The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: WellRoundedIndividual on April 26, 2019, 11:42:19 AM
-
I can find nothing in the search engine here on this website that references Oldham. Interesting to note, since he proved the curvature of the earth at the Bedford River.
"In 1901 Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[6][7] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools[8] until images taken from orbiting satellites became available.[9][10]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Yule_Oldham
Anyone care to comment on the truth of said event?
In the TFES Wiki, there is a brief comment that states Oldham conducted the experiment, but left out any of this results or how he conducted it. (Seems a bit dishonest to do so).
"In 1901 Henry Yule Oldham, a geography reader at King's College, Cambridge, conducted the definitive experiment described above."
https://wiki.tfes.org/Bedford_Level_Experiment
Which seems to be either copied at the other Flat Earth website or this one is a copy of their Wiki:
"In 1901 Henry Yule Oldham, a geography reader at King's College, Cambridge, conducted the definitive experiment described in Method, above."
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Bedford+Level+Experiment
I have searched quite a bit through Google and found no refutations of his experiment.
-
This refutes all sinking observations: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_By_Refraction
-
Please make a point. Simply saying that the sinking ship effect is a blanket response to any optical observations is just...wrong.
Are you saying that Rowbotham and Blount accounted for refraction and that Oldham did not? How can you even make that statement when you and your wiki have no evidence of this - at least towards Oldham. You don't even go into his results.
The wiki specifically states thus:
"Rowbotham says that the sinking ship effect is most likely to occur when the weather is not calm and the observations are conducted over hectic ocean environments. In more landlocked areas such as lakes, canals, and ocean inlets, and under calm conditions, the effect often does not occur."
Which is precisely why Rowbotham chose the Bedford River to do his experiment. You cannot claim that refraction had a hand in Oldham's results and not in Rowbotham's, when Rowbotham specifically used that location to avoid having his results affected by refraction. Ridiculous. You cant have it both ways. Dishonest.
-
This refutes all sinking observations: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_By_Refraction
This refutes your wiki entry, and establishes the sinking ship observation.
https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/
In order to add to the discussion, I will note that vanishing perspective theory cannot atone for the evidence found in my link. Nor can atmospheric refraction - which would work in the exact opposite manner that is needed to disguise itself as a sinking effect.
-
People went back there and Lake Pontchartrain was not curved:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtnqO8rCQnU
An effect similar to the sinking power lines is seen in this road scene at the 58:21 mark. (https://youtu.be/atL3PmFTJ3o?t=3501)
-
Which is precisely why Rowbotham chose the Bedford River to do his experiment. You cannot claim that refraction had a hand in Oldham's results and not in Rowbotham's, when Rowbotham specifically used that location to avoid having his results affected by refraction. Ridiculous. You cant have it both ways. Dishonest.
Refraction can still occur on the Bedford River, if less frequently. Refraction happens all the time. All of the all-day time lapse scenes I have seen have objects in the background constantly sinking and rising. We are beyond the point of single pictures.
Ben, Taboo Conspiracy, reports that sometimes he is able to see further than the curvature of the earth should allow, and at other times things appear sunken (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDvdk3NHQi8). He compares the two scenes. In his comparison the sunken scene was more distorted than the flat earth scene. Does refraction make things blurrier or clearer?
Please make a point. Simply saying that the sinking ship effect is a blanket response to any optical observations is just...wrong.
Are you saying that Rowbotham and Blount accounted for refraction and that Oldham did not? How can you even make that statement when you and your wiki have no evidence of this - at least towards Oldham. You don't even go into his results.
Rowbotham conducts several experiments that would necessitate amazing refraction coincidences:
From Experiment Two of Earth Not a Globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm) we read:
“ Along the edge of the water, in the same canal, six flags were placed, one statute mile from each other, and so arranged that the top of each flag was 5 feet above the surface. Close to the last flag in the series a longer staff was fixed, bearing a flag 3 feet square, and the top of which was 8 feet above the surface of the water--the bottom being in a line with the tops of the other and intervening flags, as shown in the following diagram, Fig, 4. ”
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/1/1a/Experiment-2a.jpg)
“ On looking with a good telescope over and along the flags, from A to B, the line of sight fell on the lower part of the larger flag at B. The altitude of the point B above the water at D was 5 feet, and the altitude of the telescope at A above the water at C was 5 feet; and each intervening flag had the same altitude. Hence the surface of the water C, D, was equidistant from the line of sight A, B; and as A B was a right line, C, D, being parallel, was also a right line; or, in other words, the surface of the water, C, D, was for six miles absolutely horizontal.
