The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Projects => Topic started by: edby on May 12, 2018, 03:17:14 PM
-
I have an idea to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Wallace’s test by repeating it, in the same place, around February 2020 (less than 2 years’ time).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
I would welcome participation from the FE Society. The rules would conform to Wallace’s, namely (i) both sides (RE/FE) would agree to the methodology, (ii) both would agree as to what observation would prove, or disprove either theory (iii) both sides would confirm the observations at first hand.
I would be prepared to fund a decent prize. We could get sponsorship from instrument makers, surveying firms, tourist boards etc. Could make a short documentary about it or post on YouTube.
It has little scientific merit, given the science has been well understood for centuries, but might help to convince the unconvinced in a world of fake news and explosion of conspiracy theories on the internet.
And we could have a beer. I appreciate 2020 some way off, but indications of interest would be appreciated.
I will be heading off to Norfolk later this year to see if the terrain still suitable for the test.
-
That's a cool idea. I've seen (or at least heard) where others have tried to recreate the test, but with varying levels of success (mostly due to weather conditions and changes over the years to the environment).
But it would be interesting to try.
(I'd like to recreate the "Bishop Experiment" sometime. I don't have a telescope of the power Tom claims to have used, but I have one with a 127mm aperture,and 1000mm focal length, which gives me about half the magnification Tom's says he had in his observations. One of these days, maybe during my next trip to San Luis Obispo, I'm going to bring my telescope along and, if the weather conditions are similar to Tom's, try to document what he reported to have observed.)
-
That's a cool idea. I've seen (or at least heard) where others have tried to recreate the test, but with varying levels of success (mostly due to weather conditions and changes over the years to the environment).
But it would be interesting to try.
Indeed. I found an old survey instrument similar to what Wallace used, although I am advised a Nikon P900 would be more modern. Could use both. The altercation between Carpenter and Wallace is amusing.
The fallacies in the remainder of Mr Carpenter's letter have been so ably refuted (by anticipation) by your correspondent Mr J. Tanner, that I need say no more about them. I would ask Mr Carpenter, however, to state, for the information of your readers, whether the universally-accepted and only known method of deciding whether three distant points are in a straight line is true or false. http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S162-163.htm
-
It is better to attempt to repeat Rowbotham's original experiments to the letter rather than trying to create a derived version which may be flawed. Alfred Wallace and Co. chose to create their own version; but was flawed because they had not read Earth Not a Globe closely enough on the documented issues with theodolites.
Rowbotham explains the problem with the experiment in the Wallace wager here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
-
It is better to attempt to repeat Rowbotham's original experiments to the letter rather than trying to create a derived version which may be flawed. Alfred Wallace and Co. chose to create their own version; but was flawed because they had not read Earth Not a Globe closely enough on the documented issues with theodolites.
Rowbotham explains the problem with the experiment in the Wallace wager here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
Modern instruments with higher accuracy should be used.
-
It is better to attempt to repeat Rowbotham's original experiments to the letter rather than trying to create a derived version which may be flawed. Alfred Wallace and Co. chose to create their own version; but was flawed because they had not read Earth Not a Globe closely enough on the documented issues with theodolites.
Rowbotham explains the problem with the experiment in the Wallace wager here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
Modern instruments with higher accuracy should be used.
That too, but accuracy is not the issue in the Wallace experiment, which is conclusive with a huge margin. The question is simply whether one marker is higher than another.
-
It is better to attempt to repeat Rowbotham's original experiments to the letter rather than trying to create a derived version which may be flawed. Alfred Wallace and Co. chose to create their own version; but was flawed because they had not read Earth Not a Globe closely enough on the documented issues with theodolites.
Rowbotham explains the problem with the experiment in the Wallace wager here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
What do you understand the problem is, according to Rowbotham?
-
It is better to attempt to repeat Rowbotham's original experiments to the letter rather than trying to create a derived version which may be flawed. Alfred Wallace and Co. chose to create their own version; but was flawed because they had not read Earth Not a Globe closely enough on the documented issues with theodolites.
Rowbotham explains the problem with the experiment in the Wallace wager here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
What do you understand the problem is, according to Rowbotham?
I decline to rewrite something that is clearly detailed in the link provided.
-
It is better to attempt to repeat Rowbotham's original experiments to the letter rather than trying to create a derived version which may be flawed. Alfred Wallace and Co. chose to create their own version; but was flawed because they had not read Earth Not a Globe closely enough on the documented issues with theodolites.
Rowbotham explains the problem with the experiment in the Wallace wager here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
What do you understand the problem is, according to Rowbotham?
I decline to rewrite something that is clearly detailed in the link provided.
I thought so.
-
I thought so.
If you are not going to make a basic effort to read the material provided to you, then I see little reason for why we should engage with you on any topic. No one is going to rewrite a chapter in a book for you. It is right there to read in black and white.
-
It sounds like the Rowbotham claim is that the middle optical Target was mounted 3.75 inches too high.
So, Tom, could we not design an experiment where the targets are mounted satisfactorily to you?
-
It sounds like the Rowbotham claim is that the middle optical Target was mounted 3.75 inches too high.
So, Tom, could we not design an experiment where the targets are mounted satisfactorily to you?
The problem in the experiment is collimation of light traveling through a lens when attempting to line up bodies with the crosshairs of a theodolite.
The experiments Rowbotham performs in Earth Not a Globe are specifically designed to avoid that issue. While telescopes and theodolites are used in Earth Not a Globe, they are merely being used as magnification instruments that are observing whether bodies line up with each other in the distance, or whether they disappear to curvature.
It is best to just recreate Rowbotham's original experiments.
-
The problem in the experiment is collimation of light traveling through a lens when attempting to line up bodies with the crosshairs of a theodolite.
This is not the problem. This is why I wanted to see if you understood what the flaw was supposed to be. As Wallace explained, the force of his experiment is independent of issues like 'crosshairs'.
If you are not going to make a basic effort to read the material provided to you ..
I have read that material, such as it is.
-
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
TANGENTIAL HORIZON.
IF a theodolite is placed on the sea shore, "levelled," and directed towards the sea, the line of the horizon will be a given amount below the cross-hair, and a certain "dip" or inclination from the level position will have to be made to bring the cross-hair and the sea-horizon together. If the theodolite is similarly fixed, but at a greater altitude, the space between the cross-hair and the sea horizon, and the dip of the instrument to bring them together, is also greater. From the above, which is perfectly true, it has been concluded that the surface of the earth is convex, and the line of sight over the sea tangential. As a proof that such is not the case, the following experiment may be tried:--
Place a theodolite on an eminence near the sea. "Level," and direct it over the water, when the horizon will be seen a little below the cross-hair or centre of the telescope, as shown in the diagram, fig. 30, page 41, and from the cause there assigned, viz., collimation, or refraction. Now let the instrument be inclined downwards until the cross-hair touches the horizon, as shown in fig. 31, page 41, and in the following diagram, fig. 92. If the theodolite had a simple tube without lenses, instead of a telescope, which causes the appearance shown in , the
p. 266
(https://i.imgur.com/kgGVrOv.jpg)
FIG. 92.
horizon would be seen in a line with the cross-hair, or axis of the eye, as at A, fig. 92, and the amount of "dip" required to bring the cross-hair and the horizon in contact with each other will be represented by the angle A, T, S, to which must be added the collimation. In every instance where the experiment has been specially tried, the dip without the collimation only amounted to the angle A, T, S; thus proving that the' surface of the sea, S, B, is horizontal, because parallel to the line A, T. If the water is convex, the line of sight, A, T, would be a tangent, and the dip to the horizon would be T, H, represented by the angle A, T, H. This angle, A, T, H, is never observed, but always A, T, S, plus collimation or divergence produced by the lenses in the telescope of the theodolite. Hence the surface of the waters is everywhere horizontal.
The words "collimation," "divergence," "refraction," &c., have many times been used in connection with this part of the subject, and the following very simple experiment will both exhibit what is meant, and show its influence in practice.
Take a "magnifying glass," or a convex lens, and hold it over a straight line drawn across a sheet of paper. If the line is drawn longer than the diameter of the lens, that part of it which is outside the lens will have a different position to that seen through it, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 93.
p. 267
(https://i.imgur.com/IZKjsl5.jpg)
FIG. 93.
Instead of the line going uninterruptedly through the lens in the direction A, B, it will diverge, and appear at 1, 2; or it will appear above the line A, B, as at 3, 4, if the lens is held to the slightest amount above or below the actual centre.
A lens is a magnifying glass because it dilates, or spreads out from its centre, the objects seen through it. The infinitesimal or mathematical point actually in the centre is, of course, not visibly influenced, being in the very centre or on the true axis of the eye, but any part in the minutest degree out of that abstract centre is dilated, or diverged, or thrown further away from it than it would be to the naked eye; hence its apparent enlargement or expansion. Whatever, therefore, is magnified, is really so because thrown more or less out of the centre, and the more or less magnifying power of the lens is really the more or less divergence of the pencils of light on passing through the substance of which it is composed. In the telescope of a theodolite, or spirit-level, the spider's web of which the cross hair is made is placed in the actual centre; hence, in an observation, the point absolutely
p. 268
opposite to it is not seen, but only some other point minutely distant from it, but the distance of which is increased by the divergence caused by the lenses; and this divergence is what is called the "magnifying power." This is the source of those peculiarities which have been so very illogically considered to be proofs of the earth's rotundity. It is from this peculiarity that several gentlemen prematurely concluded that the water in the Bedford Canal was convex.
On the 5th of March, 1870, a party, consisting of Messrs. John Hampden, of Swindon, Wilts; Alfred Wallace, of London, William Carpenter, of Lewisham, M. W. B. Coulcher, of Downham Market, and J. H. Walsh, Editor of "The Field" newspaper, assembled on the northern bank of the "Old Bedford Canal," to repeat experiments similar to those described in figs. 2, 3, 4, and 5, on pages 11 to 14 of this work. But, from causes which need not be referred to here, they abandoned their original intentions, and substituted the following. On the western face of the Old Bedford Bridge, at Salter's Lode, a signal was placed at an elevation of 13 feet 4 inches above the water in the canal; at the distance of three miles a signal-post, with a disc 12 inches in diameter on the top, was so fixed that "the centre of the disc was 13 feet 4 inches above the water-line;" and at the distance of another three miles (or six miles altogether), on the eastern side of the Welney Bridge, another signal was placed, "3 inches above the top rail of the bridge, and 13 feet 4 inches above the water-line." 1 This arrangement is represented in the following diagram, fig. 94:--
p. 269
(https://i.imgur.com/GLLb4cp.jpg)
FIG. 94.
A, the signal on the Old Bedford Bridge; B, the telescope on Welney Bridge; and C, the central signal-post, three miles from each end. The object-glass of the telescope was 4½ inches diameter; hence the centre, or true eye-line, was 2¼ inches higher than the top of the signal B, and 3¾ inches below the top of the signal-disc at C. On directing the telescope, "with a power of 50," towards the signal A, the centre of which was 2¼ inches below the centre of the telescope, it was seen to be below it; but the disc on the centre pole, the top of which was, to begin with, 3¾ inches above the centre, or line of sight, from the telescope, was seen to stand considerably higher than the signal A. From which, three of the gentlemen immediately, but most unwarrantably, concluded that the elevation of the disc in the field of view of the telescope was owing to a rise in the water of the canal, showing convexity! whereas it was nothing more than simply the upward divergence (of that which was already 3¾ inches above the line of sight) produced by the magnifying power of the telescope, as shown in the experiment with the lens, on page 267, fig. 92.
Why did they omit to consider the fact that 3¾ inches excess of altitude would be made by a magnifying power of 50, to appear to stand considerably above the eye-line, and that a mere hair's-breadth of dip--an amount which could not be detected--towards the distant signal would by magnifying,
p. 270
diverging, or dilating all above it, make it appear to be lifted up for several feet? Why did they not take care that the top of the centre disc was in a line with the telescope and the distant signal, A? Why, also, was the centre of the object glass fixed 2¼ inches higher than the centre of the object of observation at the other end? There was no difficulty in placing the centre of the telescope, the top of the middle disc, and the centre of the farthest signal mark, at the same altitude, and therefore in a straight line. For their own sakes as gentlemen, as well as for the sake of the cause they had undertaken to champion, it is unfortunate that they acted so unwisely; that they so foolishly laid themselves open to charges of unfairness in fixing the signals. Had they already seen enough to prove that the surface of the water was horizontal, and therefore instinctively felt a desire to do their best to delay as long as they could the day of general denunciation of their cherished doctrine of the earth's rotundity? Such questions are perfectly fair in relation to conduct so unjust and one-sided. It is evident that their anxiety to defend a doctrine which had been challenged by others overcame their desire for "truth without fear of consequences;" and they eagerly seized upon the veriest shadow of evidence to support themselves. In the whole history of invention, a more hasty, ill-conceived, illogical conclusion was never drawn; and it is well for civilisation that such procedure is almost universally denounced. It is scarcely possible to draw a favourable conclusion as to their motives in departing from their first intentions. Why did they not confine themselves to the repetition of
p. 271
the experiments, an account of which I had long previously published to the world, and to test which the expedition was first arranged? That of sending out a boat for a distance of six miles, and watching its progress from a fixed point with a good telescope, would have completely satisfied them as to the true form of the surface of the water; and as no irregularity in altitudes of signals, nor peculiarities of instruments, could have influenced the result, all engaged must at once have submitted to the simple truth as developed by the simplest possible experiment.
