Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2018, 09:10:37 PM »
Recall that all of this is taking place under high magnification, with the phenomenon of collimation/divergence from the crosshair. A is the cross hair, and B and C are the targets that should be lined up. If the targets are not perfectly lined up, and there is even a hair's breadth of separation, the divergence of the lens will magnify the difference.

The illustration you provided is addressed in Earth Not a Globe in that same chapter:

Yup (posts crossed). That was where I got the illustration, naturally. His reasoning is erroneous, as explained in my post immediately above.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10173
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #21 on: May 12, 2018, 09:17:11 PM »
Actually Tom, let me give you a very simple example of why Rowbotham's reasoning is faulty. Suppose I have a gun with sights that are so bad that when I aim one thing, the shot goes off in a quite different direction, perhaps accidentally killing stray members of the public.

Then suppose there are two objects B in the middle ground, C in the distance. I then use the faulty sight to get both A and B within its view. Now because of the fault, any shot will go nowhere near B or C. We agree that.

However, Wallace's point is that if B and C are superimposed, then I, B and C lie in a straight line. The faulty sight is irrelevant.

Now do you see?

You are assuming that B and C and your position A are in a perfectly straight aligned line.

The alignment between B and C in Wallace's experiment would need to be perfect. Wallace's position and altitude with those objects must be in perfect alignment. This is why Rowbotham is criticizing the details of the heights of the bodies and the viewing apparatus in the experiment.

We are talking about bodies that are very far apart in distance from each other. All bodies need to be in perfect positions. The slightest difference makes all the difference in the world when we are magnifying scenes through a telescope or theodolite. A hair's breadth difference matters. You don't understand how sensitive this experiment is. It is playing with high power magnification and carefully aligned bodies that are tremendously separated from each other.

If everything is not perfect, there will be error, and that error will be magnified by divergence.

The complications concerned in this experiment clearly makes it a bad one. A simpler experiment is preferred.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2018, 09:28:10 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #22 on: May 12, 2018, 09:44:49 PM »
You are assuming that B and C and your position A are in a perfectly straight aligned line.
No that's precisely not what I was assuming, and the purpose of my post was to explain that I was not assuming that. Nor was Wallace.

Quote
I would ask Mr Carpenter, however, to state, for the information of your readers, whether the universally-accepted and only known method of deciding whether three distant points are in a straight line is true or false. That method is to place the eye (whether aided by a telescope or not) at or behind one of the extreme points, and see whether the other two or all three coincide, the nearer hiding or covering the more distant. If so, they are in a straight line. Every carpenter who looks along the edge of a floor board, every surveyor who runs his base lines across the country, every builder who sets out a long wall, uses this method. Does Mr Carpenter say they are all wrong, and that every line thus set out is a crooked or curved line? If so, let him prove this elementary point by experiment and diagrams, and thus found a totally new and hitherto unimagined geometry. http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S162-163.htm

Quote
I challenge Mr Carpenter to place three objects at equal distances apart in a true straight line (three oranges on the parapet of Waterloo-bridge, for instance), and then with a telescope at either end, in the place of one object, make the centre object appear considerably raised above the distant one. Till he can do that, all his wordy argumentation is utterly valueless.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2018, 09:47:10 PM by edby »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #23 on: May 12, 2018, 09:48:23 PM »
This would make a good school experiment. Three children A B C. Get A to move around until B's head appears superimposed on C. Then everyone else can see that A B C are in a straight line.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10173
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #24 on: May 12, 2018, 11:44:11 PM »
Rowbotham's critiques about the misalignment of the viewing apparatus are quite valid:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

Quote
The object-glass of the telescope was 4½ inches diameter; hence the centre, or true eye-line, was 2¼ inches higher than the top of the signal B, and 3¾ inches below the top of the signal-disc at C.

Imagine for a moment that everything is perfectly aligned in the experiment. You (A) are perfectly aligned with two points B and C that are separated by great distance. A, B and C are in perfect alignment and are a great distance apart. You look through the viewing apparatus and B and C are perfectly obscuring each other.

Now, if you were to move your viewing apparatus either slightly up, down, left or right, you are looking at B and C at a slightly different angle. Points B and C will no longer be seen to line up perfectly. B and C only line up in one spacial position that must be perfectly aligned.

By the great distances and magnification involved, this is quite a sensitive experiment. The objects in this experiment, and the viewing apparatus, need to be perfectly aligned.

