[Mark_1984]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.

[Tom Bishop]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.

It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.

[StinkyOne]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.

It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.

And the independent observers proved the Earth wasn't flat. Wanna talk about Rowbotham being wrong on Plymouth beach before walking away claiming science was wrong?

[Mark_1984]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.

It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.

So why isn’t it discussed in the Wiki ? 

[Tom Bishop]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.

It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.

So why isn’t it discussed in the Wiki ?

Because you haven't written the article yet?

[3DGeek]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.

It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.

So why isn’t it discussed in the Wiki ?

Because you haven't written the article yet?

But mere mortals can't edit the Wiki - so someone with appropriate privileges would have to change it.   Whoever those people are, they are extremely unresponsive.   I've tried to get the SIMPLEST change (to correct the spelling of Eratosthenes - to correct the photograph of an iceberg that's claimed to be a picture of the ice wall - to resolve some contradictions it has internally) and nobody paid any attention to any of those requests.   It doesn't seem likely that anyone is going to accept large scale corrections to misstated history about the Bedford levels experiement.

[Mark_1984]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.

It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.

So why isn’t it discussed in the Wiki ?

Because you haven't written the article yet?

Hey Junker, where’s Tom’s low content warning ?

[Mark_1984]

As 3D says, we don't have permission to edit the Wiki, and to be honest, I'm not sure I could resist temptation if I was given permission.

Back to the topic in hand.  It was a wager certainly, but from there, your information is not quite correct.  Hampden disputed the result, but there was a referee who confirmed Wallace's result and declared him the winner.  Hampden later published a leaflet saying that Wallace cheated.  Hamden was then jailed for libel, as well as death threats against Wallace. 

Wallace didn't get off scott free though, he was ordered to repay the money as the same court ruled that the wager had been invalid because Hampden retracted the bet.  Wallace was criticized by his peers for "his 'injudicious' involvement in a bet to 'decide' the most fundamental and established of scientific facts.  (info from the real Wiki, references are available there)

However, what's more to the point is that Wallace repeated the experiment under slightly different conditions.  I.e.  He used three poles, and observed that the middle pole was raised compared to the ones at the end, thus proving the earth is in fact round. 

So, my question is why do you believe Rowbotham and disregard Wallace ?

[Rama Set]

I can tell you that Tom thinks that because there was money on the outcome and Wallace was in tough financial straits, that the result is questionable on ethical grounds.  He has never produced any evidence of anything untoward happening in the experiment though.

[Mark_1984]

That would indeed be a typical diversionary tactic.  However, I'm curious to hear from Tom what the scientific explanation for the variance of the different outcomes is ?

[3DGeek]

As 3D says, we don't have permission to edit the Wiki, and to be honest, I'm not sure I could resist temptation if I was given permission.

Back to the topic in hand.  It was a wager certainly, but from there, your information is not quite correct.  Hampden disputed the result, but there was a referee who confirmed Wallace's result and declared him the winner.  Hampden later published a leaflet saying that Wallace cheated.  Hamden was then jailed for libel, as well as death threats against Wallace. 

Wallace didn't get off scott free though, he was ordered to repay the money as the same court ruled that the wager had been invalid because Hampden retracted the bet.  Wallace was criticized by his peers for "his 'injudicious' involvement in a bet to 'decide' the most fundamental and established of scientific facts.  (info from the real Wiki, references are available there)

However, what's more to the point is that Wallace repeated the experiment under slightly different conditions.  I.e.  He used three poles, and observed that the middle pole was raised compared to the ones at the end, thus proving the earth is in fact round. 

So, my question is why do you believe Rowbotham and disregard Wallace ?

The story is much deeper even than that.  Lady Blount repeated the experiment - and "confirmed" Rowbotham - but her description of how she did it is so vague that it's impossible to tell what the heck she measured.    Another guy repeated it someplace else and found that the Earth is CONCAVE.   DOZENS of other people repeated it in a series of letters to the Editor of "English Mechanic" over two or three YEARS and most found the Earth to be round...although a few did not.

What this PROVES...conclusively...is that this is a terrible experiment!   Any experiment or observation that cannot be reliably reproduced has to be treated with profound skepticism.

I deny BOTH the Rowbotham AND Wallace results.   Neither of them produced a result that we can confidently say was "Proof".

View-over-water experiments are all hard to do right (people stand 10' over the water and expect to see a horizon calculated for a 5'6" eye height...we don't know the effects of mirages, fata-morgana and other atmospheric distortion).

So ignore them all and move on.

Now...sunset evidence.  That's the good one.

[juner]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.

It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.

So why isn’t it discussed in the Wiki ?

Because you haven't written the article yet?

Hey Junker, where’s Tom’s low content warning ?