TL;DR: Wallace's version of the experiment is in error and brings up complications and one should perform the original simple experiments in Earth Not a Globe.
-
(1) Rowbotham's understand of lens refraction ('collimation') is completely wrong, as far as I can see, and in any case (2) Wallace's experiment does not rely on any assumptions about lens, crosshairs and so forth.
Rowbotham's original experiment, conducted at a level close to the water, was vulnerable to problems of refraction, which is why Wallace designed his experiment in the way he did. The Wallace experiment requires minimal prior assumptions.
-
"He's wrong"
"Not so"
Good one. Your rebuttals are so convincing, well thought out, and articulate. Why not just state that the earth is round with an expletive and move on to another website? That is what most of you high thinkers do.
-
And this diagram beautifully explains Rowbotham’s mistake,
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/6/6a/Rowbotham_crosshair.jpg)
C is the endmark, B is the middle pole, and A is the crosshair. Rowbotham (like Carpenter) completely misunderstands that it is enough that B and C are not lined up. Forget the crosshair. If A is my eye, B the midpoint, and C the endpoint, then by geometry the three points will form a straight line only if B and C coincide. Otherwise not.
I would ask Mr Carpenter, however, to state, for the information of your readers, whether the universally-accepted and only known method of deciding whether three distant points are in a straight line is true or false. That method is to place the eye (whether aided by a telescope or not) at or behind one of the extreme points, and see whether the other two or all three coincide, the nearer hiding or covering the more distant. If so, they are in a straight line. Every carpenter who looks along the edge of a floor board, every surveyor who runs his base lines across the country, every builder who sets out a long wall, uses this method. Does Mr Carpenter say they are all wrong, and that every line thus set out is a crooked or curved line? If so, let him prove this elementary point by experiment and diagrams, and thus found a totally new and hitherto unimagined geometry. http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S162-163.htm
-
"He's wrong"
"Not so"
Good one. Your rebuttals are so convincing, well thought out, and articulate. Why not just state that the earth is round with an expletive and move on to another website? That is what most of you high thinkers do.
Not at all. Logic, geometry and evidence, rather than bare assertions.
-
And this diagram beautifully explains Rowbotham’s mistake,
http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/6/6a/Rowbotham_crosshair.jpg
C is the endmark, B is the middle pole, and A is the crosshair. Rowbotham (like Carpenter) completely misunderstands that it is enough that B and C are not lined up. Forget the crosshair. If A is my eye, B the midpoint, and C the endpoint, then by geometry the three points will form a straight line only if B and C coincide. Otherwise not.
I would ask Mr Carpenter, however, to state, for the information of your readers, whether the universally-accepted and only known method of deciding whether three distant points are in a straight line is true or false. That method is to place the eye (whether aided by a telescope or not) at or behind one of the extreme points, and see whether the other two or all three coincide, the nearer hiding or covering the more distant. If so, they are in a straight line. Every carpenter who looks along the edge of a floor board, every surveyor who runs his base lines across the country, every builder who sets out a long wall, uses this method. Does Mr Carpenter say they are all wrong, and that every line thus set out is a crooked or curved line? If so, let him prove this elementary point by experiment and diagrams, and thus found a totally new and hitherto unimagined geometry. http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S162-163.htm
Recall that all of this is taking place under high magnification, with the phenomenon of collimation/divergence from the crosshair. A is the cross hair, and B and C are the targets that should be lined up. If the targets are not perfectly lined up, and there is even a hair's breadth of separation, the divergence of the lens will magnify the difference.
The illustration you provided is addressed in Earth Not a Globe in that same chapter:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
These same gentlemen tried another experiment, from which they, quite as prematurely and illogically as before, drew the conclusion that the water was convex, and not horizontal.
"A 16-inch Troughton level, accurately adjusted, was placed in the same position and height above the water as the large achromatic telescope employed in the last experiment," when the signal-pole, three miles, and the signal-flag on the bridge, six miles, away, were seen as shown in the following diagram, fig. 95. A is the cross-hair, B the signal-disc, and C the signal-flag on the Old Bedford Bridge. The telescope, D, D, D, carrying the cross-hair A, is on the bridge at Welney, three miles obverse from B and six from C.
p. 272
(https://i.imgur.com/pgJmIhu.jpg)
FIG. 95.
From the above observations, two of the experimenters at once concluded that the cross-hair in the line of sight was a tangent, and the water convex--the appearance of B, and C, resulting from the declination of the surface of the canal. It has been shown already that the best constructed levelling instruments necessarily produce, from the nature and arrangement of the lenses, a refraction or divergence of 1-1000th of a foot in a distance of 10 chains or 660 feet, so that the well-known and admitted refraction inseparable from the instruments employed, is fully sufficient to explain the position of the disc at B, and the flag at C, without demanding that the theory of the earth's rotundity is thereby corroborated. It is the duty of surveyors, and all who have an interest in this subject, to carefully study these peculiarities of levelling instruments, and not only to make themselves thoroughly acquainted with them, but to acknowledge their influence in every one of their operations. Should anyone have the slightest doubt of the effect of lenses in causing divergence of the line of sight, let him simply provide two
p. 273
instruments of precisely the same construction, except that one shall have the lenses taken out. It will then be seen that the instrument with lenses will not read, upon a graduated staff, the same point as that without them. The latter will give the true reading; and the difference between this and the reading of the instrument with lenses, is the amount for which allowance must be made, otherwise the results, however extensive and important, must be fallacious.
-
Actually Tom, let me give you a very simple example of why Rowbotham's reasoning is faulty. Suppose I have a gun with sights that are so bad that when I aim at one thing, the shot goes off in a quite different direction, perhaps accidentally killing stray members of the public.
Then suppose there are two objects B in the middle ground, C in the distance. I then get both B and C in the sight. Now because of the fault, any shot will go nowhere near B or C. We agree that.
However, Wallace's point is that if B and C are superimposed, then I, B and C lie in a straight line. The faulty sight is irrelevant.
Now do you see?
-
Recall that all of this is taking place under high magnification, with the phenomenon of collimation/divergence from the crosshair. A is the cross hair, and B and C are the targets that should be lined up. If the targets are not perfectly lined up, and there is even a hair's breadth of separation, the divergence of the lens will magnify the difference.
The illustration you provided is addressed in Earth Not a Globe in that same chapter:
Yup (posts crossed). That was where I got the illustration, naturally. His reasoning is erroneous, as explained in my post immediately above.
-
Actually Tom, let me give you a very simple example of why Rowbotham's reasoning is faulty. Suppose I have a gun with sights that are so bad that when I aim one thing, the shot goes off in a quite different direction, perhaps accidentally killing stray members of the public.
Then suppose there are two objects B in the middle ground, C in the distance. I then use the faulty sight to get both A and B within its view. Now because of the fault, any shot will go nowhere near B or C. We agree that.
However, Wallace's point is that if B and C are superimposed, then I, B and C lie in a straight line. The faulty sight is irrelevant.
Now do you see?
You are assuming that B and C and your position A are in a perfectly straight aligned line.
The alignment between B and C in Wallace's experiment would need to be perfect. Wallace's position and altitude with those objects must be in perfect alignment. This is why Rowbotham is criticizing the details of the heights of the bodies and the viewing apparatus in the experiment.
We are talking about bodies that are very far apart in distance from each other. All bodies need to be in perfect positions. The slightest difference makes all the difference in the world when we are magnifying scenes through a telescope or theodolite. A hair's breadth difference matters. You don't understand how sensitive this experiment is. It is playing with high power magnification and carefully aligned bodies that are tremendously separated from each other.
If everything is not perfect, there will be error, and that error will be magnified by divergence.
The complications concerned in this experiment clearly makes it a bad one. A simpler experiment is preferred.
-
You are assuming that B and C and your position A are in a perfectly straight aligned line.
No that's precisely not what I was assuming, and the purpose of my post was to explain that I was not assuming that. Nor was Wallace.
I would ask Mr Carpenter, however, to state, for the information of your readers, whether the universally-accepted and only known method of deciding whether three distant points are in a straight line is true or false. That method is to place the eye (whether aided by a telescope or not) at or behind one of the extreme points, and see whether the other two or all three coincide, the nearer hiding or covering the more distant. If so, they are in a straight line. Every carpenter who looks along the edge of a floor board, every surveyor who runs his base lines across the country, every builder who sets out a long wall, uses this method. Does Mr Carpenter say they are all wrong, and that every line thus set out is a crooked or curved line? If so, let him prove this elementary point by experiment and diagrams, and thus found a totally new and hitherto unimagined geometry. http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S162-163.htm
I challenge Mr Carpenter to place three objects at equal distances apart in a true straight line (three oranges on the parapet of Waterloo-bridge, for instance), and then with a telescope at either end, in the place of one object, make the centre object appear considerably raised above the distant one. Till he can do that, all his wordy argumentation is utterly valueless.
-
This would make a good school experiment. Three children A B C. Get A to move around until B's head appears superimposed on C. Then everyone else can see that A B C are in a straight line.
-
Rowbotham's critiques about the misalignment of the viewing apparatus are quite valid:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
The object-glass of the telescope was 4½ inches diameter; hence the centre, or true eye-line, was 2¼ inches higher than the top of the signal B, and 3¾ inches below the top of the signal-disc at C.
Imagine for a moment that everything is perfectly aligned in the experiment. You (A) are perfectly aligned with two points B and C that are separated by great distance. A, B and C are in perfect alignment and are a great distance apart. You look through the viewing apparatus and B and C are perfectly obscuring each other.
Now, if you were to move your viewing apparatus either slightly up, down, left or right, you are looking at B and C at a slightly different angle. Points B and C will no longer be seen to line up perfectly. B and C only line up in one spacial position that must be perfectly aligned.
By the great distances and magnification involved, this is quite a sensitive experiment. The objects in this experiment, and the viewing apparatus, need to be perfectly aligned.
The Wallace experiment is invalid and in error, and it is not hard to see this. It is not proper evidence of any sort.
-
The problem i see with trying to repeat the experiment in EnaG is that it cannot be repeated to the satisfaction of Tom or REers.
1, He does not use a scientific method, he only tells us this and that, but does not detail what exactly is happening, he does not tell us what instrument types he is using, or tell us the name, or calibration of his telescopes, theodolite or any other equipment. Air temperature, pressure humidity, or other environmental factors are not listed. The level of the river is not stated, and he does not list the reason his original experiment is not performed, but i would suggest that if it was for reasons he wont go into, it is not favourable to him!
2, Any results not meeting with his so called “original” experiments (unwitnessed apart from a few un-named and therefore cannot be confirmed impartial witnesses) will be dismissed as not lining up, collimating, or some other “error”
3, Unless Tom was there, he would never accept any results, and if he cant be bothered to give more than a few minutes of his day, he wont end up flying to the UK to witness said experiment.
4, Modern instruments are able to be verified, and calibrated to remove the errors AnaG claims, but as they are modern instruments, and will no doubt show EnaG wrong, then they will not be accepted. The old instruments used in EnaG are not listed, but even using period instruments the results would not be accepted as there will be a claim they are not accurate, poorly adjusted etc etc.
Point 1 is the reason why the original experiments cannot be reproduced, therefore in scientific terms they should never be called experiments!
-
The problem i see with trying to repeat the experiment in EnaG is that it cannot be repeated to the satisfaction of Tom or REers.
1, He does not use a scientific method, he only tells us this and that, but does not detail what exactly is happening, he does not tell us what instrument types he is using, or tell us the name, or calibration of his telescopes, theodolite or any other equipment. Air temperature, pressure humidity, or other environmental factors are not listed. The level of the river is not stated, and he does not list the reason his original experiment is not performed, but i would suggest that if it was for reasons he wont go into, it is not favourable to him!
2, Any results not meeting with his so called “original” experiments (unwitnessed apart from a few un-named and therefore cannot be confirmed impartial witnesses) will be dismissed as not lining up, collimating, or some other “error”
3, Unless Tom was there, he would never accept any results, and if he cant be bothered to give more than a few minutes of his day, he wont end up flying to the UK to witness said experiment.
