Bedford Level?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 08, 2013, 11:41:13 AM

Hampden's referee, Mr. Carpenter, did protest the results of the experiment.

http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/LA313_Commercial_Law/Cases/Hampden_v_Walsh.html

"Mr. Walsh being unable to act as referee, a Mr. Coulcher was substituted for him. Certain tests having been agreed on, the experiment was tried on the Bedford Level Canal. The referees differed; Mr. Coulcher being of opinion that Mr. Wallace had proved, Mr. Carpenter, that he had not proved, the convexity of the canal. Thereupon it was proposed that the referees should exercise their power of appointing an umpire; but Mr. Carpenter declined to act further in the matter."

Indeed he did, showing complete ignorance of what his own sketches showed:

Quote

...
Mr. Coulcher looked at it, and then Mr. Carpenter, and the moment the latter did he said "Beautiful! Beautiful!" And on Mr. Hampden asking him if it was all right, he replied that it was perfect, and that it showed the three points in "a perfect straight line;" "as level as possible!" And he actually jumped for joy.
...

These two views, as seen by means of the inverting telescope, are exact representations of the sketches taken by Mr. Hampden's Referee, and attested by Dr. Coulcher as being correct in both cases: first, from Welney Bridge; and secondly, from the Old Bedford Bridge.

Source: Wallace account of Bedford Level, posted by Thork.

An assessment of what was seen is provided in the Tangental Horizon chapter of Earth Not a Globe.

Tom!  You submitted a fact to this debate!  A positive step!  I was referring to Alex saying that both referees signed each other's diagrams of the experimental set-up. So if the cheating did not occur in the set-up where did it occur?

Why are you asking me? I was not there to know the full details of what transpired. It doesn't matter when, how, or even if. The fact is that this is an invalid experiment on account of it being a wager for a large sum of money. No honest man can say large wagers like this is a perfectly appropriate method of scientific inquiry into terrestrial phenomena.

Propriety has no bearing on the factual nature of the experiments. It is grounds to begin a search for dishonest methods, but you cannot show there were and a court of law indicated the exact opposite. Once more, with feeling, your moral indignation does not change the diagrams that Scintific just posted, agreed to by Hampden's referee. Both parties agree that that was what was viewed. If you wish to contest Wallace's results based on Rowbotham's interpretations that is well, I won't have much to say, but someone like Alex, Scintific or Kendrick might.

An assessment of what was seen is provided in the Tangental Horizon chapter of Earth Not a Globe.

You can read my assessment of that chapter here, but for the sake of the lazy, I'll quote the portion relevant to the Bedford Level Challenge.

The illustration and description from ENaG:

Quote

A, the signal on the Old Bedford Bridge; B, the telescope on Welney Bridge; and C, the central signal-post, three miles from each end. The object-glass of the telescope was 4½ inches diameter; hence the centre, or true eye-line, was 2¼ inches higher than the top of the signal B, and 3¾ inches below the top of the signal-disc at C. On directing the telescope, "with a power of 50," towards the signal A, the centre of which was 2¼ inches below the centre of the telescope, it was seen to be below it; but the disc on the centre pole, the top of which was, to begin with, 3¾ inches above the centre, or line of sight, from the telescope, was seen to stand considerably higher than the signal A. From which, three of the gentlemen immediately, but most unwarrantably, concluded that the elevation of the disc in the field of view of the telescope was owing to a rise in the water of the canal, showing convexity! whereas it was nothing more than simply the upward divergence (of that which was already 3¾ inches above the line of sight) produced by the magnifying power of the telescope, as shown in the experiment with the lens, on page 267, fig. 92.

Ignoring the assumption that the telescope was not aligned so that the centre of it's objective lens was at the same 13 feet 4 inches height as the top of the 'signal' and the centre of the disc, there is still a glaring fault in the author's reasoning. The top of the disc may have been 3¾ inches above the eye line of the telescope, which could have made the top appear higher, but with the bottom of the disc being 8¼ inches below the eye line of the telescope, the same reasoning would place the bottom of the disc substantially lower than the 'signal' on the bridge. Here is an illustration of what was actually seen through the telescope:



The top disc in this image was the one set at 13 feet 4 inches, the lower disc was actually 4 feet below it, which gives a line of sight from the telescope to the 'signal' on the other bridge about 5 to 6 feet lower at the 'signal post' than it would be on a flat earth.

PS. My thread on that chapter has had 90+ views, but no replies. I wonder why that is?

Why are you asking me? I was not there to know the full details of what transpired. It doesn't matter when, how, or even if. The fact is that this is an invalid experiment on account of it being a wager for a large sum of money. No honest man can say large wagers like this is a perfectly appropriate method of scientific inquiry into terrestrial phenomena.