I am not sure what you are trying to get at, but if you have an issue with a post, I would suggest you report it. The upper fora aren't for you to post about your feelings on moderation. You've already been warned three times for low-content and instead of adjusting your behavior, you continue doing the same thing that got you warned. Have a few days off to review the rules.

[gizmo910]

With the modern technology we have today, could we not set up Wallace's experiment with lasers? It should prove more concrete than "appearing" a certain way.

[gizmo910]

Hey, Junker, I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to call you out on this one. That's ridiculous. Mark calls you out for your clear and obvious double standard and hypocrisy of dishing out your warnings and whatnot on Round Earthers like it's chocolate on Halloween, but the second Mr Bishop comes in with a post that you would OBVIOUSLY flag up if it was a round-earth counterpart and you get called out for suddenly turning a blind eye, and you have the audacity to play innocent with your "I am not sure what you are trying to get at", and immediately throw down the ban hammer to make yourself feel better. He didn't even make a fuss! Just briefly, plainly and quietly made a point that you clearly aren't doing your job in a neutral and unbiased fashion, and you just ban him for almost no reason whatsoever. That's some of the most blatant abuse of moderation perms I have ever seen on a public forum and if that's how you're going to exercise your permissions then you absolutely shouldn't have them. Stop the bias and act from a neutral standpoint if you want to play Mr Justice.
I assume I'll be getting a ban for this, too, since I'm also calling you out. Or will this post finally make you stop and think a little?

Posts like this are poor form. PM the moderator in question and keep this stuff out of the threads please. Things like this derail threads quickly and can be settled in PM outside the public forum.

[3DGeek]

With the modern technology we have today, could we not set up Wallace's experiment with lasers? It should prove more concrete than "appearing" a certain way.

Not with cheap, safe, easily portable lasers.

A typical laser pointer would illuminate an area about 10 meters in diameter at the end of the Bedford levels...and as a consequence, it would be far too dim to see, even at night.

You'd need a class 3B or possibly a visible beam class 4 laser to do an experiment over that distance - and those things are heavily regulated.  You couldn't just haul one off to a potentially populated area and start shining it down a canal without cordoning off the area, etc, etc.

But the result would be the same.

The problem is that the refractive index of air (which doesn't normally vary much) is significantly affected by temperature and humidity changes - so when the beam skirts close to the surface of the water (which it will if the Earth is round) then it's going to be diffracted downwards - making it look like the water is flatter than it really is.

This happens SPECIFICALLY in this kind of test because the temperature of air at a foot or so above the water and an inch or so above water are going to be quite different - and the humidity will change immensely over those very short distances too.   So given the perfect conditions, you can make the beam follow the curvature of the Earth - or you can have it curve upwards (making the earth look more curved than it really is) - or more sharply downwards (making the Earth seem concave).

Using a laser doesn't change that.

To do the experiment right, you'd need to have control of the air temperature and humidity over ten to twenty feet above the water - and doing that outdoors is impractical.

So this experiment is a bust.   You can make it come out any way you want by just trying it over and over again.   If it just rained, there will be lots of humidity at all heights - so the beam will be straighter and the world will look more curved.   If you do it after a long dry spell - then it'll come out flatter.   If it's a cooler day, then straighter beam - if it's a warmer day then a more curved beam.   Add in wind conditions to blow the humidity off to the side of a canal - things change again.

Just too many variables that are impossible to control for.

It's never going to resolve this argument...period.

[gizmo910]

Just too many variables that are impossible to control for.

Fair enough. Resolved.

[devils advocate]

With the modern technology we have today, could we not set up Wallace's experiment with lasers? It should prove more concrete than "appearing" a certain way.

Not with cheap, safe, easily portable lasers.

A typical laser pointer would illuminate an area about 10 meters in diameter at the end of the Bedford levels...and as a consequence, it would be far too dim to see, even at night.

You'd need a class 3B or possibly a visible beam class 4 laser to do an experiment over that distance - and those things are heavily regulated.  You couldn't just haul one off to a potentially populated area and start shining it down a canal without cordoning off the area, etc, etc.

But the result would be the same.

The problem is that the refractive index of air (which doesn't normally vary much) is significantly affected by temperature and humidity changes - so when the beam skirts close to the surface of the water (which it will if the Earth is round) then it's going to be diffracted downwards - making it look like the water is flatter than it really is.

This happens SPECIFICALLY in this kind of test because the temperature of air at a foot or so above the water and an inch or so above water are going to be quite different - and the humidity will change immensely over those very short distances too.   So given the perfect conditions, you can make the beam follow the curvature of the Earth - or you can have it curve upwards (making the earth look more curved than it really is) - or more sharply downwards (making the Earth seem concave).

Using a laser doesn't change that.