4, Modern instruments are able to be verified, and calibrated to remove the errors AnaG claims, but as they are modern instruments, and will no doubt show EnaG wrong, then they will not be accepted. The old instruments used in EnaG are not listed, but even using period instruments the results would not be accepted as there will be a claim they are not accurate, poorly adjusted etc etc.
Point 1 is the reason why the original experiments cannot be reproduced, therefore in scientific terms they should never be called experiments!
This is totally false. I explained that one should perform a simple experiment, like the ones done in Earth Not a Globe, for acceptance.
-
The problem i see with trying to repeat the experiment in EnaG is that it cannot be repeated to the satisfaction of Tom or REers.
1, He does not use a scientific method, he only tells us this and that, but does not detail what exactly is happening, he does not tell us what instrument types he is using, or tell us the name, or calibration of his telescopes, theodolite or any other equipment. Air temperature, pressure humidity, or other environmental factors are not listed. The level of the river is not stated, and he does not list the reason his original experiment is not performed, but i would suggest that if it was for reasons he wont go into, it is not favourable to him!
2, Any results not meeting with his so called “original” experiments (unwitnessed apart from a few un-named and therefore cannot be confirmed impartial witnesses) will be dismissed as not lining up, collimating, or some other “error”
3, Unless Tom was there, he would never accept any results, and if he cant be bothered to give more than a few minutes of his day, he wont end up flying to the UK to witness said experiment.
4, Modern instruments are able to be verified, and calibrated to remove the errors AnaG claims, but as they are modern instruments, and will no doubt show EnaG wrong, then they will not be accepted. The old instruments used in EnaG are not listed, but even using period instruments the results would not be accepted as there will be a claim they are not accurate, poorly adjusted etc etc.
Point 1 is the reason why the original experiments cannot be reproduced, therefore in scientific terms they should never be called experiments!
This is totally false. I explained that one should perform a simple experiment, like the ones done in Earth Not a Globe, for acceptance.
Which part is false Tom?
That he didnt record ANY scientific data in order that the observations can be repeated?
Or that he didnt describe ANY of his equipment other than “a good telescope” or “theodolite”? If he does please feel free to direct me to the sections of EnaG that describe the methods, instruments and calibration dates.
Or that you would not accept any Experiments that appeared to disagree with EnaG?
I know the answer to the last one, as there are many observations that have been presented here that you claim as false, fake, or unreliable due to some absurd objection, therefore you have history and form, so I would be wary of wasting my time and effort on recreating the observations only for you to disregard them because the air pressure was not verified as the same......(or some other such nonsensical argument)
You have on occasion asked me to prove instruments that i use are calibrated, yet are quite happy to accept results from a completely unscientific set of observations.
I did provide you with a method, and certificate of calibration for my method, and all you could argue was that the horizon “must” have been hazy, even though you were not there.
I measured the sky across from south to North at over 90 degrees, with a modern sextant, free from errors, and provided you with a method as well as a way that i was able to cross check my observations were correct, and could be repeated, but you still would not accept it.
Doing the simple observations in EnaG will not get you to accept the results, as you have NEVER accepted anything that is contrary to your view.
-
"He's wrong"
"Not so"
Good one. Your rebuttals are so convincing
.
Your rebuttals are literally "that's wrong because Rowbotham said so" and "This experiment is wrong because it gives a result I don't agree with"
The second of those not quite what you say, but it's funny how every experiment, no matter how poorly designed and executed, which show a result which appears to back up what you believe prove you to be right, but any experiment which shows you to be wrong is flawed or, if every spurious objection is demolished, simply declared fake.
-
Rowbotham's critiques about the misalignment of the viewing apparatus are quite valid:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
The object-glass of the telescope was 4½ inches diameter; hence the centre, or true eye-line, was 2¼ inches higher than the top of the signal B, and 3¾ inches below the top of the signal-disc at C.
Imagine for a moment that everything is perfectly aligned in the experiment. You (A) are perfectly aligned with two points B and C that are separated by great distance. A, B and C are in perfect alignment and are a great distance apart. You look through the viewing apparatus and B and C are perfectly obscuring each other.
Now, if you were to move your viewing apparatus either slightly up, down, left or right, you are looking at B and C at a slightly different angle. Points B and C will no longer be seen to line up perfectly. B and C only line up in one spacial position that must be perfectly aligned.
By the great distances and magnification involved, this is quite a sensitive experiment. The objects in this experiment, and the viewing apparatus, need to be perfectly aligned.
The Wallace experiment is invalid and in error, and it is not hard to see this. It is not proper evidence of any sort.
Elementary trigonometry shows that the viewing apparatus would have to be at least 8 feet higher in order for the top marker to line up with the horizontal line on the bridge.
Not a few inches as you suggest.
-
Rowbotham's critiques about the misalignment of the viewing apparatus are quite valid:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
The object-glass of the telescope was 4½ inches diameter; hence the centre, or true eye-line, was 2¼ inches higher than the top of the signal B, and 3¾ inches below the top of the signal-disc at C.
Imagine for a moment that everything is perfectly aligned in the experiment. You (A) are perfectly aligned with two points B and C that are separated by great distance. A, B and C are in perfect alignment and are a great distance apart. You look through the viewing apparatus and B and C are perfectly obscuring each other.
Now, if you were to move your viewing apparatus either slightly up, down, left or right, you are looking at B and C at a slightly different angle. Points B and C will no longer be seen to line up perfectly. B and C only line up in one spacial position that must be perfectly aligned.
By the great distances and magnification involved, this is quite a sensitive experiment. The objects in this experiment, and the viewing apparatus, need to be perfectly aligned.
The Wallace experiment is invalid and in error, and it is not hard to see this. It is not proper evidence of any sort.
Tom, I have pointed out above that this is totally and unbelievably false. Or do you not accept geometry, perhaps on the basis that the proof is conducted on paper?
-
Rowbotham's critiques about the misalignment of the viewing apparatus are quite valid:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
The object-glass of the telescope was 4½ inches diameter; hence the centre, or true eye-line, was 2¼ inches higher than the top of the signal B, and 3¾ inches below the top of the signal-disc at C.
Imagine for a moment that everything is perfectly aligned in the experiment. You (A) are perfectly aligned with two points B and C that are separated by great distance. A, B and C are in perfect alignment and are a great distance apart. You look through the viewing apparatus and B and C are perfectly obscuring each other.
Now, if you were to move your viewing apparatus either slightly up, down, left or right, you are looking at B and C at a slightly different angle. Points B and C will no longer be seen to line up perfectly. B and C only line up in one spacial position that must be perfectly aligned.
By the great distances and magnification involved, this is quite a sensitive experiment. The objects in this experiment, and the viewing apparatus, need to be perfectly aligned.
The Wallace experiment is invalid and in error, and it is not hard to see this. It is not proper evidence of any sort.
Tom, I have pointed out above that this is totally and unbelievably false. Or do you not accept geometry, perhaps on the basis that the proof is conducted on paper?
According to geometry two points in space will only line up to obscure each other on a specific line in alignment with those two points. You proved that two points can line up when not looking at them along that line? Wow! When are you planning on telling the world your discovery?
Read Rowbotham's critique of the Wallace experiment. The center of the viewing apparatus was NOT in alignment with the two points in the experiment.
Your insistence that everything will line up does NOT agree with geometry.
-
Rowbotham's critiques about the misalignment of the viewing apparatus are quite valid:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
The object-glass of the telescope was 4½ inches diameter; hence the centre, or true eye-line, was 2¼ inches higher than the top of the signal B, and 3¾ inches below the top of the signal-disc at C.
Imagine for a moment that everything is perfectly aligned in the experiment. You (A) are perfectly aligned with two points B and C that are separated by great distance. A, B and C are in perfect alignment and are a great distance apart. You look through the viewing apparatus and B and C are perfectly obscuring each other.
Now, if you were to move your viewing apparatus either slightly up, down, left or right, you are looking at B and C at a slightly different angle. Points B and C will no longer be seen to line up perfectly. B and C only line up in one spacial position that must be perfectly aligned.
By the great distances and magnification involved, this is quite a sensitive experiment. The objects in this experiment, and the viewing apparatus, need to be perfectly aligned.
The Wallace experiment is invalid and in error, and it is not hard to see this. It is not proper evidence of any sort.
Tom, I have pointed out above that this is totally and unbelievably false. Or do you not accept geometry, perhaps on the basis that the proof is conducted on paper?
According to geometry two points in space will only line up to obscure each other on a specific line in alignment with those two points. You proved that two points can line up when not looking at them along that line? Wow! When are you planning on telling the world your discovery?
Read Rowbotham's critique of the Wallace experiment. The center of the viewing apparatus was NOT in alignment with the two points in the experiment.
Your insistence that everything will line up does NOT agree with geometry.
To be perfectly clear (though I am not sure whether you are deliberately misquoting me) what I dispute is your claim that a small misalignment is important. If the far point is six miles, and the midpoint three miles, a small move upwards in the viewing point will cause only a small misalignment, not a large one as you suggest.
To be clear, what I said earlier was this
Elementary trigonometry shows that the viewing apparatus would have to be at least 8 feet higher in order for the top marker to line up with the horizontal line on the bridge.
Not a few inches as you suggest.
-
In EnaG it appears that he is trying to explain why he was “busted” and his original observations were disproved by the later observations.
A lot of that chapter was a bit of a rant about why they other gentlemen didnt do what he said, and why it was not reproduced. I would suggest it was not reproduced for a good reason, but as he does not explain why, i would have to question why? What is he trying to hide by saying that he does not want to go into the details?
He complains about the telescope being ABOVE the Welney Bridge, and says this played a part. If indeed it did, it reduced the amount of offset needed to bring the three points into line, so was aiding his cause not detracting from it.
To bring all three points into transit the telescope needs tilting down (as one would expect on a round earth, as you are always right on top of it) and raising up a good amount.
What the diagram is actually showing is an artificial unintentional confirmation of the expected result of the dip of the horizon!
Tables and calculation shows that on a round earth that one would expect a dip in the horizon at 3 miles of a certain amount, which is shown by the intermediate marker being below the “carefully levelled” telescope, and further at 6 miles the mark on Bedford bridge being being below the by a similar amount..... he actually proved the earth was a globe!!! And then tries to use that proof as a proof against it!
He also goes on to say that refraction is a known factor, and explains why the results obtained were such, yet in his other earlier observations ( i cannot describe them as experiments, because they were not, for reasons already explained) he makes no remarks about refraction at all. Strange really.
In fact he explicitly argues against refraction in experiment 9!
“Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.”
Finally, refraction that he argues would result in the offset of the targets (but discounts from his original observations) works the other way, ie an object over the horizon (and should be out of sight) appears to be on the horizon, so will raise the object up.
An example is that the sun has an hour angle of more than 90 degrees when on the horizon and appears above the horizon during celestial sunset, which i have provided an explanation for before, so if refraction is in play during the Wallace experiment, it would have brought the flag on the other bridge above the horizontal and the middle marker (on a flat earth) not bent it the other way!
-
Interesting about the refraction, which is what I thought.
But let's see what Tom says. I can't work out whether I am not being clear enough, or what. I am trying to be clear.
To be clear, here again is Rowbotham’s sketch of what was seen. (It does not quite match the drawing made by Carpenter on the day, but never mind).
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/6/6a/Rowbotham_crosshair.jpg)
There are several different arguments. Carpenter and Hampden argued that because the distance A-B is the same as B-C, this proves the points are on a straight line. This is obviously false, and Rowbotham seems to recognise it. His arguments are:
(1) that the angle of the crosshair was not correct. This is false. adjusting the angle would make the cross hair A move up and down, but not the relative positions of B and C, which would remain the same.
(2) That the ‘collimation’ i.e. refraction of the lens is the problem. This is false, and corresponds to nothing in the theory of optics.
(3) That the height of the crosshair was not correct. Tom repeats this argument above, suggesting that an inch or two difference would cause B and C to come into alignment, because of the ‘great distance’. This is unbelievably false. The greater the distance between B and C, the less the height matters! This can be proved geometrically – given the 4 foot distance between the two spots on B, it would require the crosshair to be 8 foot higher. And by observation. Take two stars in the night sky that are very close in appearance. In fact they are light years apart. You will find you can move to any place on earth you like, and they will still appear to have the same distance apart. I suppose Flatters could argue that conventional astronomy is wrong because of the CIA.
-
Interesting about the refraction, which is what I thought.
But let's see what Tom says. I can't work out whether I am not being clear enough, or what. I am trying to be clear.
To be clear, here again is Rowbotham’s sketch of what was seen. (It does not quite match the drawing made by Carpenter on the day, but never mind).
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/6/6a/Rowbotham_crosshair.jpg)
There are several different arguments. Carpenter and Hampden argued that because the distance A-B is the same as B-C, this proves the points are on a straight line. This is obviously false, and Rowbotham seems to recognise it. His arguments are:
(1) that the angle of the crosshair was not correct. This is false. adjusting the angle would make the cross hair A move up and down, but not the relative positions of B and C, which would remain the same.
