[MathJunkie1]

Hello. I begin this post with the assumption that I will not convince any dedicated flat earth believer that the world really is round. It has been proven time and again that people’s opinions are nearly impossible to shake with facts or reasoning. With that in mind, I begin.
TL;DR go graph on a scientific graphing calculator the circle x^2+y^2=2490.1 to represent earths circumference, place the points (0,49.9009) and (0.6,49.89725) representing the 6 miles in the experiment, and the secant line y=-0.00608x+49.9009. See for yourself how small that really is compared to the earth as a whole! End TL;DR.
The Bedford Level Experiment, this society’s best example of flat earth proof, is flawed. The size of the experimental area is simply too small, I believe 6 miles was the official measurement. With the assumption that our Earth has a circumference (specifically at the equator) of 24,901 miles, a distance of six miles would create only one eleventh of a degree in change (1/11). A radial change of that amount would, in any size circle, create a situation similar to a tangent line. In my calculations I scaled down the size by 10:1 (one unit=10 miles) for a circle with a circumference of 2,490.1 (That’s x^2+y^2=2490.1). I generously used two points 0.6 units away from each other on the x-axis (0,49.9009) and (0.6,49.8975), which created a change in y-value of only 0.00365 (0.037 miles! That’s just under 200 feet). Then using the secant formula (y2-y1/x2-x1) I found the slope of a line connecting the two points (-0.00608) and using the equation y=-0.00608x+49.9009 successfully graphed a secant line between the two points. The difference between this perfectly straight line and the earth’s natural curvature is too small to be accurately measured.

If you have any rebuttal, feel free to comment back. I will be checking back within a week and will accept these arguments with an open mind. This is not meant to prove that the earth is round, merely argue against using such a flawed experiment in so many arguments for your cause.
Thank you.

[Tom Bishop]

There should be a hidden area behind the curve of the Earth when looking over 6 miles near the surface.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Round_Earth_Theory_Curvature_Calculations

[GreatATuin]

The geometry is sound. The flaw was failure to account for atmospheric refraction. Famous naturalist Alfred Wallace rebutted the experiment as early as 1870.

[Tom Bishop]

The geometry is sound. The flaw was failure to account for atmospheric refraction. Famous naturalist Alfred Wallace rebutted the experiment as early as 1870.

What did he debunk? Rowbothams results were replicated by others. Rowbotham says that the results can be inconsistent depending on conditions- https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

There is no test which claims to see a drop matching RE curvature.

[JSS]

There is no test which claims to see a drop matching RE curvature.

You can't keep claiming that.

Alfred Wallace did it.  More than once. It's well documented, especially since Rowbotham's supporter sued and was eventually jailed for death threats. Plenty of documentation at the time due to all the legal issues.







One source, feel free to Google for as many more as you need: https://flatearth.ws/bedford-level

[Tom Bishop]

Actually, the test was canceled due to conditions one one day and they met again on the next day. There is no calculation for how much drop should have been seen due to an RE there.

You are claiming that they saw a drop of an unknown value, and that this is verification of the theory, despite that it is a single observation. Today we know that Rowbotham was right, and that the changing atmospheric conditions can change the scene over time.

[AATW]

There is no test which claims to see a drop matching RE curvature.

Because, as you probably know really, most curve calculators start with the assumption of a simplified model of a perfectly spherical earth with no atmosphere. Neither of those things are true in reality. Yes, some calculators do allow you to adjust for refraction but you're going to have to take a guess, or take very careful measurements, to know how much refraction is in effect.

The question for FE is why is there any drop at all? I've posted the Turning Torso video a bunch of times, that video makes no sense on a flat earth. Your argument is always "Aha! But that image doesn't exactly match what your RE model predicts". But the image never matches what a FE predicts which is you should be able to see the whole building. To get around that you have some cobbled together ideas about why parts of the building are hidden, and the amount hidden increases with distance. But all you're doing there is trying to make excuses about why the observations match far better with what you'd expect on a globe than on a flat earth.

[JSS]

Actually, the test was canceled due to conditions one one day and they met again on the next day. There is no calculation for how much drop should have been seen due to an RE there.

