[CriticalThinker]

In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model? 

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[Ga_x2]

In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model? 

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Inb4 "look at the wiki"
I suspect, that what they can offer is the following: https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
To call that "empirical data" might be a stretch.
To call that "the most recent news from the frontiers on scientific research" is definitely a stretch 

[StinkyOne]

In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model? 

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Inb4 "look at the wiki"
I suspect, that what they can offer is the following: https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
To call that "empirical data" might be a stretch.
To call that "the most recent news from the frontiers on scientific research" is definitely a stretch 

It is funny that they cite the Bedford experiment as "evidence". It was shown to be light refraction that caused the effect. A follow up experiment confirmed the expected curvature.

[CriticalThinker]

In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model? 

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Inb4 "look at the wiki"
I suspect, that what they can offer is the following: https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
To call that "empirical data" might be a stretch.
To call that "the most recent news from the frontiers on scientific research" is definitely a stretch 

It is funny that they cite the Bedford experiment as "evidence". It was shown to be light refraction that caused the effect. A follow up experiment confirmed the expected curvature.

That's why I'm asking. Other than the Bedford Level Experiment and the Bishop Experiment I couldn't find any other actual test data in the Wiki. Just rhetorical questions and statements of assertion without any physical data collection.   

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[3DGeek]

In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model? 

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Inb4 "look at the wiki"
I suspect, that what they can offer is the following: https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
To call that "empirical data" might be a stretch.
To call that "the most recent news from the frontiers on scientific research" is definitely a stretch 

It is funny that they cite the Bedford experiment as "evidence". It was shown to be light refraction that caused the effect. A follow up experiment confirmed the expected curvature.

Yes - it's a sad state of affairs really.  The original Rowbotham experiment produced a result that was seemingly contrary to known science.  The "Scientific Method" says that the next step should be for someone to independently try to reproduce the experiment - and when that was done by Wallace and then again by Oldham, the expected curvature of the Earth was clearly demonstrated.  Subsequently, Blount made another test and found agreement with Robotham.  And after that two other experiments, published in "English Mechanic" refuted Rowbothams results - and one more confirmed it.  Morrow did the same experiment on a different body of water and concluded that the Earth is concave.

At this point, with wildly contradictory results - one should step back and examine possible causes for the discrepencies - and at least two possible explanations have been found (refraction due to a surface temperature inversion and the effect of incoming water from the tides at the end of the river).

To my mind, the experiment done by Stratton is the key here.  He took a much more scientific approach - shutting the lock gates at either end of the river to prevent tidal influences - and measuring the sightline at intervals from 2" above the water to several feet.  What he found was that the water only appeared flat when the eyepoint was very close to the water (as it was for both Robotham and Blount...and that the expected Earth curvature was found at heights of several feet above the water.

At no point should a serious scientific study conclude a strongly surprising result without serious and in-depth study of other possible causes.

In this case, that was only done somewhat sketchily - not with modern rigor - but despite that, it's very clear that AT BEST this is an inconclusive result and shouldn't factor into forward thinking...and in truth, the more careful work by Stratton has explained Rowbotham's findings and conclusively rejected them.

The only sensible conclusion to all of these efforts is that the idea of using sightlines over water is a terrible way to decide the issue.

As I have shown (repeatedly) in these forums, there are MANY simpler, unambiguous proofs that the world is round...and these sight-over-water experiments are pretty much useless.

[Tom Bishop]

In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model? 

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Inb4 "look at the wiki"
I suspect, that what they can offer is the following: https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
To call that "empirical data" might be a stretch.
To call that "the most recent news from the frontiers on scientific research" is definitely a stretch 

It is funny that they cite the Bedford experiment as "evidence". It was shown to be light refraction that caused the effect. A follow up experiment confirmed the expected curvature.

If you read Earth Not a Globe you will find that refraction is accounted for in the experiments.

[CriticalThinker]

In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model? 

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Inb4 "look at the wiki"
I suspect, that what they can offer is the following: https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
To call that "empirical data" might be a stretch.
To call that "the most recent news from the frontiers on scientific research" is definitely a stretch 

It is funny that they cite the Bedford experiment as "evidence". It was shown to be light refraction that caused the effect. A follow up experiment confirmed the expected curvature.