(2) That the ‘collimation’ i.e. refraction of the lens is the problem. This is false, and corresponds to nothing in the theory of optics.
(3) That the height of the crosshair was not correct. Tom repeats this argument above, suggesting that an inch or two difference would cause B and C to come into alignment, because of the ‘great distance’. This is unbelievably false. The greater the distance between B and C, the less the height matters! This can be proved geometrically – given the 4 foot distance between the two spots on B, it would require the crosshair to be 8 foot higher. And by observation. Take two stars in the night sky that are very close in appearance. In fact they are light years apart. You will find you can move to any place on earth you like, and they will still appear to have the same distance apart. I suppose Flatters could argue that conventional astronomy is wrong because of the CIA.
Again at the risk of repeating myself, all i see is an experiment that PROVES the dip of the horizon.
Rowbotham claims that the telescope was levelled, and if he was right, then line A would be the horizon if it were not falling away, due to curvature.
Point B being 3 miles away is still showing a dip, due to curving away, and point c being further away again is below both B and A.
Looking at it logically, the ONLY way to get the 3 points in alignment again is to depress the telescope below the horizontal, and point it at C, and move it up bodily which will have the effect of seemingly dropping point B into alignment with point C.
I would be interested to hear Toms view on the subject, but dont expect any great revelations, he seems to have trouble understanding the way these things work.
I think EnaGs selective use, or denial of refraction alone is grounds for discounting many of his observations, as if he accounts for it in one, discounts for it in another, and argues that it proves his point in a third, when he gets it fundamentally wrong, ie he claims it will drop the furthest object below the horizontal, more than the intermediate object, rather than what happens, ie elevating object above the horizon, showed he really does not have an idea of what is happening!
He then uses this false representation of refraction of the to explain away an observation that disproves his original, is barefaced brazen cheek!
-
Again at the risk of repeating myself, all i see is an experiment that PROVES the dip of the horizon.
Rowbotham claims that the telescope was levelled, and if he was right, then line A would be the horizon if it were not falling away, due to curvature.
Point B being 3 miles away is still showing a dip, due to curving away, and point c being further away again is below both B and A.
The experiment was not intended to prove any 'dip'. It works with a telescope and no crosshairs. The problem with 'dip' arguments is that you are hostage to the objection that the angle was not set correctly.
The experiment as originally designed by Wallace was to prove that the A (observer), B and C are not in a straight line, as they would be if the water surface was flat.
The whole crosshair thing is a red herring, and Wallace should have refused to order a level from King's Lynn.
-
Again at the risk of repeating myself, all i see is an experiment that PROVES the dip of the horizon.
Rowbotham claims that the telescope was levelled, and if he was right, then line A would be the horizon if it were not falling away, due to curvature.
Point B being 3 miles away is still showing a dip, due to curving away, and point c being further away again is below both B and A.
The experiment was not intended to prove any 'dip'. It works with a telescope and no crosshairs. The problem with 'dip' arguments is that you are hostage to the objection that the angle was not set correctly.
The experiment as originally designed by Wallace was to prove that the A (observer), B and C are not in a straight line, as they would be if the water surface was flat.
The whole crosshair thing is a red herring, and Wallace should have refused to order a level from King's Lynn.
I tend to agree, however it does show accidentally that there is dip, if the telescope was levelled correctly, which is exactly what EnaG states. Whilst showing a dip, it does not show the amount, just that there is one.
If one argues that the horizontal was not set correctly, then so be it, but then it is arguing against Rowbotham, which is pretty much tantamount to high treason in the FE ranks!
Collomation, and other so called errors of the instruments are just smoke and mirrors to try to deflect away from the results.
-
Yup. My instinct in all such cases is to provide the absolute minimum necessary, say A & B, to prove the case. If you add corroborating evidence, say C, any rational person will assume that C was necessary, and the experiment will fail without it, otherwise why did you give it? See Grice’s axioms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle).
Maxim of quantity
1.Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).
2.Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
-
From the report which appeared in The Field magazine, March 1870, by Carpenter.
The stations appeared, to all intents and purposes, equidistant in the field of view, and also in a regular series: first, the distant bridge; secondly, the central signal; and, thirdly, the horizontal cross-hair marking the point of observation; showing that the central disc 13ft. 4in. high does not depart from a straight line taken from end to end of the six miles in any way whatever, either laterally or vertically. For, if so, and (as in the case of the disc 9ft. 4in. high) if it were lower or nearer the water, it would appear, as that disc does, nearer to the distant bridge. If it were higher, it would appear in the opposite direction nearer the horizontal cross-hair which marks the point of observation. As the disc 4ft. lower appears near to the distant bridge, so a disc to be really 5ft. higher would have to appear still nearer to the horizontal cross-hair of tha telescope. And therefore it is shown that a straight line from one point to the other passes through the central point in its course. and that a curved surface of water has not been demonstrated.
WILLIAM CARPENTER (Referee for Mr J. Hampden), 7, Carlton•terrace, Lewisham Park, S.E., March 14.
The fallacy of this should be obvious. (If not, someone let me know).
[edit] Labelled diagram to help. "first, the distant bridge" =1 , "secondly, the central signal" = 2; "thirdly, the horizontal cross-hair" = 3. His argument is that because the distance 1-2 is the same as 2-3, 1-2-3 must lie in a straight line, and since they are all the same distance from the water, the water is flat.
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/8/83/Bedford_carpenter_view_labelled.jpg)
-
From the report which appeared in The Field magazine, March 1870, by Carpenter.
The stations appeared, to all intents and purposes, equidistant in the field of view, and also in a regular series: first, the distant bridge; secondly, the central signal; and, thirdly, the horizontal cross-hair marking the point of observation; showing that the central disc 13ft. 4in. high does not depart from a straight line taken from end to end of the six miles in any way whatever, either laterally or vertically. For, if so, and (as in the case of the disc 9ft. 4in. high) if it were lower or nearer the water, it would appear, as that disc does, nearer to the distant bridge. If it were higher, it would appear in the opposite direction nearer the horizontal cross-hair which marks the point of observation. As the disc 4ft. lower appears near to the distant bridge, so a disc to be really 5ft. higher would have to appear still nearer to the horizontal cross-hair of tha telescope. And therefore it is shown that a straight line from one point to the other passes through the central point in its course. and that a curved surface of water has not been demonstrated.
WILLIAM CARPENTER (Referee for Mr J. Hampden), 7, Carlton•terrace, Lewisham Park, S.E., March 14.
The fallacy of this should be obvious. (If not, someone let me know).
[edit] Labelled diagram to help. "first, the distant bridge" =1 , "secondly, the central signal" = 2; "thirdly, the horizontal cross-hair" = 3. His argument is that because the distance 1-2 is the same as 2-3, 1-2-3 must lie in a straight line, and since they are all the same distance from the water, the water is flat.
(http://www.logicmuseum.com/w/images/8/83/Bedford_carpenter_view_labelled.jpg)
I agree, it is, and cannot be true.
The problem with these diagrams is that they are a representation only, however if they are to scale and drawn accurately, it is shown that the vertical separation between 1 and 2, is greater than 2 to 3, which is what one would expect from a round earth, however without measurements, etc it is impossible to say, except that the drawing as drawn, if to scale, shows that there is a dip, and a very slight curvature. At 6 miles there is not much at all, but enough to be seen.
The problem with using only 2 reference points is that that can be brought into a straight alignment, albeit with a depressed angle by building a platform higher than the original observation point, but that will only be an extension of the first 2 transits, and will not show curvature, and it can then be argued that the levelling arrangement is at fault. (Except it would mean that the telescope would need to be about 2.5M higher than the original sight)
I would be interested in attempting a repeat of the observations, and with a van or similar parked at one of the locations (if possible) then the additional 2.5M elevation could easily be achieved.
-
I think the objection from Rowbotham was that if the target is misaligned by a small amount, let's say 2 inches, then the telescope will inflate that difference to be many feet.
The argument is that a 2 inch error could easily be there but would appear as a several foot error.
This appears to be a misunderstanding of optics, and so a slight revision to the experiment would resolve this confusion.
To address that, how about we make a pole with targets on it every foot? Then you could verify which target appears aligned, and you could measure with an actual ruler how far the misalignment is. I think this would demonstrate it is an actual many foot error.
-
Everything needs to be perfectly aligned in Wallace's experiment. If everything is not perfectly aligned then there will be issues.
Consider this analogy I shared with Bobby in another thread:
We have four jelly beans. One is on the floor at your feet, the other is on the floor 20 feet ahead of you, one is on the floor 100 feet ahead from you, and the other is on the floor ahead of you on the distant horizon (assuming that we can see it). Where would we need to place our eyeball to see whether all four jellybeans line up?
My answer:
Clearly, our eye would need to be exactly center with the line of jelly beans. If we look at the scene from any other angle or position we cannot say whether they all line up or not. At any other position they would appear in different positions relative to each other.
What is your answer?
-
Everything needs to be perfectly aligned in Wallace's experiment. If everything is not perfectly aligned then there will be issues.
Consider this analogy I shared with Bobby in another thread:
We have four jelly beans. One is on the floor at your feet, the other is on the floor 20 feet ahead of you, one is on the floor 100 feet ahead from you, and the other is on the floor ahead of you on the distant horizon (assuming that we can see it). Where would we need to place our eyeball to see whether all four jellybeans line up?
My answer:
Clearly, our eye would need to be exactly center with the line of jelly beans. If we look at the scene from any other angle or position we cannot say whether they all line up or not. At any other position they would appear in different positions relative to each other.
What is your answer?
It should be clear from what I said before, that they will only 'line up', i.e. apparently superimposed, when our eye lies on the same line as the jelly beans.
It seems you now agree that if line X is on a flat surface, and point A, point B and my eye are the same height above X, then A and B must 'line up' as you put it. Do you agree.
-
It should be clear from what I said before, that they will only 'line up', i.e. apparently superimposed, when our eye lies on the same line as the jelly beans.
Then Wallace should have made sure that the elements of his experiment perfectly lined up. Rowbotham showed that they did not. Considerable doubt is therefore placed on the outcome of that test.
-
It should be clear from what I said before, that they will only 'line up', i.e. apparently superimposed, when our eye lies on the same line as the jelly beans.
Then Wallace should have made sure that the elements of his experiment perfectly lined up. Rowbotham showed that they did not. Considerable doubt is therefore placed on the outcome of that test.
Again: do you now agree that if line X is on a flat surface, and point A, point B and my eye are the same height above X, then A and B must 'line up' as you put it?
(Clue, the Wallace experiment found they did not line up. Why do you think that was?)
-
It should be clear from what I said before, that they will only 'line up', i.e. apparently superimposed, when our eye lies on the same line as the jelly beans.
Then Wallace should have made sure that the elements of his experiment perfectly lined up. Rowbotham showed that they did not. Considerable doubt is therefore placed on the outcome of that test.
Again: do you now agree that if line X is on a flat surface, and point A, point B and my eye are the same height above X, then A and B must 'line up' as you put it?
(Clue, the Wallace experiment found they did not line up. Why do you think that was?)
Wallace's recorded heights of the elements of his test were not at the exact height with the center of the viewing apparatus. Rowbotham chronicles this. It is an invalid experiment to show whether the bodies line up on a flat earth.
-
It should be clear from what I said before, that they will only 'line up', i.e. apparently superimposed, when our eye lies on the same line as the jelly beans.
Then Wallace should have made sure that the elements of his experiment perfectly lined up. Rowbotham showed that they did not. Considerable doubt is therefore placed on the outcome of that test.
Again: do you now agree that if line X is on a flat surface, and point A, point B and my eye are the same height above X, then A and B must 'line up' as you put it?
(Clue, the Wallace experiment found they did not line up. Why do you think that was?)
Wallace's recorded heights of the elements of his test were not at the exact height with the center of the viewing apparatus. Rowbotham chronicles this. It is an invalid experiment to show whether the bodies line up on a flat earth.
But I already pointed out, ages ago, that the viewing apparatus would have to have been 8 feet higher in order for the two points to line up. I don't understand why you keep ignoring this.
Let's suppose that the viewing apparatus was 4" too low (though I don't think it was). Suppose he had raised it by that amount. Do you think the points would then have 'lined up'? Why?
You also falsely claimed that the error is greater as the distance between the points is greater. Elementary geometry says the other way round.
