The Bedford Level Experiment

"The phenomenon of the superior image mirage can produce results similar to those noted by Rowbotham and Blount. This would have required, on each occasion, temperature inversions in the atmosphere with an increase of eleven degrees Celsius per hundred metres of altitude. If the temperature range were less than this, the light would have been scattered skywards; if greater, the horizon itself would have appeared curved. Repetition of the exact atmospheric condition required for each of the many observations is unlikely."

"A superior mirage occurs when the air below the line of sight is colder than that above. This is called a temperature inversion, since it does not represent the normal equilibrium temperature gradient of the atmosphere. Since in this case the light rays are bent down, the image appears above the true object, hence the name superior."
Got that off some reference website. Thought I'd throw it into the mix

...

The only modification which can be made in the above calculations is the allowance for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude. of the object observed. If we make this allowance, it will reduce the various quotients so little that the whole will be substantially the same. Take the last case as an instance. The altitude of the light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet, which, divided by 12, gives 13 feet as the amount to be deducted from 491 feet, making instead 478 feet, as the degree of declination.

Many have urged that refraction would account for much of the elevation of objects seen at the distance of several miles. Indeed, attempts have been made to show that the large flag at the end of six miles of the Bedford Canal (Experiment 1, fig. 2, p. 13) has been brought into the line of sight entirely by refraction. That the line of sight was not a right line, but curved over the convex surface of the water; and the well-known appearance of an object in a basin of water, has been referred to in illustration. A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water.

Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air. To make the cases parallel, the flag or the boat should have been in the water, and the observer in the air; as it was not so, the illustration fails. There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed. Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. 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.

In may, the author delivered a course of lectures in the Mechanics' Institute, and afterwards at the Rotunda, in Dublin, when great interest was manifested by large audiences; and he was challenged to a repetition of some of his experiments--to be carried out in the neighbourhood. Among others, the following was made, across the Bay of Dublin. On the pier, at Kingstown Harbour, a good theodolite was fixed, at a given altitude, and directed to a flag which, earlier in the day, had been fixed at the base of the Hill of Howth, on the northern side of the bay. An observation was made at a given hour, and arrangements had been made for thermometers, barometers, and hygrometers--two of each--which had been previously compared, to be read simultaneously, one at each station. On the persons in charge of the instruments afterwards meeting, and comparing notes, it was found that the temperature, pressure, and moisture of the air had been alike at the two points, at the time the observation was made from Kingstown Pier. It had also been found by the observers that the point observed on the Hill of Howth had precisely the same altitude as that of the theodolite on the pier, and that, therefore, there was no curvature or convexity in the water across Dublin Bay. It was, of course, inadmissible that the similarity of altitude at the two places was the result of refraction, because there was no difference in the condition of the atmosphere at the moment of observation.

If you truly require solid evidence and are interested in the subject why don't YOU find a body of water and do the experiment for your own self? That way you can call your own self a liar when the the results demonstrate a Flat Earth.

Don't ask me to go out and photograph something for you when you can very easily find a lake, ocean, or canal to look across.

Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air.

It matters because perhaps the most visually stunning fact which proves the earth as a plane is the sinking ship effect. As a ship recedes into the ocean's horizon, distant from the observer, it will appear to the naked eye to sink from the bottom up into the sea after it touches the horizon line. It has been found that this effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. While the exact mechanics of the effect may still be under debate, the fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on December 03, 2007, 12:04:27 PM

Quote from: Username on December 03, 2007, 11:24:37 AM

Lady Anne Blount conclusively disproved that this in fact happened.

Provide a source for your claims.

If you look into the literature you will find that Lady Bount has provided photographic evidence of a Flat Earth:

"The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic method hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

Oh Tom, photographic evidence? Hang on, isn't that sort of evidence not admissable?? Because if you're going to use it, then you are presenting an unfair argument, because that photograph could be easily faked.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2007, 09:28:59 PM

It matters because perhaps the most visually stunning fact which proves the earth as a plane is the sinking ship effect. As a ship recedes into the ocean's horizon, distant from the observer, it will appear to the naked eye to sink from the bottom up into the sea after it touches the horizon line. It has been found that this effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

It's one of the first and primary proofs of a Flat Earth. While the exact mechanics of the effect may still be under debate, the fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex sea.

I have observed the ocean horizon with a telescope and found that my hypothesis that 'no sight is restored' is correct. This leads me to the conclusion that your ancient dead people are playing jokes on you from beyond the grave. (or they are delusional or lying) It has not been found to be a function of persecption. See ROWBOTHAM'S SINKING EFFECT.

I posted this weeks ago, and nobody took any notice. It's  right there, referenced on the front page of wikipedia's Bedford Level Experiment page.

This is why I'm giving up serious debating. Nobody seems to give a shit for what anybody else says.

Quote from: Agent Z ♫ on December 03, 2007, 10:26:24 PM

I posted this weeks ago, and nobody took any notice. It's  right there, referenced on the front page of wikipedia's Bedford Level Experiment page.

This is why I'm giving up serious debating. Nobody seems to give a shit for what anybody else says.

The Wikipedia Bedford Level Experiment page is wrong, quite frankly. For example, the Wikipedia Bedford level page says that Alfred Russel Wallace conducted experiments which proved the earth to be convex. However, on Amazon there is a book authored by Alfred Russel Wallace where his experiments  proves the earth to be a plane.

See the Amazon page.

As we can see, Alfred Russel Wallace is not a RE proponent as claimed in the Wiki article, but actually an FE proponent.

This is why Wikipedia is not an authority on anything.