If you read Earth Not a Globe you will find that refraction is accounted for in the experiments.

I've read through the pamphlet.  I can find no point in the document where his calculations or methods show how he controls for the effects refraction.  I can't even see a remark about refraction during his very limited documentation of the experiment.  Please point me to the specific page where he shows his control methodologies.  Why did his experiments fail to be accurate at greater heights when tested by Wallace, Oldham & Stratton?  Wallace even had his measurements verified and the confirmation sketches done by FE supporters when retesting the Bedford level experiment.  If the earth truly is flat and all other variables remain constant, the results should remain consistent for increased elevation along the same line of sight.  Why then does his experiment fail a mere 12 feet 4 inches higher?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[StinkyOne]

In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model? 

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Inb4 "look at the wiki"
I suspect, that what they can offer is the following: https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
To call that "empirical data" might be a stretch.
To call that "the most recent news from the frontiers on scientific research" is definitely a stretch 

It is funny that they cite the Bedford experiment as "evidence". It was shown to be light refraction that caused the effect. A follow up experiment confirmed the expected curvature.

If you read Earth Not a Globe you will find that refraction is accounted for in the experiments.

I've read through the pamphlet.  I can find no point in the document where his calculations or methods show how he controls for the effects refraction.  I can't even see a remark about refraction during his very limited documentation of the experiment.  Please point me to the specific page where he shows his control methodologies.  Why did his experiments fail to be accurate at greater heights when tested by Wallace, Oldham & Stratton?  Wallace even had his measurements verified and the confirmation sketches done by FE supporters when retesting the Bedford level experiment.  If the earth truly is flat and all other variables remain constant, the results should remain consistent for increased elevation along the same line of sight.  Why then does his experiment fail a mere 12 feet 4 inches higher?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

In the second edition, there is a brief comment about accounting for refraction...on a different experiment.

Article below details the events of a follow up experiment with a wager attached that showed the Earth was, in fact, curved. The most interesting thing is that when the flat Earther was shown proof of the curved Earth, he refused to accept the results. I guess some things never change.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/

[CriticalThinker]

In the debate forums RE debators are routinely asked to supply heavily restricted empirical evidence to support any claim. So I'm curious, what empirical data was used to create the currently accepted Flat Earth Model? 

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Inb4 "look at the wiki"
I suspect, that what they can offer is the following: https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence
To call that "empirical data" might be a stretch.
To call that "the most recent news from the frontiers on scientific research" is definitely a stretch 

It is funny that they cite the Bedford experiment as "evidence". It was shown to be light refraction that caused the effect. A follow up experiment confirmed the expected curvature.

If you read Earth Not a Globe you will find that refraction is accounted for in the experiments.

I've read through the pamphlet.  I can find no point in the document where his calculations or methods show how he controls for the effects refraction.  I can't even see a remark about refraction during his very limited documentation of the experiment.  Please point me to the specific page where he shows his control methodologies.  Why did his experiments fail to be accurate at greater heights when tested by Wallace, Oldham & Stratton?  Wallace even had his measurements verified and the confirmation sketches done by FE supporters when retesting the Bedford level experiment.  If the earth truly is flat and all other variables remain constant, the results should remain consistent for increased elevation along the same line of sight.  Why then does his experiment fail a mere 12 feet 4 inches higher?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

In the second edition, there is a brief comment about accounting for refraction...on a different experiment.

Article below details the events of a follow up experiment with a wager attached that showed the Earth was, in fact, curved. The most interesting thing is that when the flat Earther was shown proof of the curved Earth, he refused to accept the results. I guess some things never change.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/

That would be the Wallace experiment that I was referring to.  His methods and results were publicly recorded on the day by a FE supporter as well as an independent observer tied to neither party and failed to reproduce the results at 13 feet of elevation instead of 8 inches of elevation.  All other distances were controlled for and the experiment took place in the exact same body of water.  If the earth truly is flat, why did the FE supporter's diagram not confirm the results of the Bedford Level Experiment at the higher test height?