Rowbotham writes:
Why did they omit to consider the fact that 3¾ inches excess of altitude would be made by a magnifying power of 50, to appear to stand considerably above the eye-line, and that a mere hair's-breadth of dip--an amount which could not be detected--towards the distant signal would by magnifying, diverging, or dilating all above it, make it appear to be lifted up for several feet? Why did they not take care that the top of the centre disc was in a line with the telescope and the distant signal, A? Why, also, was the centre of the object glass fixed 2¼ inches higher than the centre of the object of observation at the other end? There was no difficulty in placing the centre of the telescope, the top of the middle disc, and the centre of the farthest signal mark, at the same altitude, and therefore in a straight line.
This is completely and unbelievably wrong. Bedtime, I will explain this tomorrow.
-
8 feet higher? What are you talking about?
This is Wallace designing a Flat Earth Experiment. Not a Round Earth Experiment. To test the validity of a Flat Earth the heights of the target elements and the center of viewing apparatus needs to be identical. If they are not identical, then this does not test the matter of a Flat Earth.
-
Ok then, using the Bishop jellybean method of evaluating a flat earth.......
If the eye level is above the the floor, ie above the first jellybean you would see the next jellybean at 20 feet, below the next one at 100 feet, and all below the one on the horizon.
That is perspective, and how FE argues that the horizon rises to eye level. That you surely cannot dispute, and is easy enough to witness in reality, (apart from the small size and ability to see the jellybean at 100 feet, or infinite distance of course)
Rowbothams argument, and objection was that the axis of the telescope was 2 1/4 inches above the parapet, and if he objects to that, and says that the effect will be magnified (invalid and untrue) then he must concede that the vision in the eyepiece would by the Bishop jellybean method show the intermediate marker below the final marker on the bridge.
If this is not, then why not?
What is your answer tom?
-
I will explain the 8 foot thing later. In the meantime, I want to hear Tom's answer to the question above. Rowbotham's objection was that the viewpoint was too high. But that would not explain what was actually seen!
-
Tom, so what you're saying is, using your jellybean analogy, is that if the center of the camera was 6 feet above the surface, then the 4 jellybeans would also have to be exactly 6 feet above the surface?
Did Wallace not do this?
-
Rowbotham makes several criticisms such that the center of the far target was not lined up with the center of the viewing apparatus:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
Why, also, was the centre of the object glass fixed 2¼ inches higher than the centre of the object of observation at the other end?
Things are not perfectly aligned here. It is a bad experiment. You can read the particulars in the link. There are also actually two attempts of viewing the experiment Wallace set up, not one. We are mixing some things here. Rowbotham chronicles the experiments in the above link. The goal of the first experiment was to get everything into a line, but results first actually showed that the middle marker was above the center line of sight of the allegedly level viewing apparatus for some reason, and the second attempt showed that it was below the center level of the viewing apparatus.
This suggests to me that this is all together a bad experiment.
-
How high were all the markers that Wallace used, compared to the telescope?
Oh, and by the way… nobody ever concluded that Wallace cheated. All the courts said, according to Wikipedia, was that he had to return the money since Hampden had retracted his wager.
-
Is there any way to confirm what Rowbotham says is true?
-
Dear Tom,
I would like to repeat the Bedford Levels Experiment on the same stretch of river that was used way back when. My plan is to have 7-10 targets atop poles at equal distances along the river, with the targets at the same height above the water as both a telescope and a P900 camera (probably around 12 feet).
Questions:
1. Have you any suggestions as to the proposed form of the experiment?
2. What do you think I will expect to see?
3. What do you think round earth proponents will expect to see?
4. Do you think this is a sure way to determine the shape of the earth?
I will probably camp out by the Bedford Levels for a week or two, inviting others to check the set-up and make their own measurements and deductions.
I look forward to your reply and input.
-
Rowbotham makes several criticisms such that the center of the far target was not lined up with the center of the viewing apparatus:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm
Why, also, was the centre of the object glass fixed 2¼ inches higher than the centre of the object of observation at the other end?
Things are not perfectly aligned here. It is a bad experiment. You can read the particulars in the link. There are also actually two attempts of viewing the experiment Wallace set up, not one. We are mixing some things here. Rowbotham chronicles the experiments in the above link. The goal of the first experiment was to get everything into a line, but results first actually showed that the middle marker was above the center line of sight of the allegedly level viewing apparatus for some reason, and the second attempt showed that it was below the center level of the viewing apparatus.
This suggests to me that this is all together a bad experiment.
Yet Rowbotham tries to argue that refraction would account for the result, and an awful lot of the chapter complaining about why his original experiment was not conducted, but fails to enlighten as to the reason why.
I see you still didnt answer my previous question regarding the bishop jellybean method of perspective.
He claims one fact, that the telescope was 2 1/4 inches above the Center of the signal, and the marker on the bridge. He admits that the Center of the marker is at the same height as the marker on the bridge.
He seems to suggest that the Center of the marker on the far bridge should have been levelled with the top of the 12 inch disc, and the top of the bridge.
He fails to note that the BOTTOM of the marker, is still way above the marker seen on the fast bridge, even though the bottom of the marker will be 8 1/4 inches BELOW the centerline of the telescope. He does not complain about that being magnified does he?
The size of the far marker on the bridge is not described, however if the drawings are true, then it is a similar size or larger than the disc, and one has to assume it is the Center being referred to as the Center of the disc is what is at the 13 feet 4 inches, and the drawing indicated it so.
One could redraw the diagram and show the following, A at a Center height of 13’4” B at Center height of 13’ 61/4 inches, and C hieght of the bottom of 12’ 10”, but he does not.
The Center line of the disc and the far marker are in alignment at 13’4” and no amount of spinning and word play can get around that. If the world (and the canal) were flat, according to the bishop jellybean observation then the the Center of the far bridge target A, would be above the Center of the disc, C. As tom argues the alignment is not perfect, and concedes that the Center of the telescope is above the 13’4 inches of the other 2 marks.
Remove the hoizon mark from the telescope, and try to bring the Center of the disc into transit with the Center of the bridge mark requires the telescope to be raised. The maths of this can be shown, but we know that is not a strong point of some, so probably better to skip that calculation.
Trying to use the magnification of the telescope is futile, as the telescope makes the image larger, and all by the same factor. It does not change the position of the objects.
If the telescope had a hundred fold magnification the result would have been the same, with the RELATIVE positions unchanged.
Transits or leading lines are used in navigation all the time, although we use them in the horizontal plane, and not vertical as is done here, so i am confident in what is am saying, and the use of the naked eye, or binoculars makes not a jot of difference to the position of the observer, (which is what we use them for, ie indicating if the observer is left or right of an intended course.) ie if the marks are seen one to the left or right of the other, looking at them through binoculars does not make them change relative positions.
We use them at the same as well as much greater distances than the above observations.
-
Dear Tom,
I would like to repeat the Bedford Levels Experiment on the same stretch of river that was used way back when. My plan is to have 7-10 targets atop poles at equal distances along the river, with the targets at the same height above the water as both a telescope and a P900 camera (probably around 12 feet).
Questions:
1. Have you any suggestions as to the proposed form of the experiment?
2. What do you think I will expect to see?
3. What do you think round earth proponents will expect to see?
4. Do you think this is a sure way to determine the shape of the earth?
I will probably camp out by the Bedford Levels for a week or two, inviting others to check the set-up and make their own measurements and deductions.
I look forward to your reply and input.
My recommendation is to just perform Rowbotham's original experiments. They are very simple. Much simpler than the Wallace experiment where everything needs to be exactly level and aligned, and which just causes endless questions on whether the positioning and surveying methods were accurate.
The methods Rowbotham uses are based on a basic concept such as whether an object is visible in the distance or not due to the earth's curvature. Simple experiment.
-
The methods Rowbotham uses are based on a basic concept such as whether an object is visible in the distance or not due to the earth's curvature. Simple experiment.
And yet, it fails to account for atmospheric effects that Wallace's experiment mitigates with a booster seat.
-
Dear Tom,
I would like to repeat the Bedford Levels Experiment on the same stretch of river that was used way back when. My plan is to have 7-10 targets atop poles at equal distances along the river, with the targets at the same height above the water as both a telescope and a P900 camera (probably around 12 feet).
Questions:
1. Have you any suggestions as to the proposed form of the experiment?
2. What do you think I will expect to see?
3. What do you think round earth proponents will expect to see?
4. Do you think this is a sure way to determine the shape of the earth?
I will probably camp out by the Bedford Levels for a week or two, inviting others to check the set-up and make their own measurements and deductions.
I look forward to your reply and input.
My recommendation is to just perform Rowbotham's original experiments. They are very simple. Much simpler than the Wallace experiment where everything needs to be exactly level and aligned, and which just causes endless questions on whether the positioning and surveying methods were accurate.
The methods Rowbotham uses are based on a basic concept such as whether an object is visible in the distance or not due to the earth's curvature. Simple experiment.
How do you perform the experiment, when no observations were recorded regarding environmental data?
I strongly suspect you would find an argument to try to discredit any observations if they were to disprove EnaG.
Still no answer to my above questions Tom?
What would you see if the observers eye is just slightly above your jellybean?
-
The methods Rowbotham uses are based on a basic concept such as whether an object is visible in the distance or not due to the earth's curvature. Simple experiment.
And yet, it fails to account for atmospheric effects that Wallace's experiment mitigates with a booster seat.
If the result were to show that the object were fully visible then one could assert that it is quite the coincidence that a chance mirage occurred at the time of viewing to make the object fully visible. Quite the coincidence that this mirage placed the object at the exact altitude it needed to be if the earth were flat. Quite the coincidence that it is a mirage that gives a solid picture rather than a wavy mess like most mirages. Quite the coincidence if this mirage were to occur again on another trial. A lot of coincidences.
Enough coincidences that it brands the Round Earther a Coincidence Theorist.
-
The methods Rowbotham uses are based on a basic concept such as whether an object is visible in the distance or not due to the earth's curvature. Simple experiment.
And yet, it fails to account for atmospheric effects that Wallace's experiment mitigates with a booster seat.
If the result were to show that the object were fully visible then one could assert that it is quite the coincidence that a chance mirage occurred at the time of viewing to make the object fully visible. Quite the coincidence that this mirage placed the object at the exact altitude it needed to be if the earth were flat. Quite the coincidence that it is a mirage that gives a solid picture rather than a wavy mess like most mirages. Quite the coincidence if this mirage were to occur again on another trial. A lot of coincidences.
Enough coincidences that it brands the Round Earther a Coincidence Theorist.
Is it a “chance mirage” that has the round marker placed above the final bridge marker, rather than below it, as is shown from your jellybeans tom?
-
Is it a “chance mirage” that has the round marker placed above the final bridge marker, rather than below it, as is shown from your jellybeans tom?
Wallace's experiments are over-complicated and involves careful surveying, positioning, leveling, etc. We can't rely on that naturalist philosopher to suddenly become an expert surveyor when engaging in a large money bet that would result in him losing an amount equivalent to a year's salary for an average person.
Surveying is always in error. Always. Every angle and vertical and position needs to be finely aligned. The targets need to be finely positioned and well thought out. Even then, there is still inherent error.
http://whistleralley.com/surveying/theoerror/
As any surveyor should understand, all measurements are in error. We try to minimize error and calculate reasonable tolerances, but error will always be there. Not occasionally; not frequently; always. In the interest of more accurate measurements, we look for better instruments and better procedures.
-
The methods Rowbotham uses are based on a basic concept such as whether an object is visible in the distance or not due to the earth's curvature. Simple experiment.
And yet, it fails to account for atmospheric effects that Wallace's experiment mitigates with a booster seat.
If the result were to show that the object were fully visible then one could assert that it is quite the coincidence that a chance mirage occurred at the time of viewing to make the object fully visible. Quite the coincidence that this mirage placed the object at the exact altitude it needed to be if the earth were flat. Quite the coincidence that it is a mirage that gives a solid picture rather than a wavy mess like most mirages. Quite the coincidence if this mirage were to occur again on another trial. A lot of coincidences.
Enough coincidences that it brands the Round Earther a Coincidence Theorist.
And it's not any more coincidences that literally everyone who studied cosmology over the last 4000 years was completely fooled into thinking that the world was round when it was actually flat, and that every space agency ever is super corrupt and none of them have actually gotten good enough engineers to get into space?
If you're going to invoke Occam's Razor, make sure you know what side it favors.
-
Is it a “chance mirage” that has the round marker placed above the final bridge marker, rather than below it, as is shown from your jellybeans tom?
Wallace's experiments are over-complicated and involves careful surveying, positioning, leveling, etc. We can't rely on that naturalist philosopher to suddenly become an expert surveyor when engaging in a large money bet that would result in him losing an amount equivalent to a year's salary for an average person.
Surveying is always in error. Always. Every angle and vertical and position needs to be finely aligned. The targets need to be finely positioned and well thought out. Even then, there is still inherent error.
http://whistleralley.com/surveying/theoerror/
As any surveyor should understand, all measurements are in error. We try to minimize error and calculate reasonable tolerances, but error will always be there. Not occasionally; not frequently; always. In the interest of more accurate measurements, we look for better instruments and better procedures.