The Wallace experiment is invalid and in error, and it is not hard to see this. It is not proper evidence of any sort.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #25 on: May 13, 2018, 12:19:12 AM »
The problem i see with trying to repeat the experiment in EnaG is that it cannot be repeated to the satisfaction of Tom or REers.

1, He does not use a scientific method, he only tells us this and that, but does not detail what exactly is happening, he does not tell us what instrument types he is using, or tell us the name, or calibration of his telescopes, theodolite or any other equipment. Air temperature, pressure humidity, or other environmental factors are not listed. The level of the river is not stated, and he does not list the reason his original experiment is not performed, but i would suggest that if it was for reasons he wont go into, it is not favourable to him!

2, Any results not meeting with his so called “original” experiments (unwitnessed apart from a few un-named and therefore cannot be confirmed impartial witnesses) will be dismissed as not lining up, collimating, or some other “error”

3, Unless Tom was there, he would never accept any results, and if he cant be bothered to give more than a few minutes of his day, he wont end up flying to the UK to witness said experiment.

4, Modern instruments are able to be verified, and calibrated to remove the errors AnaG claims, but as they are modern instruments, and will no doubt show EnaG wrong, then they will not be accepted. The old instruments used in EnaG are not listed, but even using period instruments the results would not be accepted as there will be a claim they are not accurate, poorly adjusted etc etc.

Point 1 is the reason why the original experiments cannot be reproduced, therefore in scientific terms they should never be called experiments!


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: 10173
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #26 on: May 13, 2018, 12:41:14 AM »
The problem i see with trying to repeat the experiment in EnaG is that it cannot be repeated to the satisfaction of Tom or REers.

1, He does not use a scientific method, he only tells us this and that, but does not detail what exactly is happening, he does not tell us what instrument types he is using, or tell us the name, or calibration of his telescopes, theodolite or any other equipment. Air temperature, pressure humidity, or other environmental factors are not listed. The level of the river is not stated, and he does not list the reason his original experiment is not performed, but i would suggest that if it was for reasons he wont go into, it is not favourable to him!

2, Any results not meeting with his so called “original” experiments (unwitnessed apart from a few un-named and therefore cannot be confirmed impartial witnesses) will be dismissed as not lining up, collimating, or some other “error”

3, Unless Tom was there, he would never accept any results, and if he cant be bothered to give more than a few minutes of his day, he wont end up flying to the UK to witness said experiment.

4, Modern instruments are able to be verified, and calibrated to remove the errors AnaG claims, but as they are modern instruments, and will no doubt show EnaG wrong, then they will not be accepted. The old instruments used in EnaG are not listed, but even using period instruments the results would not be accepted as there will be a claim they are not accurate, poorly adjusted etc etc.

Point 1 is the reason why the original experiments cannot be reproduced, therefore in scientific terms they should never be called experiments!

This is totally false. I explained that one should perform a simple experiment, like the ones done in Earth Not a Globe, for acceptance.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #27 on: May 13, 2018, 02:26:39 AM »
The problem i see with trying to repeat the experiment in EnaG is that it cannot be repeated to the satisfaction of Tom or REers.

1, He does not use a scientific method, he only tells us this and that, but does not detail what exactly is happening, he does not tell us what instrument types he is using, or tell us the name, or calibration of his telescopes, theodolite or any other equipment. Air temperature, pressure humidity, or other environmental factors are not listed. The level of the river is not stated, and he does not list the reason his original experiment is not performed, but i would suggest that if it was for reasons he wont go into, it is not favourable to him!

2, Any results not meeting with his so called “original” experiments (unwitnessed apart from a few un-named and therefore cannot be confirmed impartial witnesses) will be dismissed as not lining up, collimating, or some other “error”

3, Unless Tom was there, he would never accept any results, and if he cant be bothered to give more than a few minutes of his day, he wont end up flying to the UK to witness said experiment.

4, Modern instruments are able to be verified, and calibrated to remove the errors AnaG claims, but as they are modern instruments, and will no doubt show EnaG wrong, then they will not be accepted. The old instruments used in EnaG are not listed, but even using period instruments the results would not be accepted as there will be a claim they are not accurate, poorly adjusted etc etc.

Point 1 is the reason why the original experiments cannot be reproduced, therefore in scientific terms they should never be called experiments!

This is totally false. I explained that one should perform a simple experiment, like the ones done in Earth Not a Globe, for acceptance.