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[Tom Bishop]

I've read through the pamphlet.  I can find no point in the document where his calculations or methods show how he controls for the effects refraction.  I can't even see a remark about refraction during his very limited documentation of the experiment.  Please point me to the specific page where he shows his control methodologies.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm

That would be the Wallace experiment that I was referring to.  His methods and results were publicly recorded on the day by a FE supporter as well as an independent observer tied to neither party and failed to reproduce the results at 13 feet of elevation instead of 8 inches of elevation.  All other distances were controlled for and the experiment took place in the exact same body of water.  If the earth truly is flat, why did the FE supporter's diagram not confirm the results of the Bedford Level Experiment at the higher test height?

Wallace did walk away from that wager claiming that he had won. It was a wager for a year's pay and both sides walked away claiming that they were the winner. Why do you think that a wager for a large sum of money is credible as an experiment that proves the shape of the earth?

[CriticalThinker]

I've read through the pamphlet.  I can find no point in the document where his calculations or methods show how he controls for the effects refraction.  I can't even see a remark about refraction during his very limited documentation of the experiment.  Please point me to the specific page where he shows his control methodologies.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm

That would be the Wallace experiment that I was referring to.  His methods and results were publicly recorded on the day by a FE supporter as well as an independent observer tied to neither party and failed to reproduce the results at 13 feet of elevation instead of 8 inches of elevation.  All other distances were controlled for and the experiment took place in the exact same body of water.  If the earth truly is flat, why did the FE supporter's diagram not confirm the results of the Bedford Level Experiment at the higher test height?

Wallace did walk away from that wager claiming that he had won. It was a wager for a year's pay and both sides walked away claiming that they were the winner. Why do you think that a wager for a large sum of money is credible as an experiment that proves the shape of the earth?

Different experiment Tom.  Please provide evidence that Rowbotham accounted for atmospheric refraction during the Bedford Level Experiment itself.  Do you expect me to believe that he did correct for it if he didn't document how he did it?

In the Wallace experiment William Carpenter, a FE supporter, personally verified each of the steps in setting up the experiment for accuracy in length, height and levelness.  He even looked in the telescope personally and signed his name to the sketches done by himself and another that represented that they saw at the far point of the canal.  They showed that the standardized heights did not line up as they would on a flat earth.  John Hampden placed the wager against Wallace.  William Carpenter personally drew out an image that demonstrated the curvature of the earth himself, after verifying every step of the setup and signed his own name to it as to its authenticity.  Please explain why the personally drawn and signed images made by William Carpenter showing that the Bedford Canal is convex should be dismissed?  Neither of the two men who made the wager drew either image.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[Tom Bishop]

Different experiment Tom.  Please provide evidence that Rowbotham accounted for atmospheric refraction during the Bedford Level Experiment itself.

The Bedford Canal is mentioned four times in that article, and describes how refraction does not contradict the results. You should read it.

In the Wallace experiment William Carpenter, a FE supporter, personally verified each of the steps in setting up the experiment for accuracy in length, height and levelness.  He even looked in the telescope personally and signed his name to the sketches done by himself and another that represented that they saw at the far point of the canal.  They showed that the standardized heights did not line up as they would on a flat earth.  John Hampden placed the wager against Wallace.  William Carpenter personally drew out an image that demonstrated the curvature of the earth himself, after verifying every step of the setup and signed his own name to it as to its authenticity.  Please explain why the personally drawn and signed images made by William Carpenter showing that the Bedford Canal is convex should be dismissed?  Neither of the two men who made the wager drew either image.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Both sides walked away claiming that they had won. They didn't walk away agreeing that the earth was round. If there was consensus on the outcome of the wager why would there be continued conflict and the exchanging of threats?

[StinkyOne]

Different experiment Tom.  Please provide evidence that Rowbotham accounted for atmospheric refraction during the Bedford Level Experiment itself.

The Bedford Canal is mentioned four times in that article, and describes how refraction does not contradict the results. You should read it.

In the Wallace experiment William Carpenter, a FE supporter, personally verified each of the steps in setting up the experiment for accuracy in length, height and levelness.  He even looked in the telescope personally and signed his name to the sketches done by himself and another that represented that they saw at the far point of the canal.  They showed that the standardized heights did not line up as they would on a flat earth.  John Hampden placed the wager against Wallace.  William Carpenter personally drew out an image that demonstrated the curvature of the earth himself, after verifying every step of the setup and signed his own name to it as to its authenticity.  Please explain why the personally drawn and signed images made by William Carpenter showing that the Bedford Canal is convex should be dismissed?  Neither of the two men who made the wager drew either image.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Both sides walked away claiming that they had won. They didn't walk away agreeing that the earth was round. If there was consensus on the outcome of the wager why would there be continued conflict and the exchanging of threats?

