[Rama Set]

It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.

Correlation does not equal causation, Tom.  There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.

[Tom Bishop]

It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.

So you will now omit all reference to the Bedford Canal experiment!

Not all of the Bedford Canal experiments were wagers for a year's pay. Only one of them was.

You do realise that even an atmospheric refraction of 0.5° can make an object at sea-level visible at 30 miles.
The only way to check this sort of thing is to do repeated measurements at various times of the day.
The images in this reference show what can happen http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz904.htm.

So this effect happens whenever the experiment is performed and places the object into the air at the exact height it would need to be, no higher and no lower, to simulate the experience of a Flat Earth?

That's amazing, if so.

[Tom Bishop]

It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.

Correlation does not equal causation, Tom.  There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.

Both Hampden and Wallace had referees. Their referees looked into the telescope and sided with their clients.

The experiment is out the window because it was a wager. It is not really permissible as evidence to either side of the argument.

[Rama Set]

It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.

Correlation does not equal causation, Tom.  There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.

Both Hampden and Wallace had referees. Their referees looked into the telescope and sided with their clients.

Actually Hampden's referee signed off on a picture demonstrating that the middle marker was higher than the outside markers, indicated the Earth is round.

The experiment is out the window because it was a wager. It is not really permissible as evidence to either side of the argument.

So then I assume you will amend the wiki to say as much, in the interest of completeness?  Also, the wiki should be amended because it says that Wallace cheated, which is patently untrue.  He was forced to give the winnings back because those types of wagers were not permitted and nothing to do with cheating.

[Woody]

It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.

Correlation does not equal causation, Tom.  There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.

Both Hampden and Wallace had referees. Their referees looked into the telescope and sided with their clients.

Actually Hampden's referee signed off on a picture demonstrating that the middle marker was higher than the outside markers, indicated the Earth is round.

The experiment is out the window because it was a wager. It is not really permissible as evidence to either side of the argument.

So then I assume you will amend the wiki to say as much, in the interest of completeness?  Also, the wiki should be amended because it says that Wallace cheated, which is patently untrue.  He was forced to give the winnings back because those types of wagers were not permitted and nothing to do with cheating.

They will not change it.  I have pointed it in the past and showed where they can read the court transcripts.  Similar to the Bishop Experiment having an error in the stated distance of 10 miles.

"Throughout the years it has become a duty of each Flat Earth Society member, to meet the common round earther in the open, avowed, and unyielding rebellion; to declare that his reign of error and confusion is over; and that henceforth, like a falling dynasty, he must shrink and disappear, leaving the throne and the kingdom of science and philosophy to those awakening intellects whose numbers are constantly increasing, and whose march is rapid and irresistible. The soldiers of truth and reason of the Flat Earth Society have drawn the sword, and ere another generation has been educated and grown to maturity, will have forced the usurpers to abdicate. Like the decayed and crumbling trees of an ancient forest, rent and shattered by wind and storm, the hypothetical philosophies, which have hitherto cumbered the civilized world, are unable to resist the elements of experimental and logical criticism; and sooner or later must succumb to their assaults. The axe is uplifted for a final stroke - it is about to fall upon the primitive sphere of the earth, and the blow will surely "cut the cumberer down!"

Seems if that above does really happen what the people on the throne and part of the kingdom of science say should not be trusted.   

These soldiers of truth, I guess means the truth that is not always right or correct and may be fudged a little if it supports their belief.

I guess the elements of experimental and logical criticism include misrepresenting distances and other things.

Funny how I see FE's say science is lies, yet I can find rather easy to verify evidence that there wiki at the very least seems an attempt to mislead people.

[rabinoz]

You do realise that even an atmospheric refraction of 0.5° can make an object at sea-level visible at 30 miles.
The only way to check this sort of thing is to do repeated measurements at various times of the day.
The images in this reference show what can happen http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz904.htm.

So this effect happens whenever the experiment is performed and places the object into the air at the exact height it would need to be, no higher and no lower, to simulate the experience of a Flat Earth?