Which part is false Tom?

That he didnt record ANY scientific data in order that the observations can be repeated?
Or that he didnt describe ANY of his equipment other than “a good telescope” or “theodolite”? If he does please feel free to direct me to the sections of EnaG that describe the methods, instruments and calibration dates.

Or that you would not accept any Experiments that appeared to disagree with EnaG?

I know the answer to the last one, as there are many observations that have been presented here that you claim as false, fake, or unreliable due to some absurd objection, therefore you have history and form, so I would be wary of wasting my time and effort on recreating the observations only for you to disregard them because the air pressure was not verified as the same......(or some other such nonsensical argument)

You have on occasion asked me to prove instruments that i use are calibrated, yet are quite happy to accept results from a completely unscientific set of observations.
I did provide you with a method, and certificate of calibration for my method, and all you could argue was that the horizon “must” have been hazy, even though you were not there.
I measured the sky across from south to North at over 90 degrees, with a modern sextant, free from errors, and provided you with a method as well as a way that i was able to cross check my observations were correct, and could be repeated, but you still would not accept it.

Doing the simple observations in EnaG will not get you to accept the results, as you have NEVER accepted anything that is contrary to your view.

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.

Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #28 on: May 13, 2018, 07:48:05 AM »
"He's wrong"

"Not so"

Good one. Your rebuttals are so convincing
.
Your rebuttals are literally "that's wrong because Rowbotham said so" and "This experiment is wrong because it gives a result I don't agree with"
The second of those not quite what you say, but it's funny how every experiment, no matter how poorly designed and executed, which show a result which appears to back up what you believe prove you to be right, but any experiment which shows you to be wrong is flawed or, if every spurious objection is demolished, simply declared fake.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #29 on: May 13, 2018, 04:39:52 PM »
Rowbotham's critiques about the misalignment of the viewing apparatus are quite valid:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

Quote
The object-glass of the telescope was 4½ inches diameter; hence the centre, or true eye-line, was 2¼ inches higher than the top of the signal B, and 3¾ inches below the top of the signal-disc at C.

Imagine for a moment that everything is perfectly aligned in the experiment. You (A) are perfectly aligned with two points B and C that are separated by great distance. A, B and C are in perfect alignment and are a great distance apart. You look through the viewing apparatus and B and C are perfectly obscuring each other.

Now, if you were to move your viewing apparatus either slightly up, down, left or right, you are looking at B and C at a slightly different angle. Points B and C will no longer be seen to line up perfectly. B and C only line up in one spacial position that must be perfectly aligned.

By the great distances and magnification involved, this is quite a sensitive experiment. The objects in this experiment, and the viewing apparatus, need to be perfectly aligned.

The Wallace experiment is invalid and in error, and it is not hard to see this. It is not proper evidence of any sort.

Elementary trigonometry shows that the viewing apparatus would have to be at least 8 feet higher in order for the top marker to line up with the horizontal line on the bridge.

Not a few inches as you suggest.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #30 on: May 14, 2018, 08:03:41 AM »
Rowbotham's critiques about the misalignment of the viewing apparatus are quite valid:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

Quote
The object-glass of the telescope was 4½ inches diameter; hence the centre, or true eye-line, was 2¼ inches higher than the top of the signal B, and 3¾ inches below the top of the signal-disc at C.

Imagine for a moment that everything is perfectly aligned in the experiment. You (A) are perfectly aligned with two points B and C that are separated by great distance. A, B and C are in perfect alignment and are a great distance apart. You look through the viewing apparatus and B and C are perfectly obscuring each other.

Now, if you were to move your viewing apparatus either slightly up, down, left or right, you are looking at B and C at a slightly different angle. Points B and C will no longer be seen to line up perfectly. B and C only line up in one spacial position that must be perfectly aligned.

By the great distances and magnification involved, this is quite a sensitive experiment. The objects in this experiment, and the viewing apparatus, need to be perfectly aligned.

The Wallace experiment is invalid and in error, and it is not hard to see this. It is not proper evidence of any sort.
Tom, I have pointed out above that this is totally and unbelievably false. Or do you not accept geometry, perhaps on the basis that the proof is conducted on paper?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10173
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #31 on: May 14, 2018, 08:28:36 AM »
Rowbotham's critiques about the misalignment of the viewing apparatus are quite valid:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

Quote
The object-glass of the telescope was 4½ inches diameter; hence the centre, or true eye-line, was 2¼ inches higher than the top of the signal B, and 3¾ inches below the top of the signal-disc at C.

