Bedford Level Discrepancy

  • 91 Replies
  • 17540 Views
Bedford Level Discrepancy
« on: August 09, 2011, 04:20:34 PM »
It is an acknowledged fact that ships at sea appear to sink below the horizon. However, this is inconsistent with Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment.

?

Verrine

  • 819
  • Friend of Dr Crustinator
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2011, 04:39:28 PM »
Therefore the Earth is flat.

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2011, 04:44:59 PM »
Therefore the Earth is flat.
Well known fact > one experiment with conflicting results, not the other way around, silly Verrine.
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2011, 05:15:13 PM »
It is an acknowledged fact that ships at sea appear to sink below the horizon. However, this is inconsistent with Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment.

Correct. Someone drag Bob Bishop in here.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2011, 06:13:39 PM »
It is an acknowledged fact that ships at sea appear to sink below the horizon. However, this is inconsistent with Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment.

Correct. Someone drag Bob Bishop in here.
Bob Bishop?
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2011, 06:34:22 PM »
It is an acknowledged fact that ships at sea appear to sink below the horizon. However, this is inconsistent with Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment.

Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment is easy to explain.  Since it was a calm, sunny day and Rowbotham's telescope was 18 inches above the waterline, it's very likely that the temperature gradient of the air near the water was enough to induce a refractive phenomenon known as ducting.  This would cause light rays from distant objects to follow the curvature of the earth and be visible even when the object is "over the horizon". 
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Theodolite

  • 878
  • NASA's Chief Surveyor
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2011, 06:38:05 PM »
It is an acknowledged fact that ships at sea appear to sink below the horizon. However, this is inconsistent with Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment.

Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment is easy to explain.  Since it was a calm, sunny day and Rowbotham's telescope was 18 inches above the waterline, it's very likely that the temperature gradient of the air near the water was enough to induce a refractive phenomenon known as ducting.  This would cause light rays from distant objects to follow the curvature of the earth and be visible even when the object is "over the horizon".

This fact, among many others, point out that fact that Rowbatham lacked the most basic skills of a surveyor.  None of his surveying should be regarded with any merit.
Gather round my gentle sheep, I have a wonderful spherical story for you

Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2011, 08:26:21 AM »
It is an acknowledged fact that ships at sea appear to sink below the horizon. However, this is inconsistent with Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment.

Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment is easy to explain.  Since it was a calm, sunny day and Rowbotham's telescope was 18 inches above the waterline, it's very likely that the temperature gradient of the air near the water was enough to induce a refractive phenomenon known as ducting.  This would cause light rays from distant objects to follow the curvature of the earth and be visible even when the object is "over the horizon".
Somebody show this to the FE'rs.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2011, 08:35:04 AM »
We've seen it. It's a cop out. And they are not contradictory because there were no waves at Bedford.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2011, 08:45:59 AM »
It is an acknowledged fact that ships at sea appear to sink below the horizon. However, this is inconsistent with Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment.

Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment is easy to explain.  Since it was a calm, sunny day and Rowbotham's telescope was 18 inches above the waterline, it's very likely that the temperature gradient of the air near the water was enough to induce a refractive phenomenon known as ducting.  This would cause light rays from distant objects to follow the curvature of the earth and be visible even when the object is "over the horizon".

Odd that these chance mirages always seem to pop up at the exact moment the experiment is performed, placing the observed body suspended in the air from beneath the horizon to the exact height it would need to be to trick the observer into believing that the earth was flat.

Looking across 3 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 6 feet in the air.

Looking across 5 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 16 feet in the air.

Looking across 7 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 32 feet in the air.

Looking across 9 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 54 feet in the air.

It would need to materialize in front of the observer every time the experiment is performed and account for the distance viewed across to accurately simulate a flat earth.

Ridiculous.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 09:25:17 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2011, 08:59:55 AM »
It is an acknowledged fact that ships at sea appear to sink below the horizon. However, this is inconsistent with Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment.

Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment is easy to explain.  Since it was a calm, sunny day and Rowbotham's telescope was 18 inches above the waterline, it's very likely that the temperature gradient of the air near the water was enough to induce a refractive phenomenon known as ducting.  This would cause light rays from distant objects to follow the curvature of the earth and be visible even when the object is "over the horizon".

Odd that these chance mirages always seem to pop up at the exact moment the experiment is performed, placing the observed body suspended in the air from beneath the horizon to the exact height it would need to be to trick the observer into believing that the earth was flat.

Looking across 3 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 6 feet in the air.

Looking across 5 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 17 feet in the air.

Looking across 7 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 32 feet in the air.

Looking across 9 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 54 feet in the air.

It would need to materialize in front of the observer every time the experiment is performed and account for the distance viewed across to accurately simulate a flat earth.

