# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Projects => Topic started by: Max_Almond on June 03, 2018, 07:30:04 AM

Title: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Max_Almond on June 03, 2018, 07:30:04 AM
In the Wiki entry for The Bishop Experiment (https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bishop_Experiment) it states that "there should be a bulge of water 350 feet tall obscuring the view."

This is incorrect: the bulge at 23 miles is 88 feet.
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2018, 12:54:13 PM
This is incorrect: the bulge at 23 miles is 88 feet.
Would you please clarify why you believe this to be the case? I redid these calculations not so long ago after a clerical error was highlighted. At the time no one highlighted any discrepancies.

I'll try to find my original workings when I get back home. Meanwhile, as a cursory check, I punched the numbers into the first calculator I could find online. The results are very similar to mine, and very different from yours.

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=23&h0=0.01&unit=imperial

In the future, I would greatly appreciate if you provided essential information upfront. In its current format, your thread is largely devoid of content.
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2018, 01:25:57 PM
Upon further inspection, I can see that my workings are right there in the article. Perhaps they would benefit from a diagram, something similar to what the calculator I used earlier displays:

(https://i.imgur.com/rzhPI63.png)
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Max_Almond on June 03, 2018, 02:00:23 PM
Try metabunk.org/curve (http://metabunk.org/curve)

350ft is the drop
The bulge is 88ft
The hidden amount is around 260ft (off the top of my head)

Hidden amount is generally the most useful of these.
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 03, 2018, 02:49:53 PM
Problem is "bulge" and "drop" are not the same thing, but used synonymously in the article.

(http://oi65.tinypic.com/24vsdfq.jpg)
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Max_Almond on June 03, 2018, 03:18:56 PM
That's odd. And as you show in your diagram, it's "h1" that's the important and useful figure: never really understood why people are so hung up on "the drop", since it has so little practical purpose.
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Tontogary on June 03, 2018, 03:35:02 PM
That’s interesting, h1 is the amount that is effectively “hidden” but quoting the drop figure is much more impressive if you are trying to say the round earth is impossible!

Maybe a common convention for naming these things would help remove confusiuon.

Having just re read the “bishop experiment” i have a problem with it.

If it is a clear and chilly day, i wonder why people are sunbathing and paddling in the water? Not normal activities when it is “chilly”.

Also how can the observer be sure they saw the waterline? They may have seen the horizon with the actual waterline obscured, and people walking towards the water seen to appear to be walking into it, their lower legs would be seen to disappear into the water, but would have been in fact obscured by the horizon, making them appear to be walking in the water.

The splashing may have been wavelets on the horizon, which the observer mistook for waves on the shore.

The clear and chilly days are also conditions where you would expect to see refraction.

Photographs and videos are needed to back the claims up.
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 03, 2018, 04:09:24 PM
I don't know how waves on Lake Ontario could be responsible for obscuring 600' of Toronto's CN Tower from an observation height of at least 6-8' from 39 miles away, but Monterey Bay is calm enough to be able to lay down and see from a height of 20" with no ocean swells or wind chop obscuring anything down to the waterline 23 miles away.

Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Max_Almond on June 03, 2018, 04:37:12 PM
Having just re-read the “bishop experiment” I have a problem with it.

If it is a clear and chilly day, I wonder why people are sunbathing and paddling in the water? Not normal activities when it is “chilly”.

That's a very good point!

Quote
On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the water's edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sunbathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: douglips on June 03, 2018, 04:43:52 PM
I don't know that it's helpful to re-litigate the waves vs. Bishop argument here - maybe we can just focus on getting the math straightened out? I haven't dug into it enough to have an informed opinion about the outcome, but if we just discuss the drop vs. bulge vs. hidden area here it would likely be more productive.
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2018, 05:42:53 PM
Problem is "bulge" and "drop" are not the same thing, but used synonymously in the article.
It seems pretty obvious to me that "a bulge of water" is used purely colloquially there. The point is that an object would have to be hundreds of feet tall to be seen at all, and yet we can see it in its entirety. That said, if you can refer me to a reputable source that clearly defines this terminology, I'll make the minute adjustments required, possibly accompanying the article with a diagram for the avoidance of doubt.