So on that basis we can discount experiments 3,4,6,11,14, 15, Chapter 3, 4, 5, 6 etc as all of these rely upon instruments ie surveying, therefore they are in error.
Unless you care to enlighten us how the instruments were levelled, calibrated or adjusted, all of them are in error.
-
My recommendation is to just perform Rowbotham's original experiments. They are very simple. Much simpler than the Wallace experiment where everything needs to be exactly level and aligned, and which just causes endless questions on whether the positioning and surveying methods were accurate.
The methods Rowbotham uses are based on a basic concept such as whether an object is visible in the distance or not due to the earth's curvature. Simple experiment.
But the problem with Rowbotham's experiment, as I'm sure everyody knows, is that he was too close to the water to escape the effects of refraction.
I think a slightly modified version of the Wallace method would work very well. His problem was that he didn't use enough targets. But if he'd had at least three, the results would have been much more clear.
I'm thinking with up to 10 markers it'll be even better.
I just did a quick scale model version and it seems pretty straightforward:
Statement #1: If the river is flat, the middle target (of three) can never appear higher than both the other two (at the same time).
Statement #2: If the river is curved, the three targets can never appear to be on the same plane (or level).
Tilting the camera doesn't make any difference to the result, or to the relation between the targets, it only changes where the targets appear (as a whole group) in the frame.
Raising or lowering the camera above or below the level of the targets does change the relationship between the targets, but still matches what we would expect, and is in accordance with the two statements above.
If the words aren't clear, apologies for that - probably the video of the (rough) scale model will be better; I'll let you know when it's finished uploading.
Thanks for the speedy reply. :-)
-
So on that basis we can discount experiments 3,4,6,11,14, 15, Chapter 3, 4, 5, 6 etc as all of these rely upon instruments ie surveying, therefore they are in error.
Unless you care to enlighten us how the instruments were levelled, calibrated or adjusted, all of them are in error.
Rowbotham specifically avoids debates about the accuracy of his surveying methods by designing experiments that generally have two modes: success or fail. Is the object in the distance visible, or is it hidden by the curve of the earth? Simple experiments.
We cannot really take him to task on his surveying methods for that purpose.
But the problem with Rowbotham's experiment, as I'm sure everyody knows, is that he was too close to the water to escape the effects of refraction.
If you are going to blame mirages, then that just invokes the Coincidence Theorist clause:
If the result were to show that the object were fully visible then one could assert that it is quite the coincidence that a chance mirage occurred at the time of viewing to make the object fully visible. Quite the coincidence that this mirage placed the object at the exact altitude it needed to be if the earth were flat. Quite the coincidence that it is a mirage that gives a solid picture rather than a wavy mess like most mirages. Quite the coincidence if this mirage were to occur again on another trial. A lot of coincidences.
Enough coincidences that it brands the Round Earther a Coincidence Theorist.
-
And why will you not answer my question regarding the Jellybean method and what you would see if the objective lens is above the point, looking down the line of markers?
It seems to be a common issue on this forum, that if a question is posed that is difficult to answer it is ignored. I was using your Jellybean trick, and the question you posed, so had hoped you would comment on it, as it was your observation.
-
So on that basis we can discount experiments 3,4,6,11,14, 15, Chapter 3, 4, 5, 6 etc as all of these rely upon instruments ie surveying, therefore they are in error.
Unless you care to enlighten us how the instruments were levelled, calibrated or adjusted, all of them are in error.
Rowbotham specifically avoids debates about the accuracy of his surveying methods by designing experiments that generally have two modes: success or fail. Is the object in the distance visible, or is it hidden by the curve of the earth? Simple experiments.
We cannot really take him to task on his surveying methods for that purpose.
[/quote]
So lets look at “experiment” 15 shall we?
How is looking out of a window with a “levelled” “Clinometer”, then running upstairs and using the same “levelled” “clinometer” and seeing the horizon avoiding the requirement for accuracy? It is WHOLLY dependant on accuracy, which is ignored. As this “experiment” is a cornerstone of the horizon rising to eye level proof, it brings his claims into doubt, as do many of his other observations which rely upon theodolites, levelled telescopes, plumb bobs with protractors, aligned tubes, etc etc
-
So lets look at “experiment” 15 shall we?
How is looking out of a window with a “levelled” “Clinometer”, then running upstairs and using the same “levelled” “clinometer” and seeing the horizon avoiding the requirement for accuracy? It is WHOLLY dependant on accuracy, which is ignored. As this “experiment” is a cornerstone of the horizon rising to eye level proof, it brings his claims into doubt, as do many of his other observations which rely upon theodolites, levelled telescopes, plumb bobs with protractors, aligned tubes, etc etc
Most of the experiments don't really require the observer to level anything. The distant body is either seen or it is not seen. A helpful magnification tool doesn't affect the situation.
Rowbotham is basically doing the same water convexity experiment over and over. Is the body seen or not? Lets try again. Seen or not? Again. Seen or not?
Per the Chapter 15 experiment, that is not really a "foundational experiment" as you assert, and nothing is stopping you from attacking his ability to level a clinometer.
And why will you not answer my question regarding the Jellybean method and what you would see if the objective lens is above the point, looking down the line of markers?
There are multiple people posting numerous questions and there are way too few of me. I'm not going to address everything. In fact, I have already gotten bored of discussing why the Wallace experiment is a bad one. Not only is it bad, we can't even trust that this was a legitimately conducted experiment. It was a wager for a very large sum of money. It is as credible as a three dollar bill, as far as I am concerned.
-
If you are going to blame mirages [that is, refraction], then that just invokes the Coincidence Theorist clause.
Refraction is a thing. It's understood and it can be demonstrated that objects which, without refraction should be hidden, can be brought into view.
If I repeat Rowbotham I don't really do anything other than show something we already know.
But, as you point out, Wallace's test was flawed, and needs to be improved on, as I suggested.
Do you see anything wrong with my modified version? Looks like a very good way to demonstrate the shape of the surface of the river.
-
So lets look at “experiment” 15 shall we?
How is looking out of a window with a “levelled” “Clinometer”, then running upstairs and using the same “levelled” “clinometer” and seeing the horizon avoiding the requirement for accuracy? It is WHOLLY dependant on accuracy, which is ignored. As this “experiment” is a cornerstone of the horizon rising to eye level proof, it brings his claims into doubt, as do many of his other observations which rely upon theodolites, levelled telescopes, plumb bobs with protractors, aligned tubes, etc etc
Most of the experiments don't really require the observer to level anything. The distant body is either seen or it is not seen. A helpful magnification tool doesn't affect the situation.
Rowbotham is basically doing the same water convexity experiment over and over. Is the body seen or not? Lets try again. Seen or not? Again. Seen or not?
Per the Chapter 15 experiment, that is not really a "foundational experiment" as you assert, and nothing is stopping you from attacking his ability to level a clinometer.
And why will you not answer my question regarding the Jellybean method and what you would see if the objective lens is above the point, looking down the line of markers?
There are multiple people posting numerous questions and there are way too few of me. I'm not going to address everything. In fact, I have already gotten bored of discussing why the Wallace experiment is a bad one. Not only is it bad, we can't even trust that this was a legitimately conducted experiment. It was a wager for a very large sum of money. It is as credible as a three dollar bill, as far as I am concerned.
Ahhh the old I dont have time..........
You made a claim using jellybeans as a test, then refuse to discuss it, as it obviously contradicts your views of things. Walking out of a debate is normally conceding the point.
Fair enough, we will chalk this one up as a fail for FE then.
As for experiment 15, it is an important experiment that he used and draws conclusions as follows;
”But as nothing of the kind is anywhere to be seen, and the directly contrary at all times visible, we are compelled by the force of practical evidence to deny the existence of rotundity, and to declare that, "to all intents and purposes," absolutely and logically, beyond doubt, THE EARTH IS A VAST IRREGULAR PLANE.”
What part of the above statement leads us to believe it is not an important experiment?
The horizon was seen, as he states, and there is no seen or not seen test. It relied upon his observations and measurements. He must be in error as you maintain all surveying is in error.
All of the other observations regarding the horizon rising to eye level are completely subjective, relying upon an unsubstantiated evidence, such as a newspaper article about an account of a balloonist, or some hypothesis sketched out on a piece of paper.
Therefore he cannot claim that the horizon rises to eye level at any point. This is a pretty fundamental point in FE theory it deserves some proper scrutiny.
-
[Rowbotham] cannot claim that the horizon rises to eye level at any point. This is a pretty fundamental point in FE theory it deserves some proper scrutiny.
I do believe this has been properly scrutinized. It's very easy to measure for oneself. The results are clear and undeniable.
But isn't this thread about repeating the Bedford Levels experiment? Why are we occupying Tom's time with debates about things from 150 years ago? ;-)
-
If you are going to blame mirages [that is, refraction], then that just invokes the Coincidence Theorist clause.
Refraction is a thing. It's understood and it can be demonstrated that objects which, without refraction should be hidden, can be brought into view.
If I repeat Rowbotham I don't really do anything other than show something we already know.
But, as you point out, Wallace's test was flawed, and needs to be improved on, as I suggested.
Do you see anything wrong with my modified version? Looks like a very good way to demonstrate the shape of the surface of the river.
If you were to do Rowbotham's experiment and you saw the body then there are just too many coincidences to attribute it to a mirage. "A mirage happened!" "It placed it at the exact altitude in the air it would need to be in if the earth were flat!" "It happened again when I did the experiment on the next day!" "The body and the land around it were perfectly risen, solid image, unlike other mirages!" What a dumb excuse.
I can tell you that if you aren't going to do a simple experiment, and prefer one that requires very careful surveying methods and set up, then it will be more difficult to convince others to accept your results.
-
[Rowbotham] cannot claim that the horizon rises to eye level at any point. This is a pretty fundamental point in FE theory it deserves some proper scrutiny.
I do believe this has been properly scrutinized. It's very easy to measure for oneself. The results are clear and undeniable.
But isn't this thread about repeating the Bedford Levels experiment? Why are we occupying Tom's time with debates about things from 150 years ago? ;-)
Are you serious?
Toms claim was that all surveying is in error, which calls into question many of the observations in EnaG.
Yes the results are clear and undeniable, the horizon DOES NOT rise to the eye level of the observer. Proven many times.
As for the theme of the thread, How can we not discuss things that happened 150 years ago if we are discussing re creating an experiment from 150 years ago!
-
If you were to do Rowbotham's experiment and you saw the body then there are just too many coincidences to attribute it to a mirage.
I'm pretty sure no one's ever claimed Rowbotham saw the distant boat because of a mirage. If they did, they were mistaken.
I can tell you that if you aren't going to do a simple experiment, and prefer one that requires vary careful surveying methods and set up, then it will be more difficult to convince others to accept your results.
I do believe the experiment I've outlined is completely simple, and that it will be accurate enough to very clearly demonstrate the shape of the surface of the river. Though I'm of course open to specific input as to why this might not be the case.
When you say it needs to be "carefully set up and accurate", to what degree are you suggesting?
If the three targets are, say, 3 metres, 3.02 metres, and 2.98 metres above the surface of the river, will that be okay?
As for the theme of the thread, [why shouldn't we] discuss things that happened 150 years ago if we are discussing recreating an experiment from 150 years ago!
Because that's a bottomless pit. ;-)
-
Oh, and here's my (rough) scale model video, which demonstrates how the modified experiment will show the shape of the surface of the river:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LLXXRFXanQ
In a nutshell:
1. On a flat surface, the three targets can be shown to be level with one another, and the middle target can never appear higher than both the other two (at the same time).
2. On a curved surface, the targets can never be shown to be level, and the middle target can appear higher than both the other two.
It doesn't matter how you tilt or adjust the camera, those two statements always hold true.
All tilting does is alter the position in the frame of the group of targets as a whole, but not their relationship to one another.
Changing the height of the camera does alter the relationship between the targets - but always in ways that are entirely expected and predictable, and never in ways that can confuse the outcome.
Using three targets clears everything up: really, this is the key improvement to Wallace's original experiment. The thing is, as was pointed out at the time, when there are only two targets, the two statements above don't work.
-
Impossible to add or subtract anything from what Max shows above, except that it was key to Wallace’s method that both sides agree to what will be seen in the case that (a) water is flat and (b) water is curved. Then the experiment was performed, and both sides drew what they saw with their own eyes.
Despite the blustering and evasion, Tom has essentially done this above. He agrees that, if the markers (however many) are the same height above the water, then they will ‘line up’.
What he disputes is that in the 1870 experiment, they were the same height. Well that’s fine. Let’s repeat the experiment, make extremely accurate measurements of the height, and also for good measure tilt the viewing apparatus, and change its height, as Max does above.