If the earth is a globe, the series of flags in the last experiment would have had the form and produced the results represented in the diagram, Fig. 5. The water curvating from ”
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/6/62/Experiment-2b.jpg)
“ C to D, each flag would have been a given amount below the line A, B. The first and second flags would have determined the direction of the line of sight from A to B, and the third flag would have been 8 inches below the second; the fourth flag, 32 inches; the fifth, 6 feet; the sixth, 10 feet 8 inches; and the seventh, 16 feet 8 inches; but the top of the last and largest flag, being 3 feet higher than the smaller ones, would have been 13 feet 8 inches below the line of sight at the point B. ”
On analysis of this experiment, if the earth were a globe, it would be quite the coincidence that the flags all experienced the Flat Earth refraction effect, one by one, all the way down to the end, which projected each flag into the air at the exact height they needed to be at in order to make things look flat in accordance with the distance looked across and the height of the observer.
-
Refraction happens all the time. All of the all day time-lapse scenes I have seen have seen objects in the background constantly sinking and rising. We are beyond the point of single pictures.
Why?
Because you say so? Or because in the past you've only looked at surface-level examples?
-
“ Along the edge of the water, in the same canal, six flags were placed, one statute mile from each other, and so arranged that the top of each flag was 5 feet above the surface. Close to the last flag in the series a longer staff was fixed, bearing a flag 3 feet square, and the top of which was 8 feet above the surface of the water--the bottom being in a line with the tops of the other and intervening flags, as shown in the following diagram, Fig, 4. ”
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/1/1a/Experiment-2a.jpg)
“ On looking with a good telescope over and along the flags, from A to B, the line of sight fell on the lower part of the larger flag at B. The altitude of the point B above the water at D was 5 feet, and the altitude of the telescope at A above the water at C was 5 feet; and each intervening flag had the same altitude. Hence the surface of the water C, D, was equidistant from the line of sight A, B; and as A B was a right line, C, D, being parallel, was also a right line; or, in other words, the surface of the water, C, D, was for six miles absolutely horizontal.
If the earth is a globe, the series of flags in the last experiment would have had the form and produced the results represented in the diagram, Fig. 5. The water curvating from ”
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/6/62/Experiment-2b.jpg)
“ C to D, each flag would have been a given amount below the line A, B. The first and second flags would have determined the direction of the line of sight from A to B, and the third flag would have been 8 inches below the second; the fourth flag, 32 inches; the fifth, 6 feet; the sixth, 10 feet 8 inches; and the seventh, 16 feet 8 inches; but the top of the last and largest flag, being 3 feet higher than the smaller ones, would have been 13 feet 8 inches below the line of sight at the point B. ”
On analysis of this experiment, if the earth were a globe, it would be quite the coincidence that the flags all experienced the Flat Earth refraction effect, one by one, all the way down to the end, which projected each flag into the air at the exact height they needed to be at in order to make things look flat in accordance with the distance looked across and the height of the observer.
Funny, but Rowbotham's observation would appear an exact opposite of that observed here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYuzPuwlq_w
and, when viewed in the exact reverse direction, on a different day, by a different observer, here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-b0Dfcky9k
Both of which show that this situation applies, in exact opposition to Rowbotham's assertion of his observation;
(https://i.imgur.com/k6OGoxQ.jpg)
as opposed to this;
(https://i.imgur.com/rqGYenY.jpg)
What's the difference? We have the photographs, and real, living people who will attest to the photographs corresponding to what they saw.
With Rowbotham, all we have is his commentary and drawings in a dusty old book. He CLAIMS to have seen something, but we have no way to verify it.
-
Tom,
Based on all that I have seen you say about refraction, I would conclude that you would have us believe that refraction is chaotic and therefore unpredictable. If that is the case, how can you say that refraction did not affect Rowbotham's experiments??? Either there is a standard application of refraction or there is not. Either Rowbotham and Oldham's experiments were subject to chaotic optical effects or they were not. Without knowing the atmospheric conditions (other than "oh it looks hazy" or "it sure is hot out here"), we can not say that refraction did or did not affect either of the experiments. Therefore it puts both experiments on equal assumption grounds. And by the way, Oldham's experiment did not show results as shown in the 2nd diagram of Rowbotham's. He pointed his telescope at the Denver Bridge and measured the height of the flag in between the two. He did not sight off of the first to see if the last dipped below.
And also, you would have to know the atmospheric conditions on each point in the diagram. They could all be different!
UPDATE: Please read this on Looming and other atmospheric refraction mirages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looming_and_similar_refraction_phenomena
So, Rowbotham's experiment experienced looming. Oldham's experiment had sinking refraction.
-
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/1/1a/Experiment-2a.jpg)
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/6/62/Experiment-2b.jpg)
In another parallel to this, and modelling the observations noted in the two videos above, set up a couple of 2-unit markers and a 4-unit marker beyond them on flat and curved surfaces.