To do the experiment right, you'd need to have control of the air temperature and humidity over ten to twenty feet above the water - and doing that outdoors is impractical.

So this experiment is a bust.   You can make it come out any way you want by just trying it over and over again.   If it just rained, there will be lots of humidity at all heights - so the beam will be straighter and the world will look more curved.   If you do it after a long dry spell - then it'll come out flatter.   If it's a cooler day, then straighter beam - if it's a warmer day then a more curved beam.   Add in wind conditions to blow the humidity off to the side of a canal - things change again.

Just too many variables that are impossible to control for.

It's never going to resolve this argument...period.

Wotcha 3D

Have you ever read any rebuttal from our FE friends of the problems you explained above?

 Of course all evidence that disproves FE must be wrong and you are a NASA spy etc but I can't find any actual fact/science/zetetic argument against those points?!

Would seem to be (another) BIG problem for Tom and co as the whole water experiments seem to form the bedrock of the evidence of a flat earth.

[3DGeek]

Just too many variables that are impossible to control for.

Fair enough. Resolved.

I actually own a 100 watt class IV laser...but it's not visible light, it's infra-red.  That thing is scary dangerous.  Even the reflection of a reflection of the laser is enough to destroy your eyesight and the 30,000 volt power supply can produce 3" long sparks on a humid day!   The idea of a bunch of people with a poor understanding of math and science aiming it down a canal is decidedly terrifying!

[juner]

Hey, Junker, I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to call you out on this one. That's ridiculous. Mark calls you out for your clear and obvious double standard and hypocrisy of dishing out your warnings and whatnot on Round Earthers like it's chocolate on Halloween, but the second Mr Bishop comes in with a post that you would OBVIOUSLY flag up if it was a round-earth counterpart and you get called out for suddenly turning a blind eye, and you have the audacity to play innocent with your "I am not sure what you are trying to get at", and immediately throw down the ban hammer to make yourself feel better. He didn't even make a fuss! Just briefly, plainly and quietly made a point that you clearly aren't doing your job in a neutral and unbiased fashion, and you just ban him for almost no reason whatsoever. That's some of the most blatant abuse of moderation perms I have ever seen on a public forum and if that's how you're going to exercise your permissions then you absolutely shouldn't have them. Stop the bias and act from a neutral standpoint if you want to play Mr Justice.
I assume I'll be getting a ban for this, too, since I'm also calling you out. Or will this post finally make you stop and think a little?

I know reading can be tough for some of you, but as I mentioned before, the upper fora isn't the place for you to complain about moderation. If you have an issue, post it in S&C and someone will review it.

And the user wasn't banned for that single post, but rather repeated instances of low-content or off-topic posts in the upper fora. Three previous warnings before this instance, which resulted in a short ban, just like the rules say. So, no, you won't get banned for this post. But, you will get a warning for off-topic posting. Pretty simple, actually.

[mtnman]

With the modern technology we have today, could we not set up Wallace's experiment with lasers? It should prove more concrete than "appearing" a certain way.

Not with cheap, safe, easily portable lasers.

A typical laser pointer would illuminate an area about 10 meters in diameter at the end of the Bedford levels...and as a consequence, it would be far too dim to see, even at night.

You'd need a class 3B or possibly a visible beam class 4 laser to do an experiment over that distance - and those things are heavily regulated.  You couldn't just haul one off to a potentially populated area and start shining it down a canal without cordoning off the area, etc, etc.

But the result would be the same.

The problem is that the refractive index of air (which doesn't normally vary much) is significantly affected by temperature and humidity changes - so when the beam skirts close to the surface of the water (which it will if the Earth is round) then it's going to be diffracted downwards - making it look like the water is flatter than it really is.

This happens SPECIFICALLY in this kind of test because the temperature of air at a foot or so above the water and an inch or so above water are going to be quite different - and the humidity will change immensely over those very short distances too.   So given the perfect conditions, you can make the beam follow the curvature of the Earth - or you can have it curve upwards (making the earth look more curved than it really is) - or more sharply downwards (making the Earth seem concave).

Using a laser doesn't change that.

To do the experiment right, you'd need to have control of the air temperature and humidity over ten to twenty feet above the water - and doing that outdoors is impractical.

So this experiment is a bust.   You can make it come out any way you want by just trying it over and over again.   If it just rained, there will be lots of humidity at all heights - so the beam will be straighter and the world will look more curved.   If you do it after a long dry spell - then it'll come out flatter.   If it's a cooler day, then straighter beam - if it's a warmer day then a more curved beam.   Add in wind conditions to blow the humidity off to the side of a canal - things change again.

Just too many variables that are impossible to control for.

It's never going to resolve this argument...period.

All very interesting 3D, but face it. People that don't believe in satellites aren't going to believe anything you do with a laser anyway.