LMAO - go look at the images the men drew. It CLEARLY showed the curvature. They refused to believe it because they couldn't accept the implications. They were Biblical literalists who thought the Bible said the Earth was flat. Admitting otherwise would be refuting God's word to them. They denied reality to preserve their fantasy. I urge you to look at the images.

[Tom Bishop]

LMAO - go look at the images the men drew. It CLEARLY showed the curvature. They refused to believe it because they couldn't accept the implications. They were Biblical literalists who thought the Bible said the Earth was flat. Admitting otherwise would be refuting God's word to them. They denied reality to preserve their fantasy. I urge you to look at the images.

The issues with the Wallage wager experiment is described in Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

[3DGeek]

LMAO - go look at the images the men drew. It CLEARLY showed the curvature. They refused to believe it because they couldn't accept the implications. They were Biblical literalists who thought the Bible said the Earth was flat. Admitting otherwise would be refuting God's word to them. They denied reality to preserve their fantasy. I urge you to look at the images.

The issues with the Wallage wager experiment is described in Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

There were "issues" on both sides.   From a formal scientific perspective - the efforts to reproduce the original experiment failed - the results are contradictory in every possible way.  There are explanations and counter-explanations.

Bottom line is that this is not solid evidence EITHER WAY.   I would not accept Wallace's results as proof of a round earth and I do not accept Rowbotham's results as proof of a flat earth - nor yet Morrow's  results as proof that the Earth is concave.

The results of the experiments show that this is a terrible way to decide what shape the Earth is because there are so many confounding factors.

There are MUCH better way to decide this matter - and continually waving the Rowbotham nonsense at everyone just says "Desperation".   By continuing to quote such a screwed up mess of experimental work - you're simply clutching at straws.

1) Go look at the moon in both hemispheres.
2) Check airplane schedules over lots of long distance routes.
3) Think about how magnets and pole stars must work in order for celestial and compass navigation to work.
4) Clear your mind about "alternative perspective" - draw some clear, concise diagrams about how the rays of light travel during an FE sunset.

...all of those things (and I'm sure a few more that I've forgotten) clearly and unambiguously demonstrate that the Earth cannot be flat.

Right now, you have failed to explain (1) - your denial of (2) rests on insane claims that manufacturers of airliners do not know that their planes can (sometimes) fly at Mach II - you're not making any sense whatever in your explanation for (3) and as for (4) - you're seemingly unable to discount the simplest possible explanations requiring only the laws of similar triangles.

Instead, you continue to repeatedly wave this really flakey "Bedford Level" experimental finding at us...when it's been re-tested and re-re-tested and no conclusive proof (either way) has ever come from it.

[Tom Bishop]

Bottom line is that this is not solid evidence EITHER WAY.

Then why do you guys constantly bring it up?

[CriticalThinker]

LMAO - go look at the images the men drew. It CLEARLY showed the curvature. They refused to believe it because they couldn't accept the implications. They were Biblical literalists who thought the Bible said the Earth was flat. Admitting otherwise would be refuting God's word to them. They denied reality to preserve their fantasy. I urge you to look at the images.

The issues with the Wallage wager experiment is described in Earth Not a Globe: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

That only applies if the target is not also above the horizon by the same height as the theodolite.  Of course if the telescope is 13 feet in the air and pointed down at the horizon 6 miles away, it would not be level.  It wasn't pointed down in the Wallace experiment.  It's level was verified by Mr. Carpenter himself and the center marker wasn't off by inches.  The lower disk on the center pole was 4 feet lower and it was above the black band at the far end.  The vertical deviation of the center pole demonstrated a ~5 foot difference.  This would be consistent with a convexity and still not explained by the reasons stated in your evidence.

According to our old friend Pythagoras, even if the Wallace telescope had been 13 feet 4 inches above the horizon pointed directly down at the horizon, it would have been off level by 0.0241°.  That could not account for vertical deviation of the center marker by 5 feet.