The shape of the earth is already predetermined. It is a fact. Your denial, philosophy or moral judgment will never change its predetermined shape.

The shape of the earth is already predetermined.

Do you have a source for this claim?

Quote from: Cartesian on September 09, 2013, 03:59:12 AM

The shape of the earth is already predetermined.

Do you have a source for this claim?

I think this falls under common knowledge.  Round or Flat, there is no indication that the Earth changes its shape.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 09, 2013, 03:59:12 AM

The shape of the earth is already predetermined.

Do you have a source for this claim?

I don't thin Cartesians comment here was to say that its predetermined to be round. Merely, that its shape is an absolute truth whether we disagree about it or not.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 09, 2013, 03:59:12 AM

The shape of the earth is already predetermined.

Do you have a source for this claim?

Please tell me that you're kidding

Please tell me that you're kidding

That's a "no," then?

I don't thin Cartesians comment here was to say that its predetermined to be round. Merely, that its shape is an absolute truth whether we disagree about it or not.

I did not mention a shape nor did I imply that Cartesian did so.

I think this falls under common knowledge.  Round or Flat, there is no indication that the Earth changes its shape.

"Common knowledge" is not knowledge at all. There is also no indication that the Earth remains in one shape for any set period of time.

I guess I don't understand your objection then? Is it possible that a square is both a circle and a square?

You have just asked someone who believes in RE the shape of the earth. OK, let me focus only on the shape of the earth for the rest of my paragraph. I believe in science. I believe in how it works. There are more proofs than what I need that show the the earth is round, including the experiment of Wallace and Oldham. For me, and for the rest of the world, we accept that the round shape of the earth as a fact. If you don't accept those proofs that's not my problem.

This is your website. The burden of proof to show that the earth is flat is on you. Have you got any evidence to support your claim other than philosophy, moral judgement, denial, a 100-year old book or your back garden?

Quote from: Cartesian on September 09, 2013, 10:15:29 AM

Please tell me that you're kidding

That's a "no," then?

Quote from: rottingroom on September 09, 2013, 09:15:26 AM

I don't thin Cartesians comment here was to say that its predetermined to be round. Merely, that its shape is an absolute truth whether we disagree about it or not.

I did not mention a shape nor did I imply that Cartesian did so.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 09, 2013, 09:11:47 AM

I think this falls under common knowledge.  Round or Flat, there is no indication that the Earth changes its shape.

"Common knowledge" is not knowledge at all. There is also no indication that the Earth remains in one shape for any set period of time.

There is no indication that the Earth has changed shape.  That is evidence that the Earth remains in one shape for a set period of time. Recent history, say the last 600 years, does not indicate that there has been any change in the shape of the Earth of any radical nature.

Do you think the Earth has changed shape or are you just playing devil's advocate?

I guess I don't understand your objection then? Is it possible that a square is both a circle and a square?

Is it? I don't know, that's why I'm asking someone who apparently does (Cartesian).

You have just asked someone who believes in RE the shape of the earth.

I asked no such thing. I asked for you to support your claim.

OK, let me focus only on the shape of the earth for the rest of my paragraph. I believe in science. I believe in how it works. There are more proofs than what I need that show the the earth is round, including the experiment of Wallace and Oldham. For me, and for the rest of the world, we accept that the round shape of the earth as a fact. If you don't accept those proofs that's not my problem.

This is your website. The burden of proof to show that the earth is flat is on you. Have you got any evidence to support your claim other than philosophy, moral judgement, denial, a 100-year old book or your back garden?

Irrelevant. None of this gibberish is even remotely related to the discussion. Don't try to derail threads.

There is no indication that the Earth has changed shape.  That is evidence that the Earth remains in one shape for a set period of time.

Having no evidence is not evidence. What kind of strange world do you live in where absence of evidence is evidence of absence? I could easily say the opposite, that there is no indication that the Earth has not changed shape. Your point is completely invalid and a logic trainwreck.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 09, 2013, 10:38:40 AM

OK, let me focus only on the shape of the earth for the rest of my paragraph. I believe in science. I believe in how it works. There are more proofs than what I need that show the the earth is round, including the experiment of Wallace and Oldham. For me, and for the rest of the world, we accept that the round shape of the earth as a fact. If you don't accept those proofs that's not my problem.

This is your website. The burden of proof to show that the earth is flat is on you. Have you got any evidence to support your claim other than philosophy, moral judgement, denial, a 100-year old book or your back garden?

Irrelevant. None of this gibberish is even remotely related to the discussion. Don't try to derail threads.

