#### Tontogary

• 339
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #40 on: May 14, 2018, 11:51:37 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).

 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.

I agree, it is, and cannot be true.

The problem with these diagrams is that they are a representation only, however if they are to scale and drawn accurately, it is shown that the vertical separation between 1 and 2, is greater than 2 to 3, which is what one would expect from a round earth, however without measurements, etc it is impossible to say, except that the drawing as drawn, if to scale, shows that there is a dip, and a very slight curvature. At 6 miles there is not much at all, but enough to be seen.

The problem with using only 2 reference points is that that can be brought into a straight alignment, albeit with a depressed angle by building a platform higher than the original observation point, but that will only be an extension of the first 2 transits, and will not show curvature, and it can then be argued that the levelling arrangement is at fault. (Except it would mean that the telescope would need to be about 2.5M higher than the original sight)

I would be interested in attempting a repeat of the observations, and with a van or similar parked at one of the locations (if possible) then the additional 2.5M elevation could easily be achieved.

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.

#### douglips

• 391
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #41 on: May 15, 2018, 06:02:09 AM »
I think the objection from Rowbotham was that if the target is misaligned by a small amount, let's say 2 inches, then the telescope will inflate that difference to be many feet.
The argument is that a 2 inch error could easily be there but would appear as a several foot error.

This appears to be a misunderstanding of optics, and so a slight revision to the experiment would resolve this confusion.

To address that, how about we make a pole with targets on it every foot? Then you could verify which target appears aligned, and you could measure with an actual ruler how far the misalignment is. I think this would demonstrate it is an actual many foot error.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 4214
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #42 on: May 15, 2018, 07:09:21 PM »
Everything needs to be perfectly aligned in Wallace's experiment. If everything is not perfectly aligned then there will be issues.

Consider this analogy I shared with Bobby in another thread:

We have four jelly beans. One is on the floor at your feet, the other is on the floor 20 feet ahead of you, one is on the floor 100 feet ahead from you, and the other is on the floor ahead of you on the distant horizon (assuming that we can see it). Where would we need to place our eyeball to see whether all four jellybeans line up?

Clearly, our eye would need to be exactly center with the line of jelly beans. If we look at the scene from any other angle or position we cannot say whether they all line up or not. At any other position they would appear in different positions relative to each other.

« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 07:11:52 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### edby

• 162
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #43 on: May 15, 2018, 07:45:57 PM »
Everything needs to be perfectly aligned in Wallace's experiment. If everything is not perfectly aligned then there will be issues.

Consider this analogy I shared with Bobby in another thread:

We have four jelly beans. One is on the floor at your feet, the other is on the floor 20 feet ahead of you, one is on the floor 100 feet ahead from you, and the other is on the floor ahead of you on the distant horizon (assuming that we can see it). Where would we need to place our eyeball to see whether all four jellybeans line up?

Clearly, our eye would need to be exactly center with the line of jelly beans. If we look at the scene from any other angle or position we cannot say whether they all line up or not. At any other position they would appear in different positions relative to each other.

It should be clear from what I said before, that they will only 'line up', i.e. apparently superimposed, when our eye lies on the same line as the jelly beans.

It seems you now agree that if line X is on a flat surface, and point A, point B and my eye are the same height above X, then A and B must 'line up' as you put it. Do you agree.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 08:48:26 PM by edby »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 4214
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #44 on: May 15, 2018, 08:57:25 PM »
It should be clear from what I said before, that they will only 'line up', i.e. apparently superimposed, when our eye lies on the same line as the jelly beans.

Then Wallace should have made sure that the elements of his experiment perfectly lined up. Rowbotham showed that they did not. Considerable doubt is therefore placed on the outcome of that test.

#### edby

• 162
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #45 on: May 15, 2018, 09:18:10 PM »
It should be clear from what I said before, that they will only 'line up', i.e. apparently superimposed, when our eye lies on the same line as the jelly beans.

Then Wallace should have made sure that the elements of his experiment perfectly lined up. Rowbotham showed that they did not. Considerable doubt is therefore placed on the outcome of that test.

Again: do you now agree that if line X is on a flat surface, and point A, point B and my eye are the same height above X, then A and B must 'line up' as you put it?

