Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #100 on: May 20, 2018, 07:06:58 AM »
I suggest 10 and 11 require significant clarification, or it will be confusing. 
Quote
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.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #101 on: May 20, 2018, 08:25:08 AM »
I suggest 10 and 11 require significant clarification, or it will be confusing. 
Quote
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.......

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 edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #102 on: May 20, 2018, 11:59:24 AM »
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?

Max_Almond

Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #103 on: May 20, 2018, 12:41:11 PM »
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?

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #104 on: May 20, 2018, 12:45:58 PM »
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.

Max_Almond

Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #105 on: May 20, 2018, 12:48:07 PM »
That's a thing? ;)

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #106 on: May 20, 2018, 12:59:01 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2018, 01:00:39 PM by edby »

Max_Almond

Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #107 on: May 20, 2018, 01:07:24 PM »
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.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #108 on: May 20, 2018, 01:28:13 PM »
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!

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 #109 on: May 20, 2018, 01:31:53 PM »
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.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #110 on: May 20, 2018, 01:42:07 PM »
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.

Max_Almond

Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #111 on: May 20, 2018, 01:46:06 PM »
What's wrong with getting wet? ;)

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #112 on: May 20, 2018, 02:03:32 PM »
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.

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 #113 on: May 20, 2018, 02:23:20 PM »
I thought he claimed to have seen skaters at 6 miles.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #114 on: May 20, 2018, 03:58:57 PM »
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.

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 #115 on: May 20, 2018, 04:40:42 PM »
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).

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". :)

Max_Almond

Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #116 on: May 21, 2018, 04:57:47 PM »
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. ;)
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 05:17:43 PM by Max_Almond »

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #117 on: May 21, 2018, 06:02:21 PM »
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........

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 #118 on: May 21, 2018, 06:09:39 PM »
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. :)