You are claiming that they saw a drop of an unknown value, and that this is verification of the theory, despite that it is a single observation. Today we know that Rowbotham was right, and that the changing atmospheric conditions can change the scene over time.

So your retort to a well documented experiment is, it's only a single observation?

Perhaps you should actually read before you comment.

In fact, they did it more than once. Hampden kept raising objections, so Wallace repeated the experiment, including things like levels and crosshairs which Hampden demanded.

I'm afraid you are the one basing all of your beliefs on ONE guy who did an unverified experiment, which has been proven wrong again and again.

[Pete Svarrior]

Famous naturalist Alfred Wallace rebutted the experiment as early as 1870.

Strange. If he was so successful, then why did he lose so much money in the wager? Why did he feel the need to cheat?

Hint: before you answer this question with any degree of confidence, you should familiarise yourself with the accounts of people other than the perpetrator himself.

[JSS]

Famous naturalist Alfred Wallace rebutted the experiment as early as 1870.

Strange. If he was so successful, then why did he lose so much money in the wager? Why did he feel the need to cheat?

Hint: before you answer this question with any degree of confidence, you should familiarise yourself with the accounts of people other than the perpetrator himself.

I'm curious where you're getting your information. Could you provide some sources?

I've read so many accounts of this, and they all say the same thing. 

Wallace did not lose any money. He was awarded the money from winning the bet, Hampden then sued claiming he had withdrew the wager before it was over, a court agreed and ordered the money returned. Note that he wasn't given the money back because he won, but because he said he withdrew the bet before the money was awarded. No money was lost, and if that is how he 'cheated' I would have to dispute that as well.

Later, Hampden was sued for libel and lost that case, so Hampden ended up paying Wallace in the end.

Hampden was also charged with and sentenced to jail for death threats, and found guilty of libel at least three times over accusing Wallace of cheating.

Here is a transcript of one of the court procedings: https://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S248A.htm

You will need to provide references of your own, and not just a Flat Earth Wiki page. Independent sources please, thanks.

[AATW]

It did cost Wallace money in court costs
A fairly detailed account here:

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

In the end, with all the court costs, and despite being the wronged party throughout it all, Wallace's woeful wager cost him several hundred pounds and no end of trouble.

But it's pretty clear that Wallace won the bet. Here's one of the letters Hampden sent Wallace's wife:

"Mrs. Wallace,—Madam, if your infernal thief of a husband is brought home some day on a hurdle, with every bone in his head smashed to pulp, you will know the reason. Do you tell him from me he is a lying infernal thief, and as sure as his name is Wallace he never dies in his bed.
"You must be a miserable wretch to be obliged to live with a convicted felon. Do not think or let him think I have done with him.

"John Hampden."

Nice chap.

[GreatATuin]

Famous naturalist Alfred Wallace rebutted the experiment as early as 1870.

Strange. If he was so successful, then why did he lose so much money in the wager? Why did he feel the need to cheat?

Hint: before you answer this question with any degree of confidence, you should familiarise yourself with the accounts of people other than the perpetrator himself.

I did. And I didn't find any reliable report that he had cheated in the experiment. In fact I didn't read it anywhere other than the wiki here, without any source to back up that statement. Maybe you shoud familiarise yourself with the accounts of people other than the person that ended up in jail for threatening Wallace's life? Because as far as I know, he's the only one who said Wallace cheated.

Wallace did have to return the 500 pounds, but that had nothing to see with the validity of the experiment, just with the legality of the wager.

[totallackey]

I know if I was the victim of a swindle on the part of Rowbotham (as all you Wallace fans like to claim), Rowbotham would have been lying dead on the banks of the canal as evidence of the fraud.

[stack]

I know if I was the victim of a swindle on the part of Rowbotham (as all you Wallace fans like to claim), Rowbotham would have been lying dead on the banks of the canal as evidence of the fraud.

Well done Lackey. All you've shown is that it wouldn't take much for you to murder someone.