Sight along the two objects of matching height (2 units) and the sightline will meet a 4-unit object beyond at the 2-unit mark,
IF IF IF they are all on a level surface;
(https://i.imgur.com/4er9bw2.jpg)
.. but put all three on a curved surface, and the sightline will pass above this level, potentially passing clear above an
object of 4 units or more;
(https://i.imgur.com/U8rKanw.jpg)
This is what's seen in the videos. Looking from an elevation of 210m, past a bridge tower also of 210m, the sightline passes clear over the 415m hill beyond. It does not meet it at the 210m level.
Impossible on a Flat Earth.
-
This refutes all sinking observations: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_By_Refraction
Nope it doesn't refute anything. Unless the sun keeps looming and sinking during 12 hours of 'night' then bam! starts looming and sinking again as it rises up behind me to begin 'day'.
(https://i.imgur.com/unsf6Wm.gif)
-
People went back there and Lake Pontchartrain was not curved:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtnqO8rCQnU
An effect similar to the sinking power lines is seen in this road scene at the 58:21 mark. (https://youtu.be/atL3PmFTJ3o?t=3501)
That cannot be concluded from your offering. We can clearly see the horizon is experiencing weather, and hence one cannot tell whether it curves or not.
I’ll take my evidence which shows conditions on a very clear day over your misty hazy inconclusive video.
Clearly, your evidence does not account for confounding variables ;)
-
Here is another excellent video which show the curvature of this bridge from a variety of angles and perspectives - all with clear images (no fog, haze, or other questionable occlusions).
https://youtu.be/x3ZuqDlFzsI
-
That is the same bridge from Ranty's video. Soundly's own timelapse shows that light is bending up and down.
https://youtu.be/JygBcqehnNg
-
That is the same bridge from Ranty's video. Soundly's own timelapse shows that light is bending up and down.
VID snipped
But ... so what? What relevance does that have to (for instance) the observation I cited above, or to Rowbotham's claim about his observation?
Video B shows certain effect. That's not a proof that effect was in play for video A, nor for an observation claimed in a dusty book.
-
That is the same bridge from Ranty's video. Soundly's own timelapse shows that light is bending up and down.
VID snipped
But ... so what? What relevance does that have to (for instance) the observation I cited above, or to Rowbotham's claim about his observation?
Video B shows certain effect. That's not a proof that effect was in play for video A, nor for an observation claimed in a dusty book.
It means that a single video or observation of sinking doesn't cut it. The source you provided isn't even claiming that it matches up with vanilla RET, but is getting close to what the standard refraction equations predict.
-
That is the same bridge from Ranty's video. Soundly's own timelapse shows that light is bending up and down.
https://youtu.be/JygBcqehnNg
Well, my video shows curvature that cannot be due to refraction - just look at the parts inside the structure!
Also, I’d like to encourage proper analysis. When you have oscillatory optical behavior from refraction, it is insufficient and unscientific to claim without evidence that such refraction atones for the curvature observed. A proper analysis would require a statistical approach that quantifies the amount of the effect due to refraction, and then subtracts that from the curvature to see if any remains.
Since you have provided the source, you bear the responsibility for performing this analysis before your evidence can be used to generate a conclusion.
Again, you are not accounting for confounding variables properly.
If you’d like my assistance with the statistics, I might be persuaded to volunteer my time. This would be the same type of integration astronomers perform when computing the position of stars that twinkle!
Also, I see the camera has difficulty maintaining focus, when presents significant uncertainty. We would have to see if any statistical conclusions could be reached with such poor quality video.
Until then, this “evidence” lacks scientific analysis and hence is uncompelling.
-
It means that a single video or observation of sinking doesn't cut it.
That's not what I cited.
The source you provided isn't even claiming that it matches up with vanilla RET, but is getting close to what the standard refraction equations predict.
The source(s) I cited simply state that the observation within is impossible on a Flat Earth. No claim that it "matches" with "vanilla RET" at all, simply that it cannot be possible on FE.
-
Of course bending light is possible on an FE. It's called refraction. You need to perform an experiment with multiple points or controls to ensure that light isn't bending.
-
Of course bending light is possible on an FE. It's called refraction. You need to perform an experiment with multiple points or controls to ensure that light isn't bending.
The posted video does this. By changing perspectives, sight lines, and frames of reference — and collecting video inside the bridge cavity, and observing the SAME RESULT, we can safely conclude that refraction plays an insignificant role. Precisely because any refractive effect would adjust in a predicable fashion as the angle of perspective is modified. None of this happens.
-
Of course bending light is possible on an FE. It's called refraction. You need to perform an experiment with multiple points or controls to ensure that light isn't bending.
