doesn't that make this experiment subject to the inherent flaws you claim for Astronomy?
« Last Edit: April 07, 2017, 10:03:15 PM by Nirmala »

Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #34 on: April 08, 2017, 02:40:40 AM »
And how are the observations on the beach an experiment anyways under your definition: "To experiment is to isolate, prepare, and manipulate things in hopes of producing epistemically useful evidence. It is entirely different than a mere observation."

All you did was look through a telescope. What did you isolate, prepare or manipulate on the beach during your observations?

*

Online SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5773
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #35 on: April 09, 2017, 07:18:05 PM »
1-Air temperature all along the line of sight (which affects the refractive properties of air)
2-Humidity
[snip snip snip]
Please refrain from making the exact same argument in two different places. It achieves nothing other than making conversation much more difficult.

Since the conversation already progressed in your copy-paste of this post, there's no sense in continuing it here.
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #36 on: May 19, 2017, 02:41:45 AM »
You're talking nonsense. With three primary colors red, blue, and yellow, mixing red and blue makes magenta. You can call magenta a combination of red and blue or you can call it an absence of yellow.

That's not quite the whole story.

If you are mixing paint, ink, dye, stains...that kind of thing - then you're undertaking "subtractive" mixing - and each new color subtracts from the color of the medium beneath (eg white paper).   In subtractive mixing, the primaries are cyan, magenta and yellow (the colors that you find in your inkjet printer) - although these can be approximated as (respectively) blue, red and yellow.

If you are mixing light (as for example, the computer or phone screen that you're looking at right now does) - then you're undertaking "additive" mixing where each new color adds to the color that's already there.   In additive mixing the primaries are red, green and blue (the colors you can see in your computer display if you take a magnifying glass to an area of "white" screen).

So in light, red+blue=magenta, green+blue=cyan, red+green=yellow, red+green+blue = white.
But in ink (etc) cyan+yellow=green, magenta+yellow+red, cyan+magenta=blue and cyan+magenta+yellow = black...although it can be hard to tell because you can't really purchase primary colored ink in a paint box...the only pure sources are in things like inkjet printer cartridges...and even then, cyan+magenta+yellow only makes a dirty brown - which is why real inkjet printers add black ink too so we can get true blacks and greys.

Our eyes detect red, green and blue.   So subtractive inks block the complements of the colors they say they are.  cyan ink is really "red-blocking-ink" so when white light is passed through it, the red is absorbed and the green and blue light that shines through combine to make cyan light.

Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2017, 09:00:10 PM »
Doesn't your criticism then apply also to all flat earth theories? ... Aren't you in the same boat as the astronomers when you offer flat earth explanations?

I have to agree with Nirmala on this.  Tom Bishop has done an excellent job condemning the basis of Flat Earth Theory.  Namely that the bulk of Flat Earth thought is based on observations and thought experiments, not on actual Zetetic laboratory experimentation.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2017, 02:00:40 AM by Tom Bishop »
The foundation of any Path is learning to accept the world as it is, not as you wish or even observe it to be. -Will Wight

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2259
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2017, 02:00:53 AM »
Doesn't your criticism then apply also to all flat earth theories? ... Aren't you in the same boat as the astronomers when you offer flat earth explanations?

I have to agree with Nirmala on this.  Tom Bishop has done an excellent job condemning the basis of Flat Earth Theory.  Namely that the bulk of Flat Earth thought is based on observations and thought experiments, not on actual Zetetic laboratory experimentation.

Incorrect. Rowbotham conducts a number of experiments in his work, and references experiments all throughout his work to support his model.

Offline 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
Re: Zetetic Method Vs Scientific Method Notes
« Reply #39 on: July 17, 2017, 05:22:18 PM »
Doesn't your criticism then apply also to all flat earth theories? ... Aren't you in the same boat as the astronomers when you offer flat earth explanations?

I have to agree with Nirmala on this.  Tom Bishop has done an excellent job condemning the basis of Flat Earth Theory.  Namely that the bulk of Flat Earth thought is based on observations and thought experiments, not on actual Zetetic laboratory experimentation.

Incorrect. Rowbotham conducts a number of experiments in his work, and references experiments all throughout his work to support his model.

Rowbotham did his work a very long time ago (180 years!)...and it's been refuted, explained and debunked numerous times since then.

Why continue to quote an entirely dubious observation when much more up to date results are available?

Why ignore perfectly reasonable explanations of the results Rowbotham obtained?

Why also ignore (for example) Wallace's duplication of the experiment - which produced the opposite result - or Oldham's similar work?

Just picking the one result you like and then carefully pretending that the others don't exist is a clear violation of your Zetetic methods.  What you should be doing is:

1) Look at ALL of the experiments that are similar to the "Bedford level" experiment.   There are at least half a dozen well-documented example.  A couple do indeed agree with Rowbotham.   At least a few come out with "Round Earth" results - and at least one decided that the earth must be concave.

2) On the basis of ALL of the evidence - try to form a conclusion.   My conclusion would be: "These kinds of experiments are not very reliable indicators of the curvature of the Earth".

So since the evidence is contradictory - we must either ignore it or explain it.   You do not - you pick just one version of that experiment and promote it to the level of unassailable truth...which is just ridiculous.