Imagine for a moment that everything is perfectly aligned in the experiment. You (A) are perfectly aligned with two points B and C that are separated by great distance. A, B and C are in perfect alignment and are a great distance apart. You look through the viewing apparatus and B and C are perfectly obscuring each other.

Now, if you were to move your viewing apparatus either slightly up, down, left or right, you are looking at B and C at a slightly different angle. Points B and C will no longer be seen to line up perfectly. B and C only line up in one spacial position that must be perfectly aligned.

By the great distances and magnification involved, this is quite a sensitive experiment. The objects in this experiment, and the viewing apparatus, need to be perfectly aligned.

The Wallace experiment is invalid and in error, and it is not hard to see this. It is not proper evidence of any sort.
Tom, I have pointed out above that this is totally and unbelievably false. Or do you not accept geometry, perhaps on the basis that the proof is conducted on paper?

According to geometry two points in space will only line up to obscure each other on a specific line in alignment with those two points. You proved that two points can line up when not looking at them along that line? Wow! When are you planning on telling the world your discovery?

Read Rowbotham's critique of the Wallace experiment. The center of the viewing apparatus was NOT in alignment with the two points in the experiment.

Your insistence that everything will line up does NOT agree with geometry.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #32 on: May 14, 2018, 10:02:01 AM »
Rowbotham's critiques about the misalignment of the viewing apparatus are quite valid:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

Quote
The object-glass of the telescope was 4½ inches diameter; hence the centre, or true eye-line, was 2¼ inches higher than the top of the signal B, and 3¾ inches below the top of the signal-disc at C.

Imagine for a moment that everything is perfectly aligned in the experiment. You (A) are perfectly aligned with two points B and C that are separated by great distance. A, B and C are in perfect alignment and are a great distance apart. You look through the viewing apparatus and B and C are perfectly obscuring each other.

Now, if you were to move your viewing apparatus either slightly up, down, left or right, you are looking at B and C at a slightly different angle. Points B and C will no longer be seen to line up perfectly. B and C only line up in one spacial position that must be perfectly aligned.

By the great distances and magnification involved, this is quite a sensitive experiment. The objects in this experiment, and the viewing apparatus, need to be perfectly aligned.

The Wallace experiment is invalid and in error, and it is not hard to see this. It is not proper evidence of any sort.
Tom, I have pointed out above that this is totally and unbelievably false. Or do you not accept geometry, perhaps on the basis that the proof is conducted on paper?

According to geometry two points in space will only line up to obscure each other on a specific line in alignment with those two points. You proved that two points can line up when not looking at them along that line? Wow! When are you planning on telling the world your discovery?

Read Rowbotham's critique of the Wallace experiment. The center of the viewing apparatus was NOT in alignment with the two points in the experiment.

Your insistence that everything will line up does NOT agree with geometry.

To be perfectly clear (though I am not sure whether you are deliberately misquoting me) what I dispute is your claim that a small misalignment is important. If the far point is six miles, and the midpoint three miles, a small move upwards in the viewing point will cause only a small misalignment, not a large one as you suggest.

To be clear, what I said earlier was this

Elementary trigonometry shows that the viewing apparatus would have to be at least 8 feet higher in order for the top marker to line up with the horizontal line on the bridge.
Not a few inches as you suggest.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #33 on: May 14, 2018, 11:10:27 AM »
In EnaG it appears that he is trying to explain why he was “busted” and his original observations were disproved by the later observations.
A lot of that chapter was a bit of a rant about why they other gentlemen didnt do what he said, and why it was not reproduced. I would suggest it was not reproduced for a good reason, but as he does not explain why, i would have to question why? What is he trying to hide by saying that he does not want to go into the details?

He complains about the telescope being ABOVE the Welney Bridge, and says this played a part. If indeed it did, it reduced the amount of offset needed to bring the three points into line, so was aiding his cause not detracting from it.
To bring all three points into transit the telescope needs tilting down (as one would expect on a round earth, as you are always right on top of it) and raising up a good amount.

What the diagram is actually showing is an artificial unintentional confirmation of the expected result of the dip of the horizon!


Tables and calculation shows that on a round earth that one would expect a dip in the horizon at 3 miles of a certain amount, which is shown by the intermediate marker being below the “carefully levelled” telescope, and further at 6 miles the mark on Bedford bridge being being below the by a similar amount..... he actually proved the earth was a globe!!! And then tries to use that proof as a proof against it!