A really well documented account of the Wallace affair as well as some other Rowbotham wagers can be found in Bob Schadewald's, The Plane Truth.
https://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/index.html

[MathJunkie1]

I watched that video about refraction- doesn't really prove anything to me.
Tom Bishop, you said that there should be a hidden area when looking over 6 miles. However, I believe the observers at the Bedford experiment were never were more than 3 miles from the bridge, equal distances on either side for their experiment. Wouldn't you have accounted for that? Your video on refraction has little to do here, aside from point out that since light can curve up it could make a round surface appear flat.
I don't care who lost money or won the court battle, I'm talking about an experiment. I want to ask you directly why such a debated and flawed experiment is used for your Frequently Asked Questions page.

Perhaps the best example of Flat Earth proof is the Bedford Level Experiment. In short, this was an experiment performed many times on a six-mile stretch of water that proved the surface of the water to be flat.

If it's been repeatedly denied, why do you still say its your best proof? Is your FAQ page just out of date?

[Tom Bishop]

I want to ask you directly why such a debated and flawed experiment is used for your Frequently Asked Questions page.

The experiments are not flawed at all.

From Experiment Two of Earth Not a Globe we read:

“ Along the edge of the water, in the same canal, six flags were placed, one statute mile from each other, and so arranged that the top of each flag was 5 feet above the surface. Close to the last flag in the series a longer staff was fixed, bearing a flag 3 feet square, and the top of which was 8 feet above the surface of the water--the bottom being in a line with the tops of the other and intervening flags, as shown in the following diagram, Fig, 4. ”

           

“ On looking with a good telescope over and along the flags, from A to B, the line of sight fell on the lower part of the larger flag at B. The altitude of the point B above the water at D was 5 feet, and the altitude of the telescope at A above the water at C was 5 feet; and each intervening flag had the same altitude. Hence the surface of the water C, D, was equidistant from the line of sight A, B; and as A B was a right line, C, D, being parallel, was also a right line; or, in other words, the surface of the water, C, D, was for six miles absolutely horizontal.

If the earth is a globe, the series of flags in the last experiment would have had the form and produced the results represented in the diagram, Fig. 5. The water curvating from ”

           

“ C to D, each flag would have been a given amount below the line A, B. The first and second flags would have determined the direction of the line of sight from A to B, and the third flag would have been 8 inches below the second; the fourth flag, 32 inches; the fifth, 6 feet; the sixth, 10 feet 8 inches; and the seventh, 16 feet 8 inches; but the top of the last and largest flag, being 3 feet higher than the smaller ones, would have been 13 feet 8 inches below the line of sight at the point B. ”

If the earth were a globe it is quite the coincidence that the flags all experienced the Flat Earth refraction effect, one by one, all the way down to the end, which projected each flag into the air at the exact height they needed to be at in order to make things look flat in accordance with the distance looked across and the height of the observer. Each flag drops a unique distance as the Earth drops.

Rowbotham is well aware of the "it was refraction" argument, and his experiment is designed to test the refraction of light rays on the flags of constant height against the taller flag at the end. The observation is artificially manipulated—controlled—to separate one explanation from another, in the effort to more truthfully determine a cause of an observation. There are multiple control points in this experiment. Each point is a test in the experiment. Incredible refraction coincidences would need to occur to account for them. The top of the first flag would have to have been projected 8 inches into the air, the second flag 2.67 feet, the third flag 6 feet, the fourth flag 10.6 feet, the fifth flag 14.29 feet, and the sixth flag 24.01 feet into the air, when the later flags should be below the horizon.

Similar experiments like Experiment Two above have been conducted.

Frozen Lake Proves Flat Earth - Runtime: 3m23s
Hernando County Waterways - Runtime: 2m34s

The answer to these is "a coincidence did it."

[BRrollin]

I want to ask you directly why such a debated and flawed experiment is used for your Frequently Asked Questions page.

The experiments are not flawed at all.