Ridiculous.
1. Are you saying that light cannot bend over the horizon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
2. I don't understand your wording about "suspending bodies ___ in the air." It doesn't matter how high the object is.
3. Are you also saying that every time the Bedford Level Experiment was performed the results pointed to a flat Earth?
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9C00EFDF113EEE34BC4852DFBE66838A669FDE&oref=slogin

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2011, 09:22:03 AM »
1. Are you saying that light cannot bend over the horizon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Chance mirages aren't going to appear in front of the observer every time the experiment is performed.

Quote
2. I don't understand your wording about "suspending bodies ___ in the air." It doesn't matter how high the object is.

Yes it does. The objects have to be suspended at a perfect distance in the air or else the object would appear too high or too low - either hovering above the earth or obscured by it. In order for the earth to appear flat when really a globe, your effect needs to cause the objects need to be suspended 16 feet above the earth a 5 miles, 66 feet above the earth at 10 miles, and 266 feet above the earth at 20 miles.

Your effect needs to adjust itself with regards to the distance the observer is looking across.

Quote
3. Are you also saying that every time the Bedford Level Experiment was performed the results pointed to a flat Earth?
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9C00EFDF113EEE34BC4852DFBE66838A669FDE&oref=slogin

That wasn't an impartial experiment. It was a wager for a significant sum of money. If Wallace had lost he would have been in debt to the Flat Earther for many years. He has a strong incentive to rig the experiment or otherwise lie: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49284.msg1219430#msg1219430
« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 09:26:33 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2011, 09:26:35 AM »
Is it me, or is Tom using the same exact replies over and over again?

Also, your presence is requested in this thread
« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 09:29:04 AM by thefireproofmatch »
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2011, 09:36:48 AM »
Is it me, or is Tom using the same exact replies over and over again?

The same questions are asked over and over again. Why should I have to type the answers again?

Quote
Also, your presence is requested in this thread

I don't reply to walls of text filled with nonsense.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 09:39:02 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

thefireproofmatch

  • 779
  • ಠ_ರೃ
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2011, 09:42:28 AM »
Quote
Also, your presence is requested in this thread

I don't reply to walls of text filled with nonsense.
Nonsense? I think not.
we're expected to throw up our hands and just BELIEVE.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2011, 01:05:35 PM »
Odd that these chance mirages always seem to pop up at the exact moment the experiment is performed...

If the conditions are the same every time the experiment is performed, then I don't see why the same refractive phenomenon couldn't occur every time.

...placing the observed body suspended in the air from beneath the horizon to the exact height it would need to be to trick the observer into believing that the earth was flat.

Looking across 3 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 6 feet in the air.

Looking across 5 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 16 feet in the air.

Looking across 7 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 32 feet in the air.

Looking across 9 miles this chance mirage would need to suspend bodies exactly 54 feet in the air.

It would need to materialize in front of the observer every time the experiment is performed and account for the distance viewed across to accurately simulate a flat earth.

Ridiculous.

Ducting does not "suspend" a body.  Ducting causes the light rays to (more or less) follow the curvature of the earth.  It's as if the dense, cool air just above the water is acting as an optical fiber.  Ducting is a phenomenon well known to amateur radio operators (it's usually referred to as "atmospheric skip").
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2011, 02:22:53 PM »
Ducting does not "suspend" a body.  Ducting causes the light rays to (more or less) follow the curvature of the earth and make it appear flat when it is really curved.  It's as if the dense, cool air just above the water is acting as an optical illusion to trick people into believing that the earth is flat.  Ducting is a phenomenon well known to amateur radio operators who are unable to otherwise explain why the earth looks flat when it is really curved.

Fixed your explanation for you in bold.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 02:30:05 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2011, 03:12:20 PM »
Ducting does not "suspend" a body.  Ducting causes the light rays to (more or less) follow the curvature of the earth and make it appear flat when it is really curved.  It's as if the dense, cool air just above the water is acting as an optical illusion to trick people into believing that the earth is flat.  Ducting is a phenomenon well known to amateur radio operators who are unable to otherwise explain why the earth looks flat when it is really curved.

Fixed your explanation for you in bold.

Shall I take this as a concession that ducting is a reasonable explanation for Rowbotham's results?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2011, 07:19:57 PM »
Ducting does not "suspend" a body.  Ducting causes the light rays to (more or less) follow the curvature of the earth and make it appear flat when it is really curved.  It's as if the dense, cool air just above the water is acting as an optical illusion to trick people into believing that the earth is flat.  Ducting is a phenomenon well known to amateur radio operators who are unable to otherwise explain why the earth looks flat when it is really curved.

Fixed your explanation for you in bold.

Shall I take this as a concession that ducting is a reasonable explanation for Rowbotham's results?

No. I was fixing your explanation as a friendly gesture. You should be grateful, not hostile.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2011, 07:47:40 PM »
No. I was fixing your explanation as a friendly gesture. You should be grateful, not hostile.

Thank you, but no fixing was necessary because there was nothing wrong with what I said.  Perhaps your time and effort would have been better spent researching the phenomenon of ducting so that you could refute it rather than mock it.  Also, if you recall, my stance is that the wide variety of atmospheric refractive phenomena make pretty much any such observation inconclusