[Pete Svarrior]

I imagine you are much like Hampden when he lost to Wallace.

Hampden never lost to Wallace. The wager was deemed invalid by a court of law. Please do not present your interpretations of who you think might have won when it was authoritatively settled. Even Christine Garwood's hit piece, Flat Earth: the History of an Infamous Idea managed to get this right. I'd encourage you to read at least chapters 3 and 4 before making further libellous remarks about this wager.

Carpenter, the original referee of the debt that both gentlemen agreed on confiding in, had no doubt that the result was in Hampden's favour. Wallace threw a complete shit-fit, which led to many wonderful things such as threatening Carpenter and eventually calling the cops on him to forcibly remove him out of his house. Wallace was so desperate to turn the tables that he changed referees mid-wager to his friend and sports magazine editor, Walsh (n.b. this is not to say that Carpenter had better credentials himself). During the 1876 court case, Walsh was so desperate to defend his illegal actions that he tried to rebrand the entire event as "not a wager". Also, since Walsh and Wallace had previously agreed on Walsh's indemnity, the cost of the whole farce fell on Wallace directly, putting him at a net loss even after all the libel suits he won against Hampden.

It's a sad story, but both men struggled with financial difficulties at the time, so it's no surprise that Wallace would resort to petty cheating (keep in mind that £500 was a very substantial sum of money at the time).

[markjo]

It's a sad story, but both men struggled with financial difficulties at the time, so it's no surprise that Wallace would resort to petty cheating (keep in mind that £500 was a very substantial sum of money at the time).

First of all, Hampden shouldn't have issued a challenge that he couldn't afford to lose.  Secondly, Hampden wasn't "struggling with financial difficulties at the time".  He gave all of his assets to a family member so that the courts couldn't seize them.

[Gulliver]

I imagine you are much like Hampden when he lost to Wallace.

Hampden never lost to Wallace. ...

Didn't Hampden lose the libel case that Wallace brought?

Okay, here we go. Apologies for the poor quality, that's what I got from The Times' archive:



You can read the whole page here. I'll update our Wiki and the library at some point soon.

[Pete Svarrior]

First of all, Hampden shouldn't have issued a challenge that he couldn't afford to lose.

Agreed, although the same could be said about Wallace, who got the short end of the stick in the end.

Secondly, Hampden wasn't "struggling with financial difficulties at the time".  He gave all of his assets to a family member so that the courts couldn't seize them.

His assets weren't exactly sizeable to begin with. He was already unable to pay numerous fines or cover court costs prior to his declaration of bankruptcy.

Didn't Hampden lose the libel case that Wallace brought?

I would have thought that my statement was clear given the context, but what I meant to say is that Hampden never lost the wager; not that the concept of "losing" could never be applied in a relational sense.

[Gulliver]

I would have thought that my statement was clear given the context, but what I meant to say is that Hampden never lost the wager; not that the concept of "losing" could never be applied in a relational sense.

Actually you're commenting on someone else's use of the word. RS clearly was making a analogy. I'd think that serving prison time is a much worse loss than forking over 500 pounds. So RS is correct, and did not, as you accuse him, commit libel. Hampden lost.

[Thork]

I would have thought that my statement was clear given the context, but what I meant to say is that Hampden never lost the wager; not that the concept of "losing" could never be applied in a relational sense.

Actually you're commenting on someone else's use of the word. RS clearly was making a analogy. I'd think that serving prison time is a much worse loss than forking over 500 pounds. So RS is correct, and did not, as you accuse him, commit libel. Hampden lost.

No, the bet was null and void as decided by a court. Hampden did not lose.

I always find it staggering that this experiment has been done 3 times. Once by Rowbotham, once by Hamden and Wallace, and once by Lady Blount. And twice the earth was proved flat and once the result was declared null and void because the arbitrator was in cahoots with the round earthers. And yet its always the Wallace/Hampden experiment round earthers clutch at as a proof of rotundity. Strikes me as very desperate.

[Gulliver]

I would have thought that my statement was clear given the context, but what I meant to say is that Hampden never lost the wager; not that the concept of "losing" could never be applied in a relational sense.

Actually you're commenting on someone else's use of the word. RS clearly was making a analogy. I'd think that serving prison time is a much worse loss than forking over 500 pounds. So RS is correct, and did not, as you accuse him, commit libel. Hampden lost.

No, the bet was null and void as decided by a court. Hampden did not lose.

I always find it staggering that this experiment has been done 3 times. Once by Rowbotham, once by Hamden and Wallace, and once by Lady Blount. And twice the earth was proved flat and once the result was declared null and void because the arbitrator was in cahoots with the round earthers. And yet its always the Wallace/Hampden experiment round earthers clutch at as a proof of rotundity. Strikes me as very desperate.

There are other ways to "lose" than to "lose a bet". Do pay attention.

Tell you what: Let's run the experiment again, right now. From the CN Tower Observation Deck toward the City of Niagara Falls, New York, US:

Oh, and just to clarify. The "Niagara Falls" that can be seen from the CN Tower's Observation Deck is just the taller buildings of the City of Niagara Falls. See: http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g155019-d155483-i32613999-CN_Tower-Toronto_Ontario.html


This photo [of from the] CN Tower is courtesy of TripAdvisor

So T is actually much longer. Shall I assume that FEers have had enough debunking of their sophomoric proof of a FE in this thread? Please do try harder.

Hampden loses again since you can't see the base of the buildings in New York.

[Thork]

I would have thought that my statement was clear given the context, but what I meant to say is that Hampden never lost the wager; not that the concept of "losing" could never be applied in a relational sense.

Actually you're commenting on someone else's use of the word. RS clearly was making a analogy. I'd think that serving prison time is a much worse loss than forking over 500 pounds. So RS is correct, and did not, as you accuse him, commit libel. Hampden lost.

No, the bet was null and void as decided by a court. Hampden did not lose.

I always find it staggering that this experiment has been done 3 times. Once by Rowbotham, once by Hamden and Wallace, and once by Lady Blount. And twice the earth was proved flat and once the result was declared null and void because the arbitrator was in cahoots with the round earthers. And yet its always the Wallace/Hampden experiment round earthers clutch at as a proof of rotundity. Strikes me as very desperate.

There are other ways to "lose" than to "lose a bet". Do pay attention.

Tell you what: Let's run the experiment again, right now. From the CN Tower Observation Deck toward the City of Niagara Falls, New York, US:

Oh, and just to clarify. The "Niagara Falls" that can be seen from the CN Tower's Observation Deck is just the taller buildings of the City of Niagara Falls. See: http://www.tripadvisor.com/LocationPhotoDirectLink-g155019-d155483-i32613999-CN_Tower-Toronto_Ontario.html


This photo [of from the] CN Tower is courtesy of TripAdvisor

So T is actually much longer. Shall I assume that FEers have had enough debunking of their sophomoric proof of a FE in this thread? Please do try harder.

Hampden loses again since you can't see the base of the buildings in New York.

Of course you can't see the base. It is the middle of the day. Its hot and sunny.

When it is hot, water from the sea evaporates. And this causes localised regions of low pressure. And that causes ocean swell. The air pressure is less so the water bulges.



That's why they did it on a canal, Dummy.

It is obvious this is happening in this picture because the little clouds are forming over the sea. And the final proof the earth isn't round ... do the buildings in that picture rise straight up, or do they appear to be leaning away from you as they should on a round earth? Straight up. Thanks for helping to prove the earth is flat with your image.

[Gulliver]

Of course you can't see the base. It is the middle of the day. Its hot and sunny.

When it is hot, water from the sea evaporates. And this causes localised regions of low pressure. And that causes ocean swell. The air pressure is less so the water bulges.



That's why they did it on a canal, Dummy.

Since the canal flows and has a gradient, it was a poor choice. Since Lake Ontario is not an ocean, your "low-pressure" claim is faulty. Even if Lake Ontario were an ocean, you'd still need to document several facets, including that the effect exists and is large enough to explain your outlandish claim.

Oh, and water from the sea evaporates even at night.

Oh, and for the water to rise would require that the surrounding air would not move to compensate, which it would. It's called wind.

[Pete Svarrior]

Actually you're commenting on someone else's use of the word. RS clearly was making a analogy.

*sigh* I see that the concept of "the man on the Clapham omnibus" is thoroughly lost on you.

Presumably the analogy was to Hampden's behaviour after having been robbed of his wager money (namely, his relentless attacks on Wallace), rather than his passive condition of being in jail - that's hardly a reaction. That said, I'm not sure why you consider yourself an authority on what Rama had to say. I made an assumption and responded according to it. If Rama feels that I misunderstood him, I'm sure he'll correct me without you introducing your own assumptions to the bag.