(Clue, the Wallace experiment found they did not line up. Why do you think that was?)
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 09:22:42 PM by edby »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 4214
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #46 on: May 15, 2018, 09:27:39 PM »
It should be clear from what I said before, that they will only 'line up', i.e. apparently superimposed, when our eye lies on the same line as the jelly beans.

Then Wallace should have made sure that the elements of his experiment perfectly lined up. Rowbotham showed that they did not. Considerable doubt is therefore placed on the outcome of that test.

Again: do you now agree that if line X is on a flat surface, and point A, point B and my eye are the same height above X, then A and B must 'line up' as you put it?

(Clue, the Wallace experiment found they did not line up. Why do you think that was?)

Wallace's recorded heights of the elements of his test were not at the exact height with the center of the viewing apparatus. Rowbotham chronicles this. It is an invalid experiment to show whether the bodies line up on a flat earth.

#### edby

• 162
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #47 on: May 15, 2018, 09:40:10 PM »
It should be clear from what I said before, that they will only 'line up', i.e. apparently superimposed, when our eye lies on the same line as the jelly beans.

Then Wallace should have made sure that the elements of his experiment perfectly lined up. Rowbotham showed that they did not. Considerable doubt is therefore placed on the outcome of that test.

Again: do you now agree that if line X is on a flat surface, and point A, point B and my eye are the same height above X, then A and B must 'line up' as you put it?

(Clue, the Wallace experiment found they did not line up. Why do you think that was?)

Wallace's recorded heights of the elements of his test were not at the exact height with the center of the viewing apparatus. Rowbotham chronicles this. It is an invalid experiment to show whether the bodies line up on a flat earth.
But I already pointed out, ages ago, that the viewing apparatus would have to have been 8 feet higher in order for the two points to line up.  I don't understand why you keep ignoring this.

Let's suppose that the viewing apparatus was 4" too low (though I don't think it was). Suppose he had raised it by that amount. Do you think the points would then have 'lined up'? Why?

You also falsely claimed that the error is greater as the distance between the points is greater. Elementary geometry says the other way round.

Rowbotham writes:
Quote
Why did they omit to consider the fact that 3¾ inches excess of altitude would be made by a magnifying power of 50, to appear to stand considerably above the eye-line, and that a mere hair's-breadth of dip--an amount which could not be detected--towards the distant signal would by magnifying, diverging, or dilating all above it, make it appear to be lifted up for several feet? Why did they not take care that the top of the centre disc was in a line with the telescope and the distant signal, A? Why, also, was the centre of the object glass fixed 2¼ inches higher than the centre of the object of observation at the other end? There was no difficulty in placing the centre of the telescope, the top of the middle disc, and the centre of the farthest signal mark, at the same altitude, and therefore in a straight line.
This is completely and unbelievably wrong. Bedtime, I will explain this tomorrow.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 09:45:46 PM by edby »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 4214
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #48 on: May 15, 2018, 09:55:17 PM »
8 feet higher? What are you talking about?

This is Wallace designing a Flat Earth Experiment. Not a Round Earth Experiment. To test the validity of a Flat Earth the heights of the target elements and the center of viewing apparatus needs to be identical. If they are not identical, then this does not test the matter of a Flat Earth.

#### Tontogary

• 339
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #49 on: May 15, 2018, 10:13:37 PM »
Ok then, using the Bishop jellybean method of evaluating a flat earth.......

If the eye level is above the the floor, ie above the first jellybean you would see the next jellybean at 20 feet, below the next one at 100 feet, and all below the one on the horizon.

That is perspective, and how FE argues that the horizon rises to eye level. That you surely cannot dispute, and is easy enough to witness in reality, (apart from the small size and ability to see the jellybean at 100 feet, or infinite distance of course)

Rowbothams argument, and objection was that the axis of the telescope was 2 1/4 inches above the parapet, and if he objects to that, and says that the effect will be magnified (invalid and untrue) then he must concede that the vision in the eyepiece would by the Bishop jellybean method show the intermediate marker below the final marker on the bridge.

If this is not, then why not?

« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 09:01:08 AM by Tontogary »

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.

#### edby

• 162
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #50 on: May 16, 2018, 08:51:43 AM »
I will explain the 8 foot thing later. In the meantime, I want to hear Tom's answer to the question above. Rowbotham's objection was that the viewpoint was too high. But that would not explain what was actually seen!