That's amazing, if so.

That is not what I said at all! Objects can appear higher or lower than the curvature on a globe would predict.
You did bother to read "The only way to check this sort of thing is to do repeated measurements at various times of the day."
And you did take a look at http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz904.htm.

Also remember that ships lookout for centuries have used the visible horizon distance to estimate the range of other ships and land. This is from a USN Handbook (   Sorry, but I guess they are part of the conspiracy!   )

RANGE ESTIMATION
Question CIC concerning the radar ranges to visual contacts and compare them
with your estimated range. 

HEIGHT OF EYE	RANGE TO	HORIZON
FEET	YARDS	MILES
20	10,200	5.1
40	14,400	7.2
60	17,800	8.9
80	20,600	10.3

Figure 5-5: Range – Height Table

The only readily available reference point you can use when estimating ranges is the
horizon.  Knowing your height above the waterline will help you estimate ranges because
the distance to the horizon varies with the height of the eye (Figure 5-5).

At a height of 50 feet, for example, the distance to the horizon is about 16,000 yards (8 miles); at a height of 100 feet, the distance is about 23,000 yards (11-1/2 miles).  Practice estimating ranges to other vessels in company whose distances are known or can be easily determined. 
 

Do you think those poor sailors got confused when they found that the Navy had lied to them? 

[Tom Bishop]

It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.

Correlation does not equal causation, Tom.  There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.

Both Hampden and Wallace had referees. Their referees looked into the telescope and sided with their clients.

Actually Hampden's referee signed off on a picture demonstrating that the middle marker was higher than the outside markers, indicated the Earth is round.

The experiment is out the window because it was a wager. It is not really permissible as evidence to either side of the argument.

So then I assume you will amend the wiki to say as much, in the interest of completeness?  Also, the wiki should be amended because it says that Wallace cheated, which is patently untrue.  He was forced to give the winnings back because those types of wagers were not permitted and nothing to do with cheating.

Perhaps Pizza Planet or Thork will look over the subject matter. It's not an article I wrote or really have an interest in.

[rabinoz]

Perhaps Pizza Planet or Thork will look over the subject matter. It's not an article I wrote or really have an interest in.

It does seem interesting the neither you nor any other FE supporter will comment on things that seem to be evidence against a flat earth:

• Ships over horizon: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4751.msg92210#msg92210
  Simply no comment.
  
  
• Earth will not fit: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4557.msg88728#msg88728
  The only reply was from you, asking for evidence. I provide evidence - no response from anyone.
  The only points in question were (1) Equator to North pole - 10,000 km and (2) Equatorial Circumference - 40,000 km.
  
  
• What did Cavendish Measure: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66170.msg1766858#msg1766858
  This is on the "other site" and this topic was only posted today, but almost the same post has appeared numerous times - absolutely ignored!
  
  
• Cavendish again: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66170.msg1766858#msg1766858
  and the thread stops there.
  
  
• Full Moon on Flat Earth: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66101.msg1766415#msg1766415
  The only "critical" response has been one asking for the diagram to be drawn to scale! That makes the sun and moon invisible!
  
  
• Equivalence Principle: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65265.msg1744289#msg1744289
  Yes, TFES, tries to claim it applies!

  The Equivalence Principle
  The phenomenon we observe everyday when falling is currently substantiated in modern physics by what is called "The Equivalence Principle".
  This principle in physics states that in a relative frame of reference, it is not possible to locally discern whether the frame is accelerating upwards, or if the object inside the frame is affected by gravity.

Yes, I suppose my posts are boring, but with the response I (don't) you can see why I have no respect for the FE. No-one seems able to support their own model, other than "Look up the Wiki" or read "Earth not a Globe".
Even the guess at the sun's height is based on little more than an ancient Greek getting his slave to pace out distances, when all the time he thought he was measuring the earth's diameter!
I would even like some critical response to say where I have gone wrong! But simply nothing! What is this FE based on?