I'd think that serving prison time is a much worse loss than forking over 500 pounds.

700*, but I'm not sure why you think your perception of the severity of various punishments is of mine or anyone else's interest in the first place.

[Thork]

It was and still is a drainage canal with sluices. Ergo, there is no gradient and no flow when the gates are shut. It is a canal, not a river.

A large lake will have the same localised low pressure in warm weather. In fact more so as the area itself is very localised.

Yes, it does evaporate at night, so that covers night pics too. Thanks. It is the air pressure across the region you are looking that you need to consider when you have water. If the pressure is not equal, the water will bulge ... obviously.

Basic fluid dynamics.


And finally wind is a balancing of that, but wind suffers from friction meaning not all places are equal at the same time. You can see that from any weather chart you like.

[Gulliver]

It was and still is a drainage canal with sluices. Ergo, there is no gradient and no flow when the gates are shut. It is a canal, not a river.

A large lake will have the same localised low pressure in warm weather. In fact more so as the area itself is very localised.

Yes, it does evaporate at night, so that covers night pics too. Thanks. It is the air pressure across the region you are looking that you need to consider when you have water. If the pressure is not equal, the water will bulge ... obviously.

Basic fluid dynamics.


And finally wind is a balancing of that, but wind suffers from friction meaning not all places are equal at the same time. You can see that from any weather chart you like.

Tell us how you determined that the sluices were perfectly tight and closed during the experiment please. Maybe you're just guessing again.

Tell us how you determined that the effect was happening and to the extent you claim in the photo please.

Tell us how you determined that the friction happened to sustain the low pressure where and when you claim.

Or you suggesting that there are tubes over Lake Ontario that prevent equalizing pressure in many directions at once?

[Thork]

Tell me why you think they'd leave them open, and why that would make a curved bulge even if they weren't? In a flat earth you'd expect and straight diagonal line of surface water, you still need a bulge on a round earth. And there isn't one. Also I read Wallace's account and they definitely shut the gates. It is in his autobiography so you can check that for yourself.

In the photo, I can see the clouds forming over the lake. So I know the lake is evaporating. I can also see its a warm day from the haze in front of the buildings.

Tell you what about friction? Wind would not exist if all places have the same pressure at once. I'll bet there was a nice breeze on the day the photo was taken. Where land meets water you often get a breeze giving rise to the meteorological terms 'sea breeze' and the reverse 'land breeze'. Both very googlable. Knock yourself out.

Tubes? Are you retarted? Read about localised meteorology and come back. This is the very basics of how weather works.

[Gulliver]

Tell me why you think they'd leave them open, and why that would make a curved bulge even if they weren't? In a flat earth you'd expect and straight diagonal line of surface water, you still need a bulge on a round earth. And there isn't one. Also I read Wallace's account and they definitely shut the gates. It is in his autobiography so you can check that for yourself.

In the photo, I can see the clouds forming over the lake. So I know the lake is evaporating. I can also see its a warm day from the haze in front of the buildings.

Tell you what about friction? The wind would not exist if all places have the same pressure at once. I'll bet there was a nice breeze on the day the photo was taken. Where land meets water you often get a breeze giving rise to the meteorological terms 'sea breeze' and the reverse 'land breeze'. Both very googlable. Knock yourself out.

Tubes? Are you retarted? Read about localised meteorology and come back. This is the very basics of how weather works.

So you don't know. You only assume. I figured as much. No, RET allows for flowing bodies of water not to bulge. Do provide the source of Wallace's account about shutting the gates and how long they did so. Did they allow enough time? Were the sluices perfectly tight?

So there would be winds to dissipate the pressure variances and your outlandish claim of the sufficient effect. I figured as much.

So why do you provide drawings to make your outlandish claims replete with tubes?

[Thork]

Your last post is all requests and questions.

The only statement you made about flowing bodies not curving on a round earth is demonstrably wrong. Consider the river Nile. A flowing body over thousands of miles. Are you saying it does not bend with the curvature of the earth? You are being particularly stupid today. A canal or river that flows over 6 miles should still curve, flowing has nothing to do with it, another red herring.

You still haven't read about weather so I'll ignore your protesting about wind. Unequal pressure = wind. It is not instantaneous else we'd be hit by light speed gushes of wind at every discrepancy of pressure. And that doesn't happen, so unequal pressures prevail until the wind equals the pressure and the wind ceases. If it is windy, the pressure is unequal. Wind always travels from high pressure to low.

My drawings of tubes show how pressure effects water levels. Google manometer to find out how they work and the science behind it. Go on, google that one. You'll stop asking questions that show your education ceased at high school.   

[Gulliver]

Your last post is all requests and questions.

The only statement you made about flowing bodies not curving on a round earth is demonstrably wrong. Consider the river Nile. A flowing body over thousands of miles. Are you saying it does not bend with the curvature of the earth? You are being particularly stupid today. A canal or river that flows over 6 miles should still curve, flowing has nothing to do with it, another red herring.

You still haven't read about weather so I'll ignore your protesting about wind. Unequal pressure = wind. It is not instantaneous else we'd be hit by light speed gushes of wind at every discrepancy of pressure. And that doesn't happen, so unequal pressures prevail until the wind equals the pressure and the wind ceases. If it is windy, the pressure is unequal. Wind always travels from high pressure to low.

My drawings of tubes show how pressure effects water levels. Google manometer to find out how they work and the science behind it. Go on, google that one. You'll stop asking questions that show your education ceased at high school.

Well, I guess my job here is done. You've demonstrated even to the casual reader of this thread your failure.

No, a flowing body of water does not follow the curvature of the RE. Flowing water follows the lay of the land over which it flows.

Try this thought experiment. Consider that you're floating in the Niagara River just a few inches from the Falls. Your eyes are at the water level. When you look downriver you do not see water blocking your view beyond the edge. Now consider that you're floating just after the Falls with again your eyes at water level. When you look upriver, you see water blocking your view.

There is nothing in RET (and I challenge you to find a source that argues your side) that says the surface of a flowing body of water must be shaped by the curvature of the earth.

Again, please do document that the effect you claim of low-pressure would cause the "hiding" of the lower parts of the City of Niagara Falls.

[Gulliver]

I made an assumption and responded according to it. If Rama feels that I misunderstood him, I'm sure he'll correct me without you introducing your own assumptions to the bag.

Here's a concept you might consider: Ask for clarification before making an assumption and accusing someone of a crime. You know, consider ethics.

[Rama Set]

I would have thought that my statement was clear given the context, but what I meant to say is that Hampden never lost the wager; not that the concept of "losing" could never be applied in a relational sense.

Actually you're commenting on someone else's use of the word. RS clearly was making a analogy. I'd think that serving prison time is a much worse loss than forking over 500 pounds. So RS is correct, and did not, as you accuse him, commit libel. Hampden lost.

No, the bet was null and void as decided by a court. Hampden did not lose.

I always find it staggering that this experiment has been done 3 times. Once by Rowbotham, once by Hamden and Wallace, and once by Lady Blount.

And then there are geodetic surveys.

...once the result was declared null and void because the arbitrator was in cahoots with the round earthers.

Inocrrect for the same reasons it is wrong every time you make this assertion.

And yet its always the Wallace/Hampden experiment round earthers clutch at as a proof of rotundity. Strikes me as very desperate.

It was the only time someone with any sort of expertise performed the experiment.  Rowbotham's and Blount's were both subject to systemic errors due to temperature gradients.

[Rama Set]

I made an assumption and responded according to it. If Rama feels that I misunderstood him, I'm sure he'll correct me without you introducing your own assumptions to the bag.

Here's a concept you might consider: Ask for clarification before making an assumption and accusing someone of a crime. You know, consider ethics.

Although I was not libelous since losing a bet does not really impugn Hampden's reputation, Pizzaa was pretty much correct in calling me out.  It has motivated me to order a copy of Garwood's book though.  I will see if I can get it through the library first.

[Pete Svarrior]

It has motivated me to order a copy of Garwood's book though.  I will see if I can get it through the library first.

I still have an extra copy back from when Amazon messed up my order. I don't know how practical it would be for me to mail it across the ocean, but if you'd like a free copy, I'd be happy to oblige.

I made an assumption and responded according to it. If Rama feels that I misunderstood him, I'm sure he'll correct me without you introducing your own assumptions to the bag.

Here's a concept you might consider: Ask for clarification before making an assumption and accusing someone of a crime. You know, consider ethics.

You don't take yourself very seriously these days. I almost liked you more when you actually tried.

Almost.