[Tom Bishop]

The Wider Flat Earth movement is finally starting to reproduce Rowbotham's other convexity experiments which involve multiple points aligned onto a plane:

Frozen Lake Proves Flat Earth (Runtime 3m23s)



This experiment is similar to Experiment 2 in ENAG:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#Experiment_Two

Experiment Two

From Experiment Two of Earth Not a Globe we read:

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

             

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

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

             

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

On analysis of this experiment, if the earth were a globe, one important remark would be that it is quite the coincidence that the flags all experienced the Flat Earth refraction effect, one by one, all the way down to the end, which projected each flag into the air at the exact height they needed to be at in order to make things look flat in accordance with the distance looked across and the height of the observer.

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

[Tom Bishop]

Link to original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NJ3bAspr_M

The author appears to do the drill test at all of the sites.

[Bikini Polaris]

I like this experiment because it is pretty neat. There are hard numbers and quite clear images. Now let me write as a counterpart to FE. In the experimental settings the experimenters (both in the lake and Rowbotham) carry out a visual observation and then make a comparison with their own understanding of RET, concluding their own thesis. But that understanding is apparently a geometrical sphere without any atmosphere, where light travels in straight paths. Indeed other REs, in their understanding of RET, complain that such effects could be due to refraction, for we can notice in the frozen lake video that lights are blurredd and flickering, and their shape is not restored with the zoom, but this refraction should bother less if the camera was actually put higher on the ground (rather than lower). This kind of refraction wasn't understood by Rowbotham, and it is explained well in this video:

[Tumeni]

Experiment Two

From Experiment Two of Earth Not a Globe we read:

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

             

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

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

             

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

On analysis of this experiment, if the earth were a globe, one important remark would be that it is quite the coincidence that the flags all experienced the Flat Earth refraction effect, one by one, all the way down to the end, which projected each flag into the air at the exact height they needed to be at in order to make things look flat in accordance with the distance looked across and the height of the observer.

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

Did Rowbotham need to use all those flags? Do we agree that a parallel to a presumed flat canal, river or sea can be established with only two "flags" of known height, one of which could be the observer at that height?

Like this?

[Parallax]

Well yes he did need to use all those flags, which is why he points out the drop that should occur at each one. He was covering all bases, rather than having simply two flags out.

[Tumeni]

Well yes he did need to use all those flags, which is why he points out the drop that should occur at each one. He was covering all bases, rather than having simply two flags out.

.. but do you agree that a true parallel can be drawn/described with two?

[Parallax]

Well yes he did need to use all those flags, which is why he points out the drop that should occur at each one. He was covering all bases, rather than having simply two flags out.

.. but do you agree that a true parallel can be drawn/described with two?

I agree that it wasn't necessary to have all those flags (even tho he had his reasons), and the experiment could have been done with two flags.

[Tumeni]

I agree that it wasn't necessary to have all those flags (even tho he had his reasons), and the experiment could have been done with two flags.

Do you agree that if the distance between the pointers in my graphic was increased from 1km to 2km, the sightline would still be parallel to the surface? Or 5km? 10km?

[ImAnEngineerToo]

The trend on this forum is “because of this evidence, earth flat”. All you’ve proven is that there are nuances and other independent variables you were not aware of. You can’t just jump to the conclusion the earth is flat based on an experiment that seems valid at first glance, you must investigate all possible explanations for a phenomenon, via the scientific method which seems to be ironically widely accepted here.

Saying “mirages” in a mocking voice doesn’t make them not real. Temperate and density profile variations bend light. Stick a spoon in a glass of water and observe for yourself. The experimenter did a good job accounting for the camera and light vertical distance, but not refraction.

[Parallax]

Dr Rowbotham actually accounted for refraction, by pointing out that refraction only exists when the medium which surrounds the observer is different to that which the object is placed. He used two barometers, two thermometers and two hygrometers, all reading the same. He then had the readings taken at different points at different times, and concluded that refraction played no part in the observation.

Im summing that up in less detail than he included but if you study Dr Rowbothams work you should be able to understand that he was aware of refraction, but using proven methods was able to count it out because it simply wasn't necessary.

[stack]

Dr Rowbotham actually accounted for refraction, by pointing out that refraction only exists when the medium which surrounds the observer is different to that which the object is placed. He used two barometers, two thermometers and two hygrometers, all reading the same. He then had the readings taken at different points at different times, and concluded that refraction played no part in the observation.

Im summing that up in less detail than he included but if you study Dr Rowbothams work you should be able to understand that he was aware of refraction, but using proven methods was able to count it out because it simply wasn't necessary.

Dr Rowbotham actually accounted for refraction, but there is no corroborating information that he actually did. He just said so in Experiment 9. As well, with this particular experiment I didn't see any account of X barometers, X thermometers and X hygrometers that I suppose could have been used to discount any level of refraction. So I assume no mention of refraction meant none was measured, nor taken into account. As I see it it, you really don't have an anti-refraction argument here. As to me, the lights seem pretty refracted. But that's just me.

[totallackey]

Dr Rowbotham actually accounted for refraction, but there is no corroborating information that he actually did.

Are we to take your written statement he did account for refraction as corroborating information that he did, or are we to take your statement as simply an indication you have no clue what you are writing?

[Parallax]

Stack, you can't say he accounted for refraction, and then in the same sentence claim there was no evidence he did. I am glad you bestowed his proper title tho.