He also goes on to say that refraction is a known factor, and explains why the results obtained were such, yet in his other earlier observations ( i cannot describe them as experiments, because they were not, for reasons already explained)  he makes no remarks about refraction at all. Strange really.

In fact he explicitly argues against refraction in experiment 9!

“Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.”

Finally, refraction that he argues would result in the offset of the targets (but discounts from his original observations) works the other way, ie an object over the horizon (and should be out of sight) appears to be on the horizon, so will raise the object up.

An example is that the sun has an hour angle of more than 90 degrees when on the horizon and appears above the horizon during celestial sunset, which i have provided an explanation for before, so if refraction is in play during the Wallace experiment, it would have brought the flag on the other bridge above the horizontal and the middle marker (on a flat earth) not bent it the other way!

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 #34 on: May 14, 2018, 12:59:56 PM »
Interesting about the refraction, which is what I thought.

But let's see what Tom says. I can't work out whether I am not being clear enough, or what. I am trying to be clear.

To be clear, here again is Rowbotham’s sketch of what was seen. (It does not quite match the drawing made by Carpenter on the day, but never mind).

There are several different arguments. Carpenter and Hampden argued that because the distance A-B is the same as B-C, this proves the points are on a straight line. This is obviously false, and Rowbotham seems to recognise it.  His arguments are:

(1) that the angle of the crosshair was not correct. This is false. adjusting the angle would make the cross hair A move up and down, but not the relative positions of B and C, which would remain the same.
(2) That the ‘collimation’ i.e. refraction of the lens is the problem. This is false, and corresponds to nothing in the theory of optics.
(3) That the height of the crosshair was not correct. Tom repeats this argument above, suggesting that an inch or two difference would cause B and C to come into alignment, because of the ‘great distance’. This is unbelievably false. The greater the distance between B and C, the less the height matters! This can be proved geometrically – given the 4 foot distance between the two spots on B, it would require the crosshair to be 8 foot higher. And by observation. Take two stars in the night sky that are very close in appearance.  In fact they are light years apart. You will find you can move to any place on earth you like, and they will still appear to have the same distance apart. I suppose Flatters could argue that conventional astronomy is wrong because of the CIA.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2018, 02:04:45 PM by edby »

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #35 on: May 14, 2018, 03:01:12 PM »
Interesting about the refraction, which is what I thought.

But let's see what Tom says. I can't work out whether I am not being clear enough, or what. I am trying to be clear.

To be clear, here again is Rowbotham’s sketch of what was seen. (It does not quite match the drawing made by Carpenter on the day, but never mind).

There are several different arguments. Carpenter and Hampden argued that because the distance A-B is the same as B-C, this proves the points are on a straight line. This is obviously false, and Rowbotham seems to recognise it.  His arguments are:

(1) that the angle of the crosshair was not correct. This is false. adjusting the angle would make the cross hair A move up and down, but not the relative positions of B and C, which would remain the same.
(2) That the ‘collimation’ i.e. refraction of the lens is the problem. This is false, and corresponds to nothing in the theory of optics.
(3) That the height of the crosshair was not correct. Tom repeats this argument above, suggesting that an inch or two difference would cause B and C to come into alignment, because of the ‘great distance’. This is unbelievably false. The greater the distance between B and C, the less the height matters! This can be proved geometrically – given the 4 foot distance between the two spots on B, it would require the crosshair to be 8 foot higher. And by observation. Take two stars in the night sky that are very close in appearance.  In fact they are light years apart. You will find you can move to any place on earth you like, and they will still appear to have the same distance apart. I suppose Flatters could argue that conventional astronomy is wrong because of the CIA.

Again at the risk of repeating myself, all i see is an experiment that PROVES the dip of the horizon.
Rowbotham claims that the telescope was levelled, and if he was right, then line A would be the horizon if it were not falling away, due to curvature.
Point B being 3 miles away is still showing a dip, due to curving away, and point c being further away again is below both B and A.

Looking at it logically, the ONLY way to get the 3 points in alignment again is to depress the telescope below the horizontal, and point it at C, and move it up bodily which will have the effect of seemingly dropping point B into alignment with point C.

I would be interested to hear Toms view on the subject, but dont expect any great revelations, he seems to have trouble understanding the way these things work.