From Experiment Two of Earth Not a Globe we read:

“ Along the edge of the water, in the same canal, six flags were placed, one statute mile from each other, and so arranged that the top of each flag was 5 feet above the surface. Close to the last flag in the series a longer staff was fixed, bearing a flag 3 feet square, and the top of which was 8 feet above the surface of the water--the bottom being in a line with the tops of the other and intervening flags, as shown in the following diagram, Fig, 4. ”

           

“ On looking with a good telescope over and along the flags, from A to B, the line of sight fell on the lower part of the larger flag at B. The altitude of the point B above the water at D was 5 feet, and the altitude of the telescope at A above the water at C was 5 feet; and each intervening flag had the same altitude. Hence the surface of the water C, D, was equidistant from the line of sight A, B; and as A B was a right line, C, D, being parallel, was also a right line; or, in other words, the surface of the water, C, D, was for six miles absolutely horizontal.

If the earth is a globe, the series of flags in the last experiment would have had the form and produced the results represented in the diagram, Fig. 5. The water curvating from ”

           

“ C to D, each flag would have been a given amount below the line A, B. The first and second flags would have determined the direction of the line of sight from A to B, and the third flag would have been 8 inches below the second; the fourth flag, 32 inches; the fifth, 6 feet; the sixth, 10 feet 8 inches; and the seventh, 16 feet 8 inches; but the top of the last and largest flag, being 3 feet higher than the smaller ones, would have been 13 feet 8 inches below the line of sight at the point B. ”

If the earth were a globe it is quite the coincidence that the flags all experienced the Flat Earth refraction effect, one by one, all the way down to the end, which projected each flag into the air at the exact height they needed to be at in order to make things look flat in accordance with the distance looked across and the height of the observer. Each flag drops a unique distance as the Earth drops.

Rowbotham is well aware of the "it was refraction" argument, and his experiment is designed to test the refraction of light rays on the flags of constant height against the taller flag at the end. The observation is artificially manipulated—controlled—to separate one explanation from another, in the effort to more truthfully determine a cause of an observation. There are multiple control points in this experiment. Each point is a test in the experiment. Incredible refraction coincidences would need to occur to account for them. The top of the first flag would have to have been projected 8 inches into the air, the second flag 2.67 feet, the third flag 6 feet, the fourth flag 10.6 feet, the fifth flag 14.29 feet, and the sixth flag 24.01 feet into the air, when the later flags should be below the horizon.

Similar experiments like Experiment Two above have been conducted.

Frozen Lake Proves Flat Earth - Runtime: 3m23s
Hernando County Waterways - Runtime: 2m34s

The answer to these is "a coincidence did it."

Thanks for that nice info!

Is there a description that accompanies these examples of research that states the specifics, such as the devices used to measure distance, the telescopes, the uncertainties recorded, and other types of analysis I am seeing in other research, like propagation of uncertainty, confidence levels, etc.?

Although (obviously) I’m not qualified to comment on these things, I just noticed that it is odd that these things are missing when they usually aren’t.

[AATW]

The answer to these is "a coincidence did it."

Apparently a perfectly valid answer when you're asked why the sun maintains a consistent angular size throughout the day despite it being many times further away at sunset than at noon and thus should be many times smaller.
But, by coincidence there's some effect which magnifies it in such a way that at all distances it's magnified by different amounts so it looks exactly the same size all the time.
But that's a coincidence which is needed to make FE work and thus is OK?

And I note you continue to ignore the fact that in that video on the ice the two distant lights are flickering on and off despite them being steady light sources, the further one flickers the most. Almost like at times the light is being blocked by something. What could that be?

[Tom Bishop]

Check the Frozen Lake video again. When the camera is 1 foot above the surface the red light does not blink and is steady. Only when the camera gets to such a close altitude of 5 inches the red light starts blinking a bit.

At 1 foot above the horizon, refraction would need to occur there too, yet the red light is not blinking. Your 'blinking light proves refraction' argument is shown to be false by the 1 foot observation.

I don't see what the size of the sun has to do with this. That can occur through a mechanism that does not rely on 'coincidence'. This response is admitting that your position is that a coincidence did it.

[MathJunkie1]

The blinking of that light could be a lot of things, most importantly a recording frequency. I like those videos- they are scientifically sound reasons and I certainly can't say anything bad about them. They don't convince me of a flat earth, of course, but they are definitely interesting. Thank you for those last few posts, they certainly helped me understand better the experimentation process of the Bedford Level situation.