The posted video does this. By changing perspectives, sight lines, and frames of reference — and collecting video inside the bridge cavity, and observing the SAME RESULT, we can safely conclude that refraction plays an insignificant role. Precisely because any refractive effect would adjust in a predicable fashion as the angle of perspective is modified. None of this happens.
The bending of light to cause sinking is pretty common. This road effect also gives the same result when you look at it from different positions and angles near the surface.
https://youtu.be/atL3PmFTJ3o?t=3501
-
Of course bending light is possible on an FE. It's called refraction. You need to perform an experiment with multiple points or controls to ensure that light isn't bending.
The posted video does this. By changing perspectives, sight lines, and frames of reference — and collecting video inside the bridge cavity, and observing the SAME RESULT, we can safely conclude that refraction plays an insignificant role. Precisely because any refractive effect would adjust in a predicable fashion as the angle of perspective is modified. None of this happens.
The bending of light to cause sinking is pretty common. This road effect also gives the same result when you look at it from different positions and angles near the surface.
https://youtu.be/atL3PmFTJ3o?t=3501
Looks really steaming hot on that road.
The Lake Pontchartrain Causeway he is comparing to is almost 24 miles long. How long is the road Phuket Word is showing?
Also, refraction would have to explain every ship that is not just sinking from the hull up as it moves away, but has sunk and stays sunk, gone. Same for every sunset where the sun disappears for approx. 12 hours every day for everyone on the planet. Perspective doesn't help either as has been shown before, a 3000 mile high, 32 mile wide sun or moon, even when it moves 12,000 miles away can't go below the horizon. And refraction can't push it below and hold it's head under water, so to speak, for 12 hours.
(https://i.imgur.com/leVAoy4.gif)
-
The bending of light to cause sinking is pretty common. This road effect also gives the same result when you look at it from different positions and angles near the surface.
VID snipped
Again, I haven't posted a video or other example of anything "sinking", nor of a "road effect"
Again, you're posting a near-surface video, whereas I keep asking you to address the examples I posted, where the observation sightline is 210m away from the surface. Looking at Rowbotham's drawings, and mine, they both suggest that if the observer at 210m looks past the top of a 210m object, that sightline should reach a higher object beyond at the 210m level, IF IF IF the Earth is flat. But it does not.
It passes clear above the hill, missing this point by a clear 200m (to the top of the hill) and more (which hasn't been measured, it's merely the amount of sky above the hill).
As can be seen from my scale model above, the sightline over 2-unit objects on a flat surface always meets a 4-unit object at the 2-unit level. It does this regardless of the distance to the camera, and the tilt of the camera. The sightline can be anywhere in the frame.
If you place the same three objects on a curved surface, the sightline between the two 2-unit objects, when continued to the 4-unit one, will hit a point ABOVE 2 units. The farther they are apart, the higher this sightline will go.
-
Of course bending light is possible on an FE. It's called refraction. You need to perform an experiment with multiple points or controls to ensure that light isn't bending.
The posted video does this. By changing perspectives, sight lines, and frames of reference — and collecting video inside the bridge cavity, and observing the SAME RESULT, we can safely conclude that refraction plays an insignificant role. Precisely because any refractive effect would adjust in a predicable fashion as the angle of perspective is modified. None of this happens.
The bending of light to cause sinking is pretty common. This road effect also gives the same result when you look at it from different positions and angles near the surface.
https://youtu.be/atL3PmFTJ3o?t=3501
The road in the videos is nevertheless viewed from more than one angle...
-
Of course bending light is possible on an FE. It's called refraction. You need to perform an experiment with multiple points or controls to ensure that light isn't bending.
The posted video does this. By changing perspectives, sight lines, and frames of reference — and collecting video inside the bridge cavity, and observing the SAME RESULT, we can safely conclude that refraction plays an insignificant role. Precisely because any refractive effect would adjust in a predicable fashion as the angle of perspective is modified. None of this happens.
The bending of light to cause sinking is pretty common. This road effect also gives the same result when you look at it from different positions and angles near the surface.
https://youtu.be/atL3PmFTJ3o?t=3501
Looks really steaming hot on that road.
The Lake Pontchartrain Causeway he is comparing to is almost 24 miles long. How long is the road Phuket Word is showing?
Also, refraction would have to explain every ship that is not just sinking from the hull up as it moves away, but has sunk and stays sunk, gone. Same for every sunset where the sun disappears for approx. 12 hours every day for everyone on the planet. Perspective doesn't help either as has been shown before, a 3000 mile high, 32 mile wide sun or moon, even when it moves 12,000 miles away can't go below the horizon. And refraction can't push it below and hold it's head under water, so to speak, for 12 hours.
(https://i.imgur.com/leVAoy4.gif)
This is a great perspective visualization... that will be promptly ignored.