I think EnaGs selective use, or denial of refraction alone is grounds for discounting many of his observations, as if he accounts for it in one, discounts for it in another, and argues that it proves his point in a third, when he gets it fundamentally wrong, ie he claims it will drop the furthest object below the horizontal, more than the intermediate object, rather than what happens, ie elevating object above the horizon, showed he really does not have an idea of what is happening!
He then uses this false representation of refraction of the to explain away an observation that disproves his original, is barefaced brazen cheek!

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 #36 on: May 14, 2018, 03:16:44 PM »
Again at the risk of repeating myself, all i see is an experiment that PROVES the dip of the horizon.
Rowbotham claims that the telescope was levelled, and if he was right, then line A would be the horizon if it were not falling away, due to curvature.
Point B being 3 miles away is still showing a dip, due to curving away, and point c being further away again is below both B and A.
The experiment was not intended to prove any 'dip'. It works with a telescope and no crosshairs. The problem with 'dip' arguments is that you are hostage to the objection that the angle was not set correctly.

The experiment as originally designed by Wallace was to prove that the A (observer), B and C are not in a straight line, as they would be if the water surface was flat.

The whole crosshair thing is a red herring, and Wallace should have refused to order a level from King's Lynn.

Offline Tontogary

  • *
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #37 on: May 14, 2018, 03:44:36 PM »
Again at the risk of repeating myself, all i see is an experiment that PROVES the dip of the horizon.
Rowbotham claims that the telescope was levelled, and if he was right, then line A would be the horizon if it were not falling away, due to curvature.
Point B being 3 miles away is still showing a dip, due to curving away, and point c being further away again is below both B and A.
The experiment was not intended to prove any 'dip'. It works with a telescope and no crosshairs. The problem with 'dip' arguments is that you are hostage to the objection that the angle was not set correctly.

The experiment as originally designed by Wallace was to prove that the A (observer), B and C are not in a straight line, as they would be if the water surface was flat.

The whole crosshair thing is a red herring, and Wallace should have refused to order a level from King's Lynn.

I tend to agree, however it does show accidentally that there is dip, if the telescope was levelled correctly, which is exactly what EnaG states. Whilst showing a dip, it does not show the amount, just that there is one.

If one argues that the horizontal was not set correctly, then so be it, but then it is arguing against Rowbotham, which is pretty much tantamount to high treason in the FE ranks!

Collomation, and other so called errors of the instruments are just smoke and mirrors to try to deflect away from the results.

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 #38 on: May 14, 2018, 04:21:43 PM »
Yup. My instinct in all such cases is to provide the absolute minimum necessary, say A & B, to prove the case. If you add corroborating evidence, say C, any rational person will assume that C was necessary, and the experiment will fail without it, otherwise why did you give it? See Grice’s axioms.
Quote
Maxim of quantity
1.Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).
2.Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #39 on: May 14, 2018, 05:52:16 PM »
From the report which appeared in The Field magazine, March 1870, by Carpenter.
Quote
The stations appeared, to all intents and purposes, equidistant in the field of view, and also in a regular series: first, the distant bridge; secondly, the central signal; and, thirdly, the horizontal cross-hair marking the point of observation; showing that the central disc 13ft. 4in. high does not depart from a straight line taken from end to end of the six miles in any way whatever, either laterally or vertically. For, if so, and (as in the case of the disc 9ft. 4in. high) if it were lower or nearer the water, it would appear, as that disc does, nearer to the distant bridge. If it were higher, it would appear in the opposite direction nearer the horizontal cross-hair which marks the point of observation. As the disc 4ft. lower appears near to the distant bridge, so a disc to be really 5ft. higher would have to appear still nearer to the horizontal cross-hair of tha telescope. And therefore it is shown that a straight line from one point to the other passes through the central point in its course. and that a curved surface of water has not been demonstrated.
WILLIAM CARPENTER (Referee for Mr J. Hampden), 7, Carlton•terrace, Lewisham Park, S.E., March 14.
The fallacy of this should be obvious. (If not, someone let me know).

[edit] Labelled diagram to help. "first, the distant bridge" =1 , "secondly, the central signal" = 2; "thirdly, the horizontal cross-hair" = 3. His argument is that because the distance 1-2 is the same as 2-3, 1-2-3 must lie in a straight line, and since they are all the same distance from the water, the water is flat.




« Last Edit: May 14, 2018, 06:54:28 PM by edby »