*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10240
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #60 on: May 17, 2018, 12:29:46 AM »
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.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #61 on: May 17, 2018, 12:37:07 AM »
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?

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10240
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #62 on: May 17, 2018, 12:44:34 AM »
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/

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 12:48:50 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #63 on: May 17, 2018, 12:44:56 AM »
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.
Recommended reading: We Have No Idea by Jorge Cham and Daniel Whiteson

Turtle Town, a game made by my brothers and their friends, is now in private beta for the demo! Feedback so far has been mostly positive. Contact me if you would like to play.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #64 on: May 17, 2018, 12:58:30 AM »
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/

Quote
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.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Max_Almond

Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #65 on: May 17, 2018, 01:01:03 AM »
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. :-)
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 02:36:32 AM by Max_Almond »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10240
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #66 on: May 17, 2018, 01:02:31 AM »
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 from: Max_Almond
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.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 01:04:31 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #67 on: May 17, 2018, 01:02:39 AM »
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.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #68 on: May 17, 2018, 01:11:02 AM »
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

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10240
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #69 on: May 17, 2018, 01:31:24 AM »
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 02:14:43 AM by Tom Bishop »

Max_Almond

Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #70 on: May 17, 2018, 02:41:43 AM »
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.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #71 on: May 17, 2018, 02:43:18 AM »
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.

Quote
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.

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Max_Almond

Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #72 on: May 17, 2018, 02:56:04 AM »
[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? ;-)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10240
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #73 on: May 17, 2018, 03:09:00 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 03:54:04 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #74 on: May 17, 2018, 03:24:17 AM »
[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!

Also, if you haven't heard of bronies before, that reflects poorly on your understanding of the world that surrounds you. It's practically impossible not to know about them.

Max_Almond

Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #75 on: May 17, 2018, 03:26:28 AM »
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. ;-)
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 04:15:22 AM by Max_Almond »

Max_Almond

Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #76 on: May 17, 2018, 03:48:48 AM »
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:



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.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 03:54:45 AM by Max_Almond »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #77 on: May 17, 2018, 07:48:23 AM »
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).

Offline hexagon

  • *
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #78 on: May 17, 2018, 07:59:57 AM »
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

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #79 on: May 17, 2018, 08:24:53 AM »
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
)
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?