The hidden amount is around 260ft (off the top of my head)
Assuming you're standing up. You're not supposed to be, in the Bishop Experiment. The reason why the drop was used instead of the marginally lower 300ft you'd get is that the maths is simpler and easier to verify. Unfortunately, we have to make our content accessible to people who accuse you of lying to them when you try to explain even the basics of special relativity. Some accuracy has to make way for the sake of accessibility.

If it is a clear and chilly day, i wonder why people are sunbathing and paddling in the water? Not normal activities when it is “chilly”.
I've visited California before. Suffice to say that "chilly" is a relative term.

Ultimately, this is just another thread where RE'ers complain about the fact that sometimes humans speak colloquially. "Ga-hyuk, it can't be flat because mountains exist!"

If you can demonstrate that the phrasing you propose is fairly standard, I'm open to adjusting it. That said, a cursory search of your terminology seems to reveal metabunk, and metabunk only. If it's just a matter of some forum's personal preference, then I'll go with our own.
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 03, 2018, 06:01:09 PM
I don't know that it's helpful to re-litigate the waves vs. Bishop argument here - maybe we can just focus on getting the math straightened out? I haven't dug into it enough to have an informed opinion about the outcome, but if we just discuss the drop vs. bulge vs. hidden area here it would likely be more productive.
Good point. Sorry.

It seems pretty obvious to me that "a bulge of water" is used purely colloquially there. The point is that an object would have to be hundreds of feet tall to be seen at all, and yet we can see it in its entirety. That said, if you can refer me to a reputable  source that clearly defines this terminology, I'll make the minute adjustments required, possibly accompanying the article with a diagram for the avoidance of doubt
This "bulge" on a curved surface is analogous to a hill on a flat one, right? If you have an 88' hill that obscures taller objects than the hill, you wouldn't consider it a semantic issue to distinguish the height of the hill from the height of something you can see beyond the hill.

Call them whatever you want, but your use of "bulge" and "drop" as synonyms is not correct, colloquially or not.
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2018, 06:04:50 PM
This "bulge" on a curved surface is analogous to a hill on a flat one, right? If you have an 88' hill that obscures taller objects than the hill, you wouldn't consider it a semantic issue to distinguish the height of the hill from the height of something you can see beyond the hill.
I already acknowledged that the phrasing may need some minute edits. Now is not the time to try to convince me of something I've already accepted. Now is the time to justify your "correct" terminology.

Call them whatever you want, but your use of "bulge" and "drop" as synonyms is not correct, colloquially or not.
Please refrain from droning on. It does not advance the conversation. If you want to say things that don't contribute to the thread, do so elsewhere.
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 03, 2018, 06:18:09 PM
Now is the time to justify your "correct" terminology.
There is no "correct" terminology.

My contribution to the conversation is that whatever terms you choose to use to resolve the "minute" ambiguity, they should not to be synonymous.

Hope that helps.
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 03, 2018, 06:50:30 PM
There is no "correct" terminology.
Thank you for clarifying. Since others seem to vehemently disagree, I'll await more comments before actioning this.
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Bobby Shafto on June 03, 2018, 07:02:43 PM
There is no "correct" terminology.
Thank you for clarifying. Since others seem to vehemently disagree, I'll await more comments before actioning this.
You're welcome. When there's resolution, one will be for A (red) and the other for B (blue).

(http://oi67.tinypic.com/2s8sg92.jpg)
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Max_Almond on June 03, 2018, 08:39:24 PM
The wiki says:

Quote
...there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Ergo; looking at the opposite beach over 23 miles away there should be a bulge of water over 350 feet tall blocking my view. There isn't.

It seems pretty clear here that the 350 feet figure is referring to the sagitta of the arc - or what myself and others refer to as "the bulge".