If you want to carry on the discussion where Tom left, that's fine with me. In order to void the result obtained by Wallace/Hampden/Oldham experiment, one must disagree with either the individuals who conducted the experiment, or the scientific method used by those men, or their result.

If you disagree with the individuals or the result, then you should organize to repeat the experiment.
If you disagree with the method, then tell us what's wrong with it.

If you want to carry on the discussion where Tom left, that's fine with me. In order to void the result obtained by Wallace/Hampden/Oldham experiment, one must disagree with either the individuals who conducted the experiment, or the scientific method used by those men, or their result.

If you disagree with the individuals or the result, then you should organize to repeat the experiment.
If you disagree with the method, then tell us what's wrong with it.

Sigh. Everyone take a good look at what happens when I ask for evidence from Cartesian. I get a completely irrelevant post and an attempt to derail the original question. Be full warned that this poster does not follow-up on their own claims.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 09, 2013, 11:20:36 AM

If you want to carry on the discussion where Tom left, that's fine with me. In order to void the result obtained by Wallace/Hampden/Oldham experiment, one must disagree with either the individuals who conducted the experiment, or the scientific method used by those men, or their result.

If you disagree with the individuals or the result, then you should organize to repeat the experiment.
If you disagree with the method, then tell us what's wrong with it.

Sigh. Everyone take a good look at what happens when I ask for evidence from Cartesian. I get a completely irrelevant post and an attempt to derail the original question. Be full warned that this poster does not follow-up on their own claims.

You told him not to derail the thread, so he got back onto the topic of the thread.  If you want to continue that little squabble, why not make your own thread about it, instead of telling someone not to go off topic and then scolding them for getting back to the last relevant point to the thread's purpose?

You told him not to derail the thread, so he got back onto the topic of the thread.  If you want to continue that little squabble, why not make your own thread about it, instead of telling someone not to go off topic and then scolding them for getting back to the last relevant point to the thread's purpose?

The current discussion was entirely relevant to the thread. Cartesian's comments were unwarranted derailments of the most recent posts. He was purposefully trying to draw attention away from my questioning of his reasoning. I have low tolerance for people who make claims and not only do not back them up, but immediately pretend the claim never existed.

If you wish to continue this discussion I suggest you start a thread. Your post was entirely off-topic and ill-informed.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 09, 2013, 12:18:55 PM

You told him not to derail the thread, so he got back onto the topic of the thread.  If you want to continue that little squabble, why not make your own thread about it, instead of telling someone not to go off topic and then scolding them for getting back to the last relevant point to the thread's purpose?

The current discussion was entirely relevant to the thread. Cartesian's comments were unwarranted derailments of the most recent posts. He was purposefully trying to draw attention away from my questioning of his reasoning. I have low tolerance for people who make claims and not only do not back them up, but immediately pretend the claim never existed.

If you wish to continue this discussion I suggest you start a thread. Your post was entirely off-topic and ill-informed.

 

This seems intentionally manipulative.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 09, 2013, 12:18:55 PM

You told him not to derail the thread, so he got back onto the topic of the thread.  If you want to continue that little squabble, why not make your own thread about it, instead of telling someone not to go off topic and then scolding them for getting back to the last relevant point to the thread's purpose?

The current discussion was entirely relevant to the thread. Cartesian's comments were unwarranted derailments of the most recent posts. He was purposefully trying to draw attention away from my questioning of his reasoning. I have low tolerance for people who make claims and not only do not back them up, but immediately pretend the claim never existed.

If you wish to continue this discussion I suggest you start a thread. Your post was entirely off-topic and ill-informed.

Really?  Because the last post I see relevant to the Bedford Level, the title of the thread, is this one by Scintific.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59507.msg1538277.html#msg1538277

Cartesian, as best as I can tell, was stating there is no reason or evidence to show that the shape of the Earth as demonstrated by experiments will change on moral grounds.  Now, as has been asked of Markjo many times, please stop shitting up the thread.  I rather liked it before the tangent about whether or not the Earth's shape is independent of the viewer and time of viewing.

Be full warned that this poster does not follow-up on their own claims.

Reminds me of when I asked you to provide a source for your probability of life occurring in another thread.

As an FYI, the shape of the Earth is apparently changing.  The equatorial bulge around the equator had been shrinking and then in 90s it began to increase again.  But it is not significant, only 0.28 inches per decade.

http://www.livescience.com/15268-earth-fatter-gravity-melting-ice-sheets.html

Now can we get back on topic?

Quote from: Pyrolizard on September 09, 2013, 12:18:55 PM

You told him not to derail the thread, so he got back onto the topic of the thread.  If you want to continue that little squabble, why not make your own thread about it, instead of telling someone not to go off topic and then scolding them for getting back to the last relevant point to the thread's purpose?