#### nickrulercreator

• 233
• It's round. That much is true.
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #51 on: May 16, 2018, 02:48:44 PM »
Tom, so what you're saying is, using your jellybean analogy, is that if the center of the camera was 6 feet above the surface, then the 4 jellybeans would also have to be exactly 6 feet above the surface?

Did Wallace not do this?
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 4214
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #52 on: May 16, 2018, 06:48:09 PM »
Rowbotham makes several criticisms such that the center of the far target was not lined up with the center of the viewing apparatus:

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

Quote
Why, also, was the centre of the object glass fixed 2¼ inches higher than the centre of the object of observation at the other end?

Things are not perfectly aligned here. It is a bad experiment. You can read the particulars in the link. There are also actually two attempts of viewing the experiment Wallace set up, not one. We are mixing some things here. Rowbotham chronicles the experiments in the above link. The goal of the first experiment was to get everything into a line, but results first actually showed that the middle marker was above the center line of sight of the allegedly level viewing apparatus for some reason, and the second attempt showed that it was below the center level of the viewing apparatus.

This suggests to me that this is all together a bad experiment.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 06:53:25 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### 9 out of 10 doctors agree

• 214
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #53 on: May 16, 2018, 07:18:52 PM »
How high were all the markers that Wallace used, compared to the telescope?

Oh, and by the way… nobody ever concluded that Wallace cheated. All the courts said, according to Wikipedia, was that he had to return the money since Hampden had retracted his wager.
Guest is the best person on this site. No, seriously, Guest is why I stay on this site.

A game in development that I'm assisting with.

#### nickrulercreator

• 233
• It's round. That much is true.
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #54 on: May 16, 2018, 07:20:20 PM »
Is there any way to confirm what Rowbotham says is true?
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

#### Max_Almond

• 223
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #55 on: May 16, 2018, 07:57:51 PM »
Dear Tom,

I would like to repeat the Bedford Levels Experiment on the same stretch of river that was used way back when. My plan is to have 7-10 targets atop poles at equal distances along the river, with the targets at the same height above the water as both a telescope and a P900 camera (probably around 12 feet).

Questions:

1. Have you any suggestions as to the proposed form of the experiment?

2. What do you think I will expect to see?

3. What do you think round earth proponents will expect to see?

4. Do you think this is a sure way to determine the shape of the earth?

I will probably camp out by the Bedford Levels for a week or two, inviting others to check the set-up and make their own measurements and deductions.

This website is weird. It's basically one guy backed into a corner, batting off facts and evidence with flimsy hand waves and appeals to nonsense. To all intents and purposes he's the world's most sophisticated and infuriating troll-bot. Indefatigable. Undefeatable. Absolutely immune to logic and reason. And still they come to knock him down; and still he stands, and marches on.

If I'm so smart, why do I spend time debating flat earthers?

#### Tontogary

• 339
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #56 on: May 16, 2018, 10:41:30 PM »
Rowbotham makes several criticisms such that the center of the far target was not lined up with the center of the viewing apparatus:

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

Quote
Why, also, was the centre of the object glass fixed 2¼ inches higher than the centre of the object of observation at the other end?

Things are not perfectly aligned here. It is a bad experiment. You can read the particulars in the link. There are also actually two attempts of viewing the experiment Wallace set up, not one. We are mixing some things here. Rowbotham chronicles the experiments in the above link. The goal of the first experiment was to get everything into a line, but results first actually showed that the middle marker was above the center line of sight of the allegedly level viewing apparatus for some reason, and the second attempt showed that it was below the center level of the viewing apparatus.

This suggests to me that this is all together a bad experiment.

Yet Rowbotham tries to argue that refraction would account for the result, and an awful lot of the chapter complaining about why his original experiment was not conducted, but fails to enlighten as to the reason why.

I see you still didnt answer my previous question regarding the bishop jellybean method of perspective.

He claims one fact, that the telescope was 2 1/4 inches above the Center of the signal, and the marker on the bridge. He admits that the Center of the marker is at the same height as the marker on the bridge.

He seems to suggest that the Center of the marker on the far bridge should have been levelled with the top of the 12 inch disc, and the top of the bridge.

He fails to note that the BOTTOM of the marker, is still way above the marker seen on the fast bridge, even though the bottom of the marker will be 8 1/4 inches BELOW the centerline of the telescope. He does not complain about that being magnified does he?