You could also call it a hump, or a hill. It's something that rises and falls. Something that 'gets in the way'.

I don't think there's any way that "the drop" could be described as "a bulge of water" capable of blocking a view. The bulge physically exists. The drop is merely a figure that measures the distance above the water, to the horizontal.

At the end of the article it also says "the drop is between 300 and 400 feet", depending on measuring technique - but I don't think that's right: I think at that distance the different equations for measuring the drop are going to vary by inches.

Though, again, the drop isn't very useful. It probably ought to say something like:

Quote
...there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall below horizontal will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Ergo; looking at the opposite beach over 23 miles away there should be a bulge of water 88 feet tall blocking over 250 feet of my view (factoring in for standard refraction). There isn't.

Notwithstanding the dubious nature of the claim.
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 03, 2018, 09:22:10 PM
I will repeat my point in a somewhat less

Whilst I agree there is a different between the bulge and the drop, another problem, arguably a bigger one, is there is no documentation of the experiment at all apart from Tom just claiming it. Would he accept so little evidence for a Round Earth claim? Given his poring over Bobby's photos of his horizon dip experiment I would suggest not.

He is quoted on that page as saying:

Quote
Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test. Provided that there is no fog and the day is clear and calm, the same result comes up over and over throughout the year.

So next time he does it he should document it, take some photos and where they're being taken from and in which direction and that should be added to the page
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2018, 06:34:11 AM
Thank you for your comment, Max. I'll review the content when I have the time. I'll likely not use the figure of 250ft since it assumes the observer is standing up (it should be closer to 300ft for the height provided by Tom), and the "drop" will likely still be mentioned due to the maths being more accessible to newcomers while still being fairly illustrative of the problem.

(Note: I am notoriously slow when it comes to these things. Please be patient)
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Max_Almond on June 04, 2018, 06:46:16 AM
I entered 1.66666666 feet as the viewer height - 250 feet is the hidden amount factoring in for standard refraction.

Actually, anything that close to the surface will most likely have had a greater level of refraction, but since it's impossible to know what that would have been, I generally go with quoting the standard figure.

All good on the timeframe. :)
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 04, 2018, 08:15:13 AM
I entered 1.66666666 feet as the viewer height - 250 feet is the hidden amount factoring in for standard refraction.
Fair enough - I failed to account for refraction.
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: douglips on June 04, 2018, 10:49:52 PM
Current verbiage:
Quote
...there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Ergo; looking at the opposite beach over 23 miles away there should be a bulge of water over 350 feet tall blocking my view. There isn't.

Proposed verbiage:
Quote
...there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches over the first statute mile. Over two miles the fall will be 32 inches; by the end of the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Ergo; looking at the opposite beach over 23 miles away there should be a bulge of water obscuring objects up to 350 feet above the far beach. There isn't.

Two problems corrected here:
- The fall isn't 32 inches over the second mile and 72 inches over the third mile - it's a total fall of 32 inches after 2 miles, and a total fall of 72 inches after 3 miles.
- The bulge of water isn't 350 feet high, but the height of objects it obscures is 350 feet.

I haven't confirmed the 350 foot figure, but the wording makes more sense to me.
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: Max_Almond on June 04, 2018, 11:04:02 PM
259 feet with standard refraction (306 assuming a sphere with no atmosphere):

(https://i.imgur.com/hwIkilB.jpg)

https://www.metabunk.org/curve/?d=23&h=1.666&r=3959&u=i&a=n&fd=60&fp=3264
Title: Re: Mistake in the Wiki (Bishop Experiment)
Post by: douglips on June 05, 2018, 02:01:22 AM
New proposed verbiage:
Quote
...there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches over the first statute mile. Over two miles the fall will be 32 inches; by the end of the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in this chart. Correcting for the height of the observer of about 20 inches, when looking at the opposite beach over 23 miles away there should be a bulge of water obscuring objects up to 300 feet above the far beach. There isn't. Even accounting for refraction, the amount hidden should be around 260 feet - seeing down to the shoreline should be impossible.