The current discussion was entirely relevant to the thread. Cartesian's comments were unwarranted derailments of the most recent posts. He was purposefully trying to draw attention away from my questioning of his reasoning. I have low tolerance for people who make claims and not only do not back them up, but immediately pretend the claim never existed.

If you wish to continue this discussion I suggest you start a thread. Your post was entirely off-topic and ill-informed.

Dear Rushy,

This thread is about Bedford Level experiment. And in case you don't know, Wallace/Oldham used Bedford Level experiments to show the curvature of the earth. They showed that your belief is completely wrong and yet you cannot even explain what's wrong with their experiments. The best you can do was attacking me. That is pathetic.

Be full warned that this poster does not follow-up on their own claims.

The truth hurts doesn't it

Cartesian, Rushy lost all credibility with this comment:

Anything below the equator is irrelevant. That land is still spearing zebra for dinner and coming to terms with a permanent body odor. They or their geographic location is not important to FET.

So I tend to ignore anything he has to say these days. Just skim past it and get onto the more intelligent posts.

Cartesian, Rushy lost all credibility with this comment:

Quote from: Rushy on June 05, 2013, 11:02:23 AM

Anything below the equator is irrelevant. That land is still spearing zebra for dinner and coming to terms with a permanent body odor. They or their geographic location is not important to FET.

So I tend to ignore anything he has to say these days. Just skim past it and get onto the more intelligent posts.

You guys gotta fill me in on some of these guys. I thought the ones I've been seeing were bad but it seems there are even more flavors.

Cartesian, Rushy lost all credibility with this comment:

Quote from: Rushy on June 05, 2013, 11:02:23 AM

Anything below the equator is irrelevant. That land is still spearing zebra for dinner and coming to terms with a permanent body odor. They or their geographic location is not important to FET.

So I tend to ignore anything he has to say these days. Just skim past it and get onto the more intelligent posts.

Thanks for the heads up!

Cartesian, Rushy lost all credibility with this comment:

Quote from: Rushy on June 05, 2013, 11:02:23 AM

Anything below the equator is irrelevant. That land is still spearing zebra for dinner and coming to terms with a permanent body odor. They or their geographic location is not important to FET.

Actually, Rushy is just ripping off Tom Bishop.

You can't say what observers on the equator experience on the day the sun switches gears. These are third world countries on the equator. Who is to notice if the sun rises slightly to the right and sets slightly to the left?

The people there are more concerned with spearing zebras for dinner, knitting loincloths, and coming to terms with a permanent body oder. They are not interested in studying alternative world models.

Dear Rushy,

This thread is about Bedford Level experiment. And in case you don't know, Wallace/Oldham used Bedford Level experiments to show the curvature of the earth. They showed that your belief is completely wrong and yet you cannot even explain what's wrong with their experiments. The best you can do was attacking me. That is pathetic.

This is really laughable, you're this worried about providing evidence behind your own claims? It's even more telling that all of the RE'ers are trying to brush you under the rug and act like nothing happened. I suppose I'll debate with someone a little more thoughtful.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 09, 2013, 02:55:26 PM

Dear Rushy,

This thread is about Bedford Level experiment. And in case you don't know, Wallace/Oldham used Bedford Level experiments to show the curvature of the earth. They showed that your belief is completely wrong and yet you cannot even explain what's wrong with their experiments. The best you can do was attacking me. That is pathetic.

This is really laughable, you're this worried about providing evidence behind your own claims? It's even more telling that all of the RE'ers are trying to brush you under the rug and act like nothing happened. I suppose I'll debate with someone a little more thoughtful.

Whatever will take your act elsewhere is good thanks.

Can we all stop with the ad hominem attacks and get to the thread at hand?

To reiterate, both sides of the experiment agreed upon the method, both sides agreed that the setup was correct, and both sides agreed as to what was observed. And what was observed was clearly a convexity of the water.

Where in the process was there an error?

It doesn't matter who set up the experiment, who agreed with what, the type of negligence involved, where the foul play took place, or even if foul play took place. The fact that this was a WAGER, a big enough one to pursue legal recourse over, invalidates this "impartial experiment" on many grounds. Further tarnishing is the fact that the referees were not assigned form a neutral source and we don't really know the full details of the experiment's set up.

Furthermore, and an aside, if we look at the drawings we see that the near and far circle of the markers are exactly the same size in the image, despite being a long distance away from each other. How can this be? We are told that these drawings were accurate.

I do not feel compelled to discuss the details of an invalid experiment. Nearly everything about this experiment is trash.