However, he as he referred to refraction, he decided it wasn't to be taken into account. He used scientific instruments and had someone else record statistics, then he compared them with that person and they were identical. The fact he took it into account shows he knew what he was dealing with, but results otherwise made him decide that refraction wasn't relevant.

Dr Rowbotham actually accounted for refraction, but there is no corroborating information that he actually did.

Are we to take your written statement he did account for refraction as corroborating information that he did, or are we to take your statement as simply an indication you have no clue what you are writing?

No, you are to take into account that Dr Rowbotham took refraction into account but deemed it irrelevant and not something that would influence the Bedford level experiment.

[totallackey]

Stack, you can't say he accounted for refraction, and then in the same sentence claim there was no evidence he did. I am glad you bestowed his proper title tho.

However, he as he referred to refraction, he decided it wasn't to be taken into account. He used scientific instruments and had someone else record statistics, then he compared them with that person and they were identical. The fact he took it into account shows he knew what he was dealing with, but results otherwise made him decide that refraction wasn't relevant.

Dr Rowbotham actually accounted for refraction, but there is no corroborating information that he actually did.

Are we to take your written statement he did account for refraction as corroborating information that he did, or are we to take your statement as simply an indication you have no clue what you are writing?

No, you are to take into account that Dr Rowbotham took refraction into account but deemed it irrelevant and not something that would influence the Bedford level experiment.

I was asking stack about his claim there was no corroborating information, as it seems he corroborated it.

[Bikini Polaris]

Dr Rowbotham actually accounted for refraction, by pointing out that refraction only exists when the medium which surrounds the observer is different to that which the object is placed. He used two barometers, two thermometers and two hygrometers, all reading the same. He then had the readings taken at different points at different times, and concluded that refraction played no part in the observation.

I'm summing that up in less detail than he included but if you study Dr Rowbothams work you should be able to understand that he was aware of refraction, but using proven methods was able to count it out because it simply wasn't necessary.

That refraction is not the one we're discussing here. Rowbotham doesn't appear to understand that on a globe you'd have layers of air with different densities and that light will prefer to travel on a layer (so having a curved path) rather than going straight to space, as Rowbotham apparently believes.

On the contrary, he proved that the density was the same at the start and at the end, so at the end he just disproved his own mental model of an atmosphere-less ball rather than an actual round planet.

EDIT: Thinking through it reveals a fundamental experimental error made by Rowbotham, shouldn't he have to check the difference in temperature between his point of seeing and the same point but one meter above him? And maybe also two meters and three meters. And the same for the target point and above each flag. That's the density/temperature refraction we're discussing here.

That said, is it *so* difficult to perform such experiments with some meters of elevation, where that offending refraction should have less effect? Just for the sake of  satisfying those pesky REs I mean. Just starting from few centimeters and then going up and up until five meters?

[Tom Bishop]

As I see it it, you really don't have an anti-refraction argument here. As to me, the lights seem pretty refracted. But that's just me.

RE must argue that the lights were coincidentally lifted at different heights from below the horizon, in accordance with the distance to the observer, to be on the same plane. You can make that argument, but it is an absurd one. The lights are at a unique distance below the horizon at different distances.

[Tumeni]

As I see it it, you really don't have an anti-refraction argument here. As to me, the lights seem pretty refracted. But that's just me.

RE must argue that the lights were coincidentally lifted at different heights from below the horizon, in accordance with the distance to the observer, to be on the same plane.

No, it must not. Stop trying to make RE's arguments for it.

There's sufficient wooliness to the imagery to assert that the camera is picking up the light, in the atmosphere, from the lights without necessarily having a direct sightline to the lights themselves.

The presumption that because one can see a particular colour of light means you have a direct sightline to that light source is an erroneous one. 

[totallackey]

As I see it it, you really don't have an anti-refraction argument here. As to me, the lights seem pretty refracted. But that's just me.

RE must argue that the lights were coincidentally lifted at different heights from below the horizon, in accordance with the distance to the observer, to be on the same plane.

No, it must not. Stop trying to make RE's arguments for it.

There's sufficient wooliness to the imagery to assert that the camera is picking up the light, in the atmosphere, from the lights without necessarily having a direct sightline to the lights themselves.

The presumption that because one can see a particular colour of light means you have a direct sightline to that light source is an erroneous one.

What exactly would make it erroneous?

8 miles away, the refraction would need to account for 29 feet of bendy light...wait...I thought RET accused FET of bendy light...

[Tumeni]

8 miles away, the refraction would need to account for 29 feet of bendy light...wait...I thought RET accused FET of bendy light...

I didn't mention refraction, nor bendy light.

Again, stop trying to make up RE claims to argue against. Discuss what I actually write, not what I don't.

[totallackey]

8 miles away, the refraction would need to account for 29 feet of bendy light...wait...I thought RET accused FET of bendy light...

I didn't mention refraction, nor bendy light.

Again, stop trying to make up RE claims to argue against. Discuss what I actually write, not what I don't.

I am not making up an RE claim.

You wrote..."There's sufficient wooliness to the imagery to assert that the camera is picking up the light, in the atmosphere, from the lights without necessarily having a direct sightline to the lights themselves."

That specifically means that the lights are at appropriate levels for a globe shaped earth (RE).

As such, that would mean bendy light.

29 feet worth of bendy light, according to the math.