The Rowbotham Experiment has less documentation than the Wallace experiment, Oldham experiment and Stratton experiment.  No stated controls for atmospheric refraction during the Bedford experiment have been supplied thus far.  You believe that I should accept a non-repeated experiment with almost no documentation over the multiple independently verified experiments that contradict it?  Please explain why the Bedford Level Experiment should be accepted as 100% accurate when it was conducted at a lower level of control?  This appears to be an exception to your usually highly stringent demands for precision data.

Thank You,

CriticalThinker

[CriticalThinker]

Bottom line is that this is not solid evidence EITHER WAY.

Then why do you guys constantly bring it up?

I asked for the empirical evidence that the FE model was based on and so far this is the only evidence supplied.  I would happily examine other empirical data that you have amassed to support the FE model.  Please direct me to it.  The experiments described in the hundred proofs for example don't supply one point of data, just statements.  No description of measurement devices or methods.  Much of the Wiki hinges on the Bedford Level Experiment or some variation on it.  I even had a great time evaluating the Kansas Flatter Than a Pancake Proof.  I'ts really quite amazing, but all I need to do is look at some mountains to see clear evidence of convexity and lake bottoms to see clear evidence of concavity.  None of that actually proves that the other variations don't exist or that the whole earth is shaped thus.

Please direct me to actual quantitative data that the earth is flat that isn't a direct variation on the Bedford Level Experiment (sight over water) and I'll very quickly move on.

ThankYou,

CriticalThinker

[CriticalThinker]

Different experiment Tom.  Please provide evidence that Rowbotham accounted for atmospheric refraction during the Bedford Level Experiment itself.

The Bedford Canal is mentioned four times in that article, and describes how refraction does not contradict the results. You should read it.

In the Wallace experiment William Carpenter, a FE supporter, personally verified each of the steps in setting up the experiment for accuracy in length, height and levelness.  He even looked in the telescope personally and signed his name to the sketches done by himself and another that represented that they saw at the far point of the canal.  They showed that the standardized heights did not line up as they would on a flat earth.  John Hampden placed the wager against Wallace.  William Carpenter personally drew out an image that demonstrated the curvature of the earth himself, after verifying every step of the setup and signed his own name to it as to its authenticity.  Please explain why the personally drawn and signed images made by William Carpenter showing that the Bedford Canal is convex should be dismissed?  Neither of the two men who made the wager drew either image.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

Both sides walked away claiming that they had won. They didn't walk away agreeing that the earth was round. If there was consensus on the outcome of the wager why would there be continued conflict and the exchanging of threats?

I did read it.  It dismisses the influence of it without actually testing it.  All I have to do to find a simple to observe visual evidence of atmospheric refraction is to look along the roof of my car on a hot day and observe the distortions.  He dismissed them as trivial instead of testing them.  Again, not very high standards of control and no empirical data produced.

Thank you,

CriticalThinker

[3DGeek]

Bottom line is that this is not solid evidence EITHER WAY.

Then why do you guys constantly bring it up?

I don't...I NEVER use Rowbotham, Wallace, Oldham, Stratton, Blount or Morrow results as proof or disproof of FET/RET.

You, however, constantly bring it up...so it's necessary to repeatedly point out that (at best) this is bad science and should be ignored.

We know that refraction and the effects of tides and water flow in the canal could each have had an effect on the results.  I actually believe that Stratton was the only experiment that came close to scientific rigor - and he said that the result was in favor of Round Earth...but because this is a seriously screwed up mess - I'm more than happy to say that ALL of the results (Rowbotham's included) cannot be accepted as evidence either way.

On my recent vacation in the UK, we actually drove through Mepal and over a bridge that spans the Old Bedford River (which is where all of these things happened).    We didn't have time to stop - but as we crossed the bridge, I have to say that this is an amazingly long, straight, flat stretch of water - and I could see it curved away from us with the naked eye from the height of the bridge.

But that's not science either.

So when you bring the Rowbotham experiment up AGAIN (as I'm quite sure you will) - you can expect me to AGAIN point out that it's not a scientifically valid experiment - and it was not confirmed through subsequent efforts to duplicate the results.