The size of the far marker on the bridge is not described, however if the drawings are true, then it is a similar size or larger than the disc, and one has to assume it is the Center being referred to as the Center of the disc is what is at the 13 feet 4 inches, and the drawing indicated it so.

One could redraw the diagram and show the following, A at a Center height of 13’4” B at Center height of 13’ 61/4 inches, and C hieght of the bottom of 12’ 10”, but he does not.
The Center line of the disc and the far marker are in alignment at 13’4” and no amount of spinning and word play can get around that. If the world (and the canal) were flat, according to the bishop jellybean observation then the the Center of the far bridge target A, would be above the Center of the disc, C. As tom argues the alignment is not perfect, and concedes that the Center of the telescope is above the 13’4 inches of the other 2 marks.

Remove the hoizon mark from the telescope, and try to bring the Center of the disc into transit with the Center of the bridge mark requires the telescope to be raised. The maths of this can be shown, but we know that is not a strong point of some, so probably better to skip that calculation.

Trying to use the magnification of the telescope is futile, as the telescope makes the image larger, and all by the same factor. It does not change the position of the objects.

If the telescope had a hundred fold magnification the result would have been the same, with the RELATIVE positions unchanged.

Transits or leading lines are used in navigation all the time, although we use them in the horizontal plane, and not vertical as is done here, so i am confident in what is am saying, and the use of the naked eye, or binoculars makes not a jot of difference to the position of the observer, (which is what we use them for, ie indicating if the observer is left or right of an intended course.)  ie if the marks are seen one to the left or right of the other, looking at them through binoculars does not make them change relative positions.
We use them at the same as well as much greater distances than the above observations.

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.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 4214
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #57 on: May 16, 2018, 11:53:42 PM »
Dear Tom,

I would like to repeat the Bedford Levels Experiment on the same stretch of river that was used way back when. My plan is to have 7-10 targets atop poles at equal distances along the river, with the targets at the same height above the water as both a telescope and a P900 camera (probably around 12 feet).

Questions:

1. Have you any suggestions as to the proposed form of the experiment?

2. What do you think I will expect to see?

3. What do you think round earth proponents will expect to see?

4. Do you think this is a sure way to determine the shape of the earth?

I will probably camp out by the Bedford Levels for a week or two, inviting others to check the set-up and make their own measurements and deductions.

My recommendation is to just perform Rowbotham's original experiments. They are very simple. Much simpler than the Wallace experiment where everything needs to be exactly level and aligned, and which just causes endless questions on whether the positioning and surveying methods were accurate.

The methods Rowbotham uses are based on a basic concept such as whether an object is visible in the distance or not due to the earth's curvature. Simple experiment.

#### 9 out of 10 doctors agree

• 214
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #58 on: May 17, 2018, 12:10:35 AM »
The methods Rowbotham uses are based on a basic concept such as whether an object is visible in the distance or not due to the earth's curvature. Simple experiment.
And yet, it fails to account for atmospheric effects that Wallace's experiment mitigates with a booster seat.
Guest is the best person on this site. No, seriously, Guest is why I stay on this site.

A game in development that I'm assisting with.

#### Tontogary

• 339
##### Re: Repeat Bedford level test?
« Reply #59 on: May 17, 2018, 12:14:09 AM »
Dear Tom,

I would like to repeat the Bedford Levels Experiment on the same stretch of river that was used way back when. My plan is to have 7-10 targets atop poles at equal distances along the river, with the targets at the same height above the water as both a telescope and a P900 camera (probably around 12 feet).

Questions:

1. Have you any suggestions as to the proposed form of the experiment?

2. What do you think I will expect to see?

3. What do you think round earth proponents will expect to see?

4. Do you think this is a sure way to determine the shape of the earth?

I will probably camp out by the Bedford Levels for a week or two, inviting others to check the set-up and make their own measurements and deductions.

My recommendation is to just perform Rowbotham's original experiments. They are very simple. Much simpler than the Wallace experiment where everything needs to be exactly level and aligned, and which just causes endless questions on whether the positioning and surveying methods were accurate.

The methods Rowbotham uses are based on a basic concept such as whether an object is visible in the distance or not due to the earth's curvature. Simple experiment.

How do you perform the experiment, when no observations were recorded regarding environmental data?

I strongly suspect you would find an argument to try to discredit any observations if they were to disprove EnaG.

Still no answer to my above questions Tom?
What would you see if the observers eye is just slightly above your jellybean?

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.