The Bedford Level Experiment

  • 79 Replies
  • 29806 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17848
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #30 on: December 03, 2007, 09:42:52 PM »
Quote
"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

That's a decent cop-out, but Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham accounts for terrestrial refraction in Experiment 9 of Earth Not a Globe:

    ...

    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.

Your rebuttal?
« Last Edit: December 03, 2007, 10:01:42 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Loard Z

  • 4680
  • Insert witty intellectual phrase here...
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #31 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.
if i remember, austria is an old, dis-used name for what is now Germany.
See My Greatness

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2007, 12:39:11 AM »
I think it's because some topics are worn out from what I've seen pouring through the forums. This has definitely been hashed and re-hashed.

This experiment in particular (In my opinion) is the most ridiculous of all of them, since it can be easily reproduced by anyone in favour of a spherical, or at least curved Earth.

Regardless of how many Zetetic or otherwise publications one might find stating data pointing to a planar Earth, the fact is, as Tom has so often pointed out... not all sources are reliable, and if you aren't / weren't there to witness it for yourself, you really can't be 100% sure.

The argument can swing both ways no matter how much anyone wants it to be set.

The fact remains that if you take the experiment out of the context of the books, take it into a standard, open world environment such as the salt flats, or a large body of water like the great lakes or a calm ocean... use the best telescope money can by that best fits this experiment... it's going to reveal the fact that there is a curvature to the Earth.

The way to prove there is not an illusionary artifact is to to a ground experiment such as on the salt flats with a vehicle, and a small flag mounted to it. Have it drive off into the distance until it slowly vanishes from your telescope (that is mounted to your vehicle - truck bed, trailer, whatever) then as it dissapears from bottom to top of flag, radio for them to stop. Then simply start off slowly toward them, keeping them in view so as to eliminate the possibility of there having been an optical illusion.

Since you are keeping them in view, you will notice any 'flipping' 'wavering' or instant jumping of the image as you approach the original vehicle.

Unfortunately for FE theory, you will simply watch as the flag, then the rest of the vehicle slowly reappear.

Like I said, that's my opinion.
Optimus

Dyslexics are teople poo!

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2007, 12:43:44 AM »
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.

if you truly require solid evidence and are interested in the subject why don't *you* do this yourself?  since you are automatically disbelieving all experiments, accounts, and literature we provide; why don't you go so the experiment for your own self?


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.

no tom, i think it is quite incumbent on you to go out and photograph something for us, to backup your bullshit story about children splashing in and out of 55 degree water on a chilly day, sunbathers and all.  oh, and uh, also being able to resolve that from 33 miles away.  go take your little celestron telescope, lay down at near ocean level as you described, and take a shot of the ocean/beach interface 33 miles away.  if you do that and it shows what you say you saw, i will personally mail you a large teddy bear.  until then you're just a bullshitter with a stupid belief.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2007, 12:48:27 AM »
I'm impressed of how Tom can keep up with all these BS and stay cool at the same time, even if he receives more flames than anybody else in this site.

*

Optimus Prime

  • 1148
  • Autobot Leader: Keeper of the Matrix of Leadership
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2007, 01:20:19 AM »
I have to admit, I understand the frustration though. As many times as Tom quotes books (that I have found he hasn't really read thoroughly or he wouldn't have posted it) and states experiments are absolute, yet tears down RE experiments as ineffectual or most often sources are unreliable... why will he not take just maybe 15 minutes to an hour out of a weekend to perform even one or two experiments?

I've given him two extremely simple ones and have never heard back. I'm not going to keep railing him on them, because I've learned from reading this forum that he never follows through on them, so I think it's easy to understand people's frustration.

Speaking of which, just out of curiosity, did you ever try out the foam cylinder or pole shadow experiments Tom? Both of them are super simple, less than 10 bucks (less than 5 bucks if you're resourceful) and easy to do in less than 10 min on the foam cylinder - less than an hour or two on the pole shadows.

- Optimus
Dyslexics are teople poo!

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2007, 01:33:48 AM »
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.

Tom,

Rowbotham's measurements using two barometers and two thermometers is irrelevant, because it is the vertical temperature gradient which makes the difference, not the gradient between the two flags.

Therefore Rowbotham is incorrect when he discounts this effect.  - His reasoning is flawed
« Last Edit: December 04, 2007, 02:36:32 AM by Moon squirter »
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2007, 04:57:02 AM »
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.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2007, 05:04:19 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: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #39 on: December 04, 2007, 09:43:21 AM »
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.

ditto.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17848
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #40 on: December 04, 2007, 10:13:18 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2007, 10:45:58 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #41 on: December 04, 2007, 10:34:17 AM »
Tom, you've said in another thread before though that when Wallace claimed to have won his wager in which he set out to prove the Earth was round, he was lying about the results.  So you've also said that he tried to prove the earth was round and failed, and now you're saying he's a flat earther.  Anyway, it's not just wikipedea that says Wallace was a round earther and proved it with the canal experiment, I've seen it elsewhere too.

Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #42 on: December 04, 2007, 10:47:18 AM »
 Willam Carpenter who apparently co-wrote this book with wallace was actually not on his side. 

"Editor Charles H. Smith's Note: A pair of letters to the Editor printed, respectively, in the 2 April and 16 April 1870 numbers of The Field. In 1870 Wallace accepted a wager offered by a flat-earth proponent to prove that the earth was not flat. This resulted in the famous Bedford Canal experiment, in which Wallace used his surveying experience to show that the freely sitting water surface was indeed rounded. Wallace won the wager, but not, on a technicality, the five hundred pounds that had been put up, and was harassed for fifteen years by the loser, one John Hampden. In these two letters, Wallace disputes the interpretation of the results of the experiment given by another flat-earther, William Carpenter, who had served as Mr. Hampden's referee during the event."

Here is the link to Wallace's letters talking about the experiment http://www.wku.edu/%7Esmithch/wallace/S162-163.htm

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #43 on: December 04, 2007, 10:59:56 AM »
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.

fail, jackass.

this is so bishop.  after 2 minutes of research, he has the answers and proceeds to talk straight out his ass.  he provides a link to a *placeholder* page on amazon, with nothing more than a title that suggests that maybe wallace was a fe'er, because "earth not a globe" is in the title.  (boy amazon has never screwed up.)  meanwhile no other bibliography lists wallace as having written such a book.

wallace is also listed as an "fe" proponent on some obscure page i found, and is associated with one "rowbotham science" page.  but that's it: just associations on fe pages.  you know what it is?  fud.  they are trying to appropriate a re opponent, since he's not alive to defend himself.

meanwhile, there is much more solid evidence that it went down the way it says on wikipedia.  such as:

wku: direct quotes including obvious re references
wku: biography including bedford canal experiment
http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/w#a955
http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/index1.htm
science direct
http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/cited.htm

besides that, the guy was a naturalist and evolutionist.  the only people that believed the earth was flat at that time were literalist christians trying to prove every word of the bible, which is why rowbotham wrote enag.  wallace wouldn't be caught dead writing some bullshit flat earth book.

and who said wikipedia is an authority on anything?  to my knowledge, only you.  most of us consider it a great place to start.  (which also makes for good link launching points.)  if you dislike the wikipedia representation of wallace so much, then shut the fuck up and go fix it.

?

Conspiracy Mastermind

  • 1836
  • There is no conspiracy...
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2007, 11:14:12 AM »
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.

Neither are you, Tom Bishop.
Quote from: Tomcooper84
there is no optical light, there is just light and theres no other type of light unless you start talkling about energy saving lightbulbs compared to other types of light bulbs
ENaG: Evidence Not a Guarantee.

Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2007, 01:11:26 PM »
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.
Tycho Brahe did have very accurate observations, it was his observations that led to our finding out that the planets orbit in an elliptical matter
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #46 on: December 05, 2007, 05:31:58 AM »
As expected, no more Tom

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17848
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #47 on: December 05, 2007, 09:11:51 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.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 09:20:52 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #48 on: December 05, 2007, 09:40:33 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?

*

Gabe

  • 485
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #49 on: December 05, 2007, 10:06:00 AM »
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?

Cal-zowned;D
Nicely played man.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #50 on: December 05, 2007, 10:26:24 AM »
jackass
...
 then shut the fuck up
This is the last time I am going to warn you.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #51 on: December 05, 2007, 10:30:53 AM »
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?

Ya, so?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #52 on: December 05, 2007, 10:31:47 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.

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

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17848
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #53 on: December 05, 2007, 10:32:59 AM »
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.

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

Rowbotham used a telescope.

*

Gabe

  • 485
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #54 on: December 05, 2007, 10:34:29 AM »
And I used binoculars. So what?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
There is no evidence for an infinite Earth.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The Earth is infinite.
Warning, you have just lowered your IQ by reading my sig.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #55 on: December 05, 2007, 10:34:54 AM »
The others also used telescopes.

Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #56 on: December 05, 2007, 11:23:47 AM »
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.

Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #57 on: December 05, 2007, 11:26:54 AM »
That last post lookd messed up. That last paragraph is me, the quote from Tom is the one line above it, just to clarify.  Though I'm sure everyone guessed that.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17848
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #58 on: December 05, 2007, 11:33:36 AM »
The others also used telescopes.

It doesn't say whether or not the others used telescopes in the experiment.

You neglected to provide the original source material which described the methods, remember?

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: The Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #59 on: December 05, 2007, 11:38:33 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.

gee bishop, what happened to your insistence that wallace was an fe'er?  you don't even have the guts to concede defeat, you just pretend you never got owned?