This is the scientific method. Compare two models of X and Y by computing what observations they predict. Then make the observations, and see which model predicts best. This is of course a binary method, which Tom approves of (and so do I).
-
I don't get it why this should be repeated. It was already repeated. Just check the wikipedia article about it and go for the references within there, e.g. this one: https://ia801409.us.archive.org/6/items/reportofbritisha01scie/reportofbritisha01scie.pdf
-
There are multiple people posting numerous questions and there are way too few of me.
Doesn't that suggest there's a reason for this? Where is your society in your hour of need? Why is there no supporting reponses from ANY FE contingent? Why doesn't post anything to support you?
I'm not going to address everything. In fact, I have already gotten bored of discussing why the Wallace experiment is a bad one.
Ah, there it goes - Pavlovian Team Hoax Repsonse No. 7 - "The "This is boring" or "I don't have time" get-out clauses....
(The standard half-dozen Pavlovian Responses on YouTube are;
Pavlovian Team Hoax Response, No. 1 - Change the subject to another hoax theory
Pavlovian Team Hoax Response, No. 2 - call the other poster a 'shill', 'troll', or a paid NASA or Government Agent
Pavlovian Team Hoax Response, No. 3 - Resort to profanity and bluster
Pavlovian Team Hoax Response, No. 4 - Accuse the poster of being a different poster and posting under multiple accounts
Pavlovian Team Hoax Response, No. 5 - Accuse the poster of lacking 'critical thought' or following NASA/Govt 'dogma'
Pavlovian Team Hoax Response, No. 6 - Tell the poster to 'Do their own research' but fail to provide any indicators of where this should lead
)
-
Yule’s report is below. Why repeat? Nil scientific value, but huge educational value. Engage with Flatearthers, explain the geometry, and get them to agree what would be seen were the 6 mile stretch of water to be flat, and if the three points were exactly the same height above.
Would have great value as a multiple schools project, could be the subject of a BBC documentary etc. Education is the point, and re-creating trust in the scientific method. Plus March 2020 is the 150th anniversary.
REPORT OF THE SEVENTY-FIRST MEETING OF THE BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE HELD AT GLASGOW IN SEPTEMBER 1901.
pp 725-6.
5. The Experimental Demonstration of the Curvature of the Earth's Surface.
By H. Yule Oldham, M.A.
In 1870 Dr. A. R. Wallace performed his well-known Bedford Level experiment. In the summers of 1900 and 1901 a series of similar experiments was made with the special object of obtaining photographic records of the same. The Bedford Level is a portion of the Fens north of Ely, through which in the seventeenth century two great canals were made, shortening the course of the Ouse. Of these, one, the New Bedford river, is tidal ; the other, the old Bedford river, has locks at each end, and presents long, straight stretches of water without current or tide. The six-mile stretch of the old Bedford river between Welney and Denver was selected, as it is perfectly straight, has a bridge at each end, but none in between. The height of the parapet of Welney bridge above the water level was measured, a mark was set up on Denver bridge at the same height above the water-level, and midway—three miles from each end—a mark was set up on a pole at the same height above the water-level. A telescope was then directed from the parapet of Welney bridge to the mark on Denver bridge, and the middle mark was seen to stand up about six feet above the line of sight, agreeing with the effect calculated to be produced by the curvature of the earth's surface.
https://ia801409.us.archive.org/6/items/reportofbritisha01scie/reportofbritisha01scie.pdf
-
According to the wikipedia article this was indeed used for educational purposes, but I go along with their remark, that this is no longer needed, because nowadays we have direct proof due to pictures from space.
That's the most confusing thing for me anyway, that the whole discussion is lead by the flat-earth believers as we would still be in England in the middle of the 19th century. Somehow they have not realized, that time has proceed and knowledge and understanding has vastly evolved since then.
I'm not questioning that you should repeat key experiments from the past. But that's something for students to get a deeper understanding as just by reading books. It's not that physics students do lab courses to solve open questions...
-
According to the wikipedia article this was indeed used for educational purposes, but I go along with their remark, that this is no longer needed, because nowadays we have direct proof due to pictures from space.
...and, for those who question the pictures, and call them "CGI", we have the data and observations.
-
According to the wikipedia article this was indeed used for educational purposes, but I go along with their remark, that this is no longer needed, because nowadays we have direct proof due to pictures from space.
But the pictures are supposedly fake. Whereas, if the Flatearthers are invited to the experiment and view the phenomenon with their own eyes, they can't claim it's fake.
I seriously doubt any FEers would accept the invitation. They might say the experiment hasn't been set up right, that the water level has been rigged etc.
-
But the pictures are supposedly fake.
Doesn't matter if they (pictures taken from satellites of the Earth) are fake or not.
We have live telescope tracking of the satellites, personal observation, laser ranging, data transmission, etc etc to prove the case for satellites. The first three of these can be done easily by anyone unconnected with the satellite industry. The fourth requires purchase or rent of the appropriate gear, and some contractual involvement with the industry, but can still be done by any member of the public.
-
According to the wikipedia article this was indeed used for educational purposes, but I go along with their remark, that this is no longer needed, because nowadays we have direct proof due to pictures from space.
...and, for those who question the pictures, and call them "CGI", we have the data and observations.
In the thread about the horizon at eye-level experiment you see how far you go with data and observations. They don't care, they will only discuss about irrelevant details about the execution of your experiment. Any new experiment is as good as an old one.
-
I don't get it why this should be repeated. It was already repeated. Just check the wikipedia article about it and go for the references within there, e.g. this one: https://ia801409.us.archive.org/6/items/reportofbritisha01scie/reportofbritisha01scie.pdf
Is there any video of that?
A good reason to repeat it is because Bedford Levels is famous; Rowbotham's name is still referred to; and everybody knows about it.
Plus, as we can see, there's still a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of the experiment, and the outcome it shows.
-
There's no video about anything that happened in the 19th century, I suppose. Therefor one report is as good as any other.
-
According to the wikipedia article this was indeed used for educational purposes, but I go along with their remark, that this is no longer needed, because nowadays we have direct proof due to pictures from space.
...and, for those who question the pictures, and call them "CGI", we have the data and observations.
In the thread about the horizon at eye-level experiment you see how far you go with data and observations. They don't care, they will only discuss about irrelevant details about the execution of your experiment. Any new experiment is as good as an old one.
Why are Tom etc. not carrying out the experiment themselves?
-
According to the wikipedia article this was indeed used for educational purposes, but I go along with their remark, that this is no longer needed, because nowadays we have direct proof due to pictures from space.
...and, for those who question the pictures, and call them "CGI", we have the data and observations.
In the thread about the horizon at eye-level experiment you see how far you go with data and observations. They don't care, they will only discuss about irrelevant details about the execution of your experiment. Any new experiment is as good as an old one.
Why are Tom etc. not carrying out the experiment themselves?
Apparently he is bored with discussing it, probably because he had no answers to the questions posed, and he was making himself look a bit of a tit
-
.. as we can see, there's still a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of the experiment, and the outcome it shows.
True.
Carpenter:
‘The telescope inverts the picture presented to the eye, so that, in each case, the sky is at th bottom of the picture. But there are the three points in a regular series, so nearly equidistant that the sharpest vision could not detect a fault, one slightly above the other in each case ... To see these views is to see a never-to-be-forgotten sight, and if Mr. WALLACE is not convinced now, he never will be!’
Wallace:
Mr. Coulcher looked at it, and then Mr. Carpenter, and the moment the latter did he said "Beautiful! Beautiful!" And on Mr. Hampden asking him if it was all right, he replied that it was perfect, and that it showed the three points in "a perfect straight line;" "as level as possible!" And he actually jumped for joy. Then I asked Mr. Coulcher and Mr. Carpenter both to make sketches, which they did.
Both sides agreed exactly what had been seen, and they made sketches which they signed, which still survive. No one was saying anything had been ‘faked’.
But Carpenter thought the observation proved the water was flat, Wallace thought the exact opposite. More later.
-
Why isn't Tom, etc. carrying out the experiment themselves?
A group of flat earthers tried in 2016. They were pretty happy with what they did. But to observers it looked like a complete gong show.
Video is on youtube.
-
So, ultimately we come down to this:
1. We all agree that water finds its own level, and that water conforms to the shape of the Earth
2. Targets placed parallel to the surface of a body of water will conform to the shape of the surface of the water
3. These same targets, then, will conform to the shape of the earth
4. The Old Bedford River northeast of Welney, between a sluice gate 181m northeast of Welney Bridge and a road bridge just southwest of the Old Bedford Sluice, provides a 5.85-mile perfectly straight stretch of standing water with no obstacles along its length
5. Three targets placed parallel to the surface of the water, at, for example, 0.2, 3, and 5.65 miles will reveal the shape of the surface of the water
6. The targets should be placed high enough to minimise the effects of refraction (for example, at 13 feet above the surface of the river)
7. A telescope or telescopic camera placed at the same height as the targets can be used to view the them
8. Diagrams and scale models predict the following: a) that if the shape of the surface of the water is flat, the three targets will appear to be at the same height as one another; or b) if the shape of the surface of the water is convexly curved, the middle target will appear higher than the other two
9. These two outcomes can only occur with the associated shape: that is, if the shape of the surface of the water is flat, it is impossible for the middle target to appear higher than the other two; and if the shape of the surface of the water is curved, it is impossible for the three targets to appear to be at the same height as one another - regardless of how the elevation or tilt of the camera/observer is altered
10.If the camera is higher than the level of the targets, the following will be observed: a) if the water is flat, the distant target will appear highest, then the middle one, then the near one; or b) if the water is curved, the near target will appear lowest, while the distant target will appear to raise in the frame as the observer raises, until it appears higher than the middle target
11. If the camera is lower than the level of targets, the following will be observed: a) if the water is flat, the near target will appear highest, then the middle one, then the far one; or b) if the water is curved, the distant target will appear lowest, while the near target will appear to raise in the frame as the observer lowers, until it appears higher than the middle target
12. Both the above points are also predicted with diagrams and scale models. Though they are incidental the main point of the experiment
13. Tilting the camera does nothing to alter the apparents heights of the three targets, but merely changes their position, as a group, in the frame
In a nutshell:
1. Three targets and a camera are placed at the same height above a sufficiently long straight body of water
2. Observations are made
3. If the targets all appear to be at the same height, the surface of the river is flat
4. If the middle target appears higher than the near and far target, the surface of the river is curved
Any suggestions for improvements and clarifications?
-
So, ultimately we come down to this:
1. We all agree that water finds its own level, and that water conforms to the shape of the Earth
2. Targets placed parallel to the surface of a body of water will conform to the shape of the surface of the water
3. These same targets, then, will conform to the shape of the earth
4. The Old Bedford River northeast of Welney, between a sluice gate 181m northeast of Welney Bridge and a road bridge just southwest of the Old Bedford Sluice, provides a 5.85-mile perfectly straight stretch of standing water with no obstacles along its length
5. Three targets placed parallel to the surface of the water, at, for example, 0.2, 3, and 5.65 miles will reveal the shape of the surface of the water
6. The targets should be placed high enough to minimise the effects of refraction (for example, at 13 feet above the surface of the river)
7. A telescope or telescopic camera placed at the same height as the targets can be used to view the them
8. Diagrams and scale models predict the following: a) that if the shape of the surface of the water is flat, the three targets will appear to be at the same height as one another; or b) if the shape of the surface of the water is convexly curved, the middle target will appear higher than the other two
9. These two outcomes can only occur with the associated shape: that is, if the shape of the surface of the water is flat, it is impossible for the middle target to appear higher than the other two; and if the shape of the surface of the water is curved, it is impossible for the three targets to appear to be at the same height as one another - regardless of how the elevation or tilt of the camera/observer is altered
10.If the camera is higher than the level of the targets, the following will be observed: a) if the water is flat, the distant target will appear highest, then the middle one, then the near one; or b) if the water is curved, the near target will appear lowest, while the distant target will appear to raise in the frame as the observer raises, until it appears higher than the middle target
11. If the camera is lower than the level of targets, the following will be observed: a) if the water is flat, the near target will appear highest, then the middle one, then the near one; or b) if the water is curved, the distant target will appear lowest, while the near target will appear to raise in the frame as the observer raises, until it appears higher than the middle target
12. Both the above points are also predicted with diagrams and scale models
13. Tilting the camera does nothing to alter the apparents heights of the three targets, but merely changes their position, as a group, in the frame
In a nutshell:
1. Three targets and a camera are placed at the same height above a sufficiently long straight body of water
2. Observations are made
3. If the targets all appear to be at the same height, the surface of the river is flat
4. If the middle target appears higher than the near and far target, the surface of the river is curved
Any suggestions for improvements and clarifications?
Points 10 and 11 are incorrect when referring to a curvature.