[markjo]

Here are my comments I made in another thread about the video in the OP:

That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.

You never explained why anyone should consider either Rowboham or ENaG to be an authority on surveying.

[model 29]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487755017/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/planetrick/487726854/in/photostream





(both photographs taken right on the beach, as can be seen in the captions, and in the rest of the photos)

DISTANCE: 65 KM

VISUAL OBSTACLE: OVER 200 METERS, YET THE OTHER SHORELINE IS IN PLAIN SIGHT

Upon closer inspection, the bottom photo looks to be a series of buildings between Burlington and Oakville (area called Elizabeth Gardens), and are only about 12km away from the photographer's position which, as it turns out, is easily determined based on their other photos taken at that beach.

I can't quite determine the location of the building in the top picture, but I'm sure it's not 65 km away.

[model 29]

I could care less.

You should, because now I will bring back the photograph taken in Rochester NY:




http://www.flickr.com/photos/davehuston/124639197/

Now let's take a look at this picture.  The description on flickr states, "View of Toronto Skyline taken as we were coming in from Rochester NY."  What does that mean exactly?  A good portion of the distance between Rochester and Toronto is land, but if one looks at the photorealistic buildings on google earth while angling for a view as Toronto would appear from the direction of Rochester, the buildings don't match that picture.  If one moves North from that line of sight, the buildings come to match what is seen in the photo.  That combined with "coming in from" leads me to believe the picture was taken from a ferry that was running between the two cities at the time, which means the picture most likely was taken from somewhere along the ferry route and the distance would be a lot less than 150km.

[Woody]

It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.

Correlation does not equal causation, Tom.  There were checks in place to deal with this source of bias.

Both Hampden and Wallace had referees. Their referees looked into the telescope and sided with their clients.

Actually Hampden's referee signed off on a picture demonstrating that the middle marker was higher than the outside markers, indicated the Earth is round.

The experiment is out the window because it was a wager. It is not really permissible as evidence to either side of the argument.

So then I assume you will amend the wiki to say as much, in the interest of completeness?  Also, the wiki should be amended because it says that Wallace cheated, which is patently untrue.  He was forced to give the winnings back because those types of wagers were not permitted and nothing to do with cheating.

Perhaps Pizza Planet or Thork will look over the subject matter. It's not an article I wrote or really have an interest in.

What about what is written as the distance for the Bishop Experiment?  I believe you have access to edit the wiki now.

Are you going to at the very least provide a visible link to an addendum making the correction? I would suggest insert it right next to where it says 33 miles.

Since you know the distance is 10 miles off if you do not make an attempt within your means to make people aware of your error you are being dishonest.

If you do not your credibility as a researcher of FE should be questioned.

[rabinoz]

The bipolar map has made it through seven years of debate, using every conceivable distance (even Santiago de Chile to Juneau): it works very well, the only FE map that can be used.

By the way rabinoz... you still owe us an answer to the most basic argument which destroys RE once and for all:

THE FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX

So far you have refused to answer it: as I told you before, unless you can explain the faint young sun paradox, your words amount to nothing at all.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290

1: THE FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX has nothing to to do with whether the earth is flat or a globe.
2: Your ridiculous "bipolar map" has nefer been seriously considered by any sane person - that is how it survived!

Just get the message neither I nor anyone else here is the slightest bit interested in your "FAINT YOUNG SUN PARADOX" and I have no intention of wasting my time of it!

[Rounder]

Add to the list of "Posts the FE crowd won't address":

My contribution on infrared radiation from the sun

My question about the sun's distance from the earth as reportd by Rowbotham himself or the Wiki

[rabinoz]

Add to the list of "Posts the FE crowd won't address":

My contribution on infrared radiation from the sun

My question about the sun's distance from the earth as reportd by Rowbotham himself or the Wiki

I have started a new topic How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?.
It is essentially the same as I have asked on other threads and elsewhere, but never had an answer to the specific question as to how a person with a full moon overhead (it would be at midnight) can ever see any better that a half moon.

See what happens this time!