Quote from: Agent Z ♫ on December 03, 2007, 10:26:24 PM

I posted this weeks ago, and nobody took any notice. It's  right there, referenced on the front page of wikipedia's Bedford Level Experiment page.

This is why I'm giving up serious debating. Nobody seems to give a shit for what anybody else says.

The Wikipedia Bedford Level Experiment page is wrong, quite frankly. For example, the Wikipedia Bedford Level page says that Alfred Russel Wallace conducted experiments which proved the earth to be convex. However, on Amazon there is a book authored by Alfred Russel Wallace where his experiments  proves the earth to be a plane.

See the Amazon page.

As we can see, Alfred Russel Wallace is not a RE proponent as claimed in the Wiki article, but actually an FE proponent.

This is why Wikipedia is not an authority on anything.

Quote from: Ferruccio on December 03, 2007, 12:30:42 PM

Quote from: Username on December 03, 2007, 11:24:37 AM

Lady Anne Blount conclusively disproved that this in fact happened.

You have also said that lunar eclipses were viewed in broad daylight without giving me a source, despite me asking for one multiple times.

No, actually that wasn't me.  And I believe the person you did ask gave you sources that you just didn't look up.

However, here you go:

http://books.google.com/books?id=b4cEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=%22june+16+1666%22+eclipse&source=web&ots=3VMN-kki76&sig=9THFpIkYeowFu2ZZQA1HGaQUl50

Of course, perhaps you doubt Tycho Brahe saw this, despite him being renowned for his accuracy in his observations.

As expected, no more Tom

Quote from: GazMcB on December 05, 2007, 05:31:58 AM

As expected, no more Tom

It doesn't matter if Oldham or Russel conducted experiments and saw that the last pole was lower than the first. If they did their experiments without a telescope all it proves is that they were observing the sinking ship perspective effect which is well documented by Earth Not a Globe, Zetetic Cosmogony, and the rest of the Flat Earth Literature. Since you do not have the original documentation for their work, there is no way we can know for sure what methods they use or whether or not they used a telescope.

And, if we're taking the Bedford Canal Wikipedia Article as cannon, then we must also consider that the article mentions that Lady Bount's experimental evidence for a Flat Earth has never been adequately explained. Furthermore, the link also mentions that Ulysses Grant Morrow did the experiment for himself and saw that the last pole was taller than the first, indicating an inside-out earth. This indicates that the Inside-out Earth theory is the correct model. Therefore, with these vastly contradicting accounts, there is no sufficient conclusion we can come to in regards to the shape of the earth.

Okay fair enough.  So as there have been a bunch of different results, then you agree that all the Bedford level experiments (including Rowbothams) are not valid to the debate?

jackass
...
 then shut the fuck up

Okay fair enough.  So as there have been a bunch of different results, then you agree that all the Bedford level experiments (including Rowbothoms) are not valid to the debate?

Quote from: GazMcB on December 05, 2007, 05:31:58 AM

As expected, no more Tom

It doesn't matter if Oldham or Russel conducted experiments and saw that the last pole was lower than the first. If they did their experiments without a telescope all it proves is that they were observing the sinking ship perspective effect which is well documented by Earth Not a Globe, Zetetic Cosmogony, and the rest of the Flat Earth Literature. Since you do not have the original documentation for their work, there is no way we can know for sure what methods they use or whether or not they used a telescope.

And, if we're taking the Bedford Canal Wikipedia Article as cannon, then we must also consider that the article mentions that Lady Bount's experimental evidence for a Flat Earth has never been adequately explained. Furthermore, the link also mentions that Ulysses Grant Morrow did the experiment for himself and saw that the last pole was taller than the first, indicating an inside-out earth. This indicates that the Inside-out Earth theory is the correct model. Therefore, with these vastly contradicting accounts, there is no sufficient conclusion we can come to in regards to the shape of the earth.

Okay fair enough.  So as there have been a bunch of different results, then you agree that all the Bedford level experiments (including Rowbothoms) are not valid to the debate?

So what?  When Rowbotham did it the Sinking Effect was out for lunch?

Quote

Okay fair enough.  So as there have been a bunch of different results, then you agree that all the Bedford level experiments (including Rowbothoms) are not valid to the debate?

Rowbotham's experiments are valid for debate, just as anyone's experiments are valid for consideration.


Yeah true, it can be debated and they can all be considered. What I meant though was, that you said yourself that with all these different results, we cannot come to any real conclusion about the shape of the Earth. So I am just saying since you are saying that, you're surely agreeing that Rowbothoms experiments at the Bedford canal can't be used as proof of a flat Earth.

The others also used telescopes.

Quote from: GazMcB on December 05, 2007, 05:31:58 AM

As expected, no more Tom

It doesn't matter if Oldham or Russel conducted experiments and saw that the last pole was lower than the first. If they did their experiments without a telescope all it proves is that they were observing the sinking ship perspective effect which is well documented by Earth Not a Globe, Zetetic Cosmogony, and the rest of the Flat Earth Literature. Since you do not have the original documentation for their work, there is no way we can know for sure what methods they use or whether or not they used a telescope.

And, if we're taking the Bedford Canal Wikipedia Article as cannon, then we must also consider that the article mentions that Lady Bount's experimental evidence for a Flat Earth has never been adequately explained. Furthermore, the link also mentions that Ulysses Grant Morrow did the experiment for himself and saw that the last pole was taller than the first, indicating an inside-out earth. This indicates that the Inside-out Earth theory is the correct model. Therefore, with these vastly contradicting accounts, there is no sufficient conclusion we can come to in regards to the shape of the earth.