For point 10 if the camera is significantly above the height of the targets, it will show initially;
1, the targets to be the nearest below both the mid, and further targets with the further target above all of them,
2, Then as the camera is lowered the further target and middle come into transit, with the closest still below them,
3, Then as further lowered the furthest target and closest come into transit, with the middle target above the other 2,
4, Then as the camera is lowered more the closest and middle will come into transit, with the furthest seen below the other 2,
5, All three targets will be seen with closest above the middle above the furthest when the camera is at the same level as the targets,
6, If the camera is lowered further, below the target height, the targets will grow further apart, and at some point the further target will not be seen.
Point 11 will start with point 6, and then 5 and then 4 then 3 then 2 then 1 as the camera is raised.
However depending on the height of the targets in the first place, there may not be the opportunity to see point 5 if the targets are very low to the water.
-
It looks right as I've written it; perhaps what I intended with my words is being understood differently, though?
Point 6 suggests a target height of 13 feet. I think this should be enough.
Thanks for your input though. :-)
-
It looks right as I've written it; perhaps what I intended with my words is being understood differently, though?
Point 6 suggests a target height of 13 feet. I think this should be enough.
Thanks for your input to though. :-)
With point 11, it is not necessarily true, as if the observer is lower the mid point target will actually lower until it is in transit with the far target as the observer raises, and eventually appear lower than the far target.
-
With point 11, it is not necessarily true, as if the observer is lower the mid point target will actually lower until it is in transit with the far target as the observer raises, and eventually appear lower than the far target.
Are you referring to 11a or 11b?
-
With point 11, it is not necessarily true, as if the observer is lower the mid point target will actually lower until it is in transit with the far target as the observer raises, and eventually appear lower than the far target.
Are you referring to 11a or 11b?
11b, if the observer is lower than the hieght of the posts, then the mid target will appear to be above the far target, and then to get closer to the further one the higher the observer goes, until at some point well above the target heights, the mid target transits the lower one, and becomes underneath the far target.
-
11b is about what would be seen on a curved surface if the camera was lower than the height of the targets.
But you are mentioning what would be seen if the camera was higher than the targets.
That's 10b.
Maybe looking at the video on page 4 will help?
(I did notice a typo in 11a though - fixed now - so thanks for that. :-)
-
11b is about what would be seen on a curved surface if the camera was lower than the height of the targets.
But you are mentioning what would be seen if the camera was higher than the targets.
That's 10b.
Maybe looking at the video on page 4 will help?
(I did notice a typo in 11a though - fixed now - so thanks for that. :-)
“11. If the camera is lower than the level of targets, the following will be observed: a) if the water is flat, the near target will appear highest, then the middle one, then the far one; or b) if the water is curved, the distant target will appear lowest, while the near target will appear to raise in the frame as the observer raises, until it appears higher than the middle target”
I would suggest you watch your video again. Right at the end, it clearly shows, if the camera is BELOW the cups, the nearest is the highest, then the middle, then the furthest.
As the camera is raised up the nearest cup drops to be eventually in transit with the middle cup, and the middle cup is dropping (relative to the far cup) At this point the camera is above the line of cups.
Do a drawing and you will see, as you raise the camera, which is BELOW the level of the cups, then the closest and mid cups close the gap to each other, and close the gap to the far cup. It follows a natural progression.
At no point with the camera below the plane of the cups and then being further raised can either the closest or mid cups appear to raise up higher, as the camera is raised, relatively to each other or to the camera.
Hang 3 objects from the ceiling the further one below the mid one and the closer One higher again in a sort of arc. Look at them when sitting down. Now stand up and look at them again. There will not be any of them that has raised up. It is perspective.
A simple line drawing with the 3 objects on a curve, draw lines through the furthest and middle, furthest and nearest and then middle and nearest. You will see the lines cross a vertical (depends how far behind the nearest cup) this is where you see the cups in transit.
It depends on how much lower than the plane of the targets the camera is situated as to
You need to get this right, or the observation is nonsense.
-
I suggest 10 and 11 require significant clarification, or it will be confusing.
10.If the camera is higher than the level of the targets, the following will be observed: a) if the water is flat, the distant target will appear highest, … or b) if the water is curved, the near target will appear lowest
The distant target could appear highest in both cases (flat or curved), if the camera high enough.
The near target will appear lowest in both cases (flat or curved), so the observation proves nothing.
You need to stick to cases where the predicted outcomes conflict.
-
I suggest 10 and 11 require significant clarification, or it will be confusing.
10.If the camera is higher than the level of the targets, the following will be observed: a) if the water is flat, the distant target will appear highest, … or b) if the water is curved, the near target will appear lowest
The distant target could appear highest in both cases (flat or curved), if the camera high enough.
The near target will appear lowest in both cases (flat or curved), so the observation proves nothing.
You need to stick to cases where the predicted outcomes conflict.
I agree.
Rowbotham 150 years ago, and Tom, amongst others have since been trying to argue and fudge the issue for the last 150 years that a 2 1/4 inch difference of hieght over a 6 miles distance has made what is a patently obvious observation into something quite the opposite.
Repeating the same things unless there is a consensus of opinion will result in the same arguments.
Admittedly they wont rumble on for as long.......
-
Right, which is why I am coming round to having 3 visible markers (nearpoint, midpoint, endpoint) plus an implied fourth, namely the viewpoint itself. If any two visible markers, line up, it follows that the viewpoint must be on the same straight line with them, and if they are the same height, the viewpoint must be the same height. So you don’t have to measure the height of the viewpoint, only the three visible markers.
Caveat: I say that if two points ‘line up’ then they and the viewpoint are on the same straight line. Strictly speaking, it means that the light followed that line, not that the line is straight. We need a further assumption that the light travelled in a straight line. There might have been refraction, e.g., or Einsteinian relativity effects might have caused it.
And here is another puzzle I have. The Wallace experiment is consistent with a flat water surface, but concave refraction. I.e. if the light curved downwards from the end marker underneath the mid marker, then curved back up to the viewer, this would be consistent with the observation of the mid mark being higher than the end mark. But it should be the other way round with the Rowbotham experiment. If you are standing in the water and can see the surface of the water 6 miles away then either (1) the water is flat and there is no refraction, or (2) the water is convex and the refraction is convex.
So if flat surface is true, there is no refraction at the surface of the water, but there is concave refraction 13 feet higher up. If convex surface true, than little or no refraction higher up, but convex refraction at the water surface. Does that make sense? And what observations would distinguish the two predictions?
-
It's interesting that I only added 10 and 11 for sake of completion, but hesitated to do so, since they add nothing to the experiment.
They still read fine, but since they're causing confusion - even among non-flatties - then I shall do something about them.
Best not to overcomplicate this: it really is pretty straightforward.
So other than that, everything looks fine?
-
It's interesting that I only added 10 and 11 for sake of completion, but hesitated to do so, since they add nothing to the experiment.
They still read fine, but since they're causing confusion - even among non-flatties - then I shall do something about them.
Best not to overcomplicate this: it really is pretty straightforward.
So other than that, everything looks fine?
Everything looks fine to me, and agree not to add anything that adds nothing to experiment.
Don't forget my point about refraction above. There should be a way of eliminating concave refraction.
-
That's a thing? ;)
-
That's a thing? ;)
You have to eliminate it being a thing. The FE model says that there is no refraction at the surface of the water, but concave refraction 15 foot higher up.
-
I think that's what I mean by complicating things.
I'm sure we could invent a dozen reasons why the surface may appear convex. But there's not much sense in doing that: we can leave that to others.
Best to just carry out the experiment multiple times over multiple days and show the results.
-
At the risk of complicating things, how about trying to combine the original Rowbotham observations with the 1870 observations?
I am thinking, if there were markers put out anyway at the 13 feet 4 inches, (4M) why not also put on the same poles markers at 5 feet (1.52M) to simulate the experiment1 and 2 of EnaG, this would be the rowing of the flag, which was claimed to be 5 feet high, and also the experiment 2 with the series of flags the top of which were 5 feet high.
You can take a series of observations with the Center of the lens at 8 inches (exp 1) 5 feet (exp 2) and the 4M used in the later test. Photograph all 3 and see what the results are.
It does risk complicating things, but you get 3 bangs for your buck!
-
My actual plan is to paint the poles with stripes designating each foot, and have the camera move up and down, to show the view and alignment at different heights, which will also show effects of refraction, especially when closer to the water.
-
My actual plan is to paint the poles with stripes designating each foot, and have the camera move up and down, to show the view and alignment at different heights, which will also show effects of refraction, especially when closer to the water.
I think it's important to cover both the Rowbotham and the Wallace experiment.
There is a practical difficulty of getting camera shots close to the water level. If you remember, the 2016 experiment failed because the waders were not long enough.
-
What's wrong with getting wet? ;)
-
Or a small inflatable. I got one!
It might not be possible to get someone to lend expensive equipment with high powered telephoto lenses if they think it will get wet! Unless you have the equipment yourself!
I like the idea of marking the poles, but maybe every metre? As well as having a square mark, top of which is at 5 feet, and the top marker at 13feet 4 inches.
That way you are recreating Wallace and Rowbotham.
Good recording equipment, as well as environmental measuring, air pressure wind speed and direction, air temp, water temp as well as humidity will all be needed at the camera, intermediate and furthest location.
Water temp is important as the refraction may vary with different temp differences as you get close to the water.
It would be fantastic if permanent markers are left so that the observations can be carried out say on a hot still day, a cold still day, and breezy days as well. It’s unlikely that you will encounter ice covered days, and i would be interested to see how Rowbotham claimed to have seen skaters on the ice at 8 miles, when the stretch of the river is not 8 miles long, but i digress slightly.
-
I thought he claimed to have seen skaters at 6 miles.
-
The below is an extract from Experiment 2
“The above-named experiments were first made by the author in the summer of 1838, but in the previous winter season, when the water in the "Old Bedford" Canal was frozen, he had often, when lying on the ice, with a good telescope observed persons skating and sliding at known distances of from four to eight miles.”
Doesn’t say exactly where though, but it does say at the old Bedford.
-
Thank you for pointing me to that. When flat earthers have suggested repeating Rowbotham's experiment I had assumed they were referring to the famous "Experiment 1", where he was only 8 inches above the surface of the water: whereas now I realise that my proposed experiment is exactly the same as his "Experiment 2" (www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm)).
This is much better, as the conditions of this will therefore satisfy all parties: Rowbotham's "Experiment 2" is a good one, and I'll be very happy to repeat it, exactly as he devised it - with the small change in that the targets/flags will be slightly higher above the water.
Apologies to Tom for not realising he was referring to "Experiment 2". :)
-
Sorry to hark back to this, but I still don't really see what you were saying here. I said:
11b. If the camera is lower than the level of targets, the following will be observed: if the water is curved, the distant target will appear lowest, while the near target will appear to raise in the frame as the observer raises, until it appears higher than the middle target”
And you said:
I would suggest you watch your video again. Right at the end, it clearly shows, if the camera is BELOW the cups, the nearest is the highest, then the middle, then the furthest.
Which, to me, looks exactly like the same thing - other than my pointing out that, when the camera is only slightly lower than the height of the targets, the middle cup is still higher than the near one.
But, anyway, I've just about completed a redo on the proposal and set-up, and it doesn't include points 10 & 11, since they were superfluous and confusing, and don't really highlight any differences between the two models. ;)
-
Sorry to hark back to this, but I still don't really see what you were saying here. I said:
11b. If the camera is lower than the level of targets, the following will be observed: if the water is curved, the distant target will appear lowest, while the near target will appear to raise in the frame as the observer raises, until it appears higher than the middle target”
And you said:
I would suggest you watch your video again. Right at the end, it clearly shows, if the camera is BELOW the cups, the nearest is the highest, then the middle, then the furthest.
Which, to me, looks exactly like the same thing - other than my pointing out that, when the camera is only slightly lower than the height of the targets, the middle cup is still higher than the near one.
But, anyway, I've just about completed a redo on the proposal and set-up, and it doesn't include points 10 & 11, since they were superfluous and confusing, and don't really highlight any differences between the two models. ;)
The devil is in the details, and you can be sure that some would pick at the words only after any experiment to try to invalidate it.
11B this is the part i have a problem with, “while the near target will appear to raise in the frame as the observer raises,” if the observer raises, the targets will all appear to drop, or lower, (relatively)but do so at different rates. If the targets are not moving, but the observer raises, then relatively the targets MUST all appear to lower. The near one faster and the mid one slower and far one slowest.
Sorry i am using an i pad, and really would love to sketch it out, but my computer skills are pants........
-
Oh. I got it now. It should say "the near target will appear to raise in the frame as the observer lowers, until it appears higher than the middle target."
That's what happens when I cut and paste from the previous (opposite) point, but forget to alter all the relevant words. ;)
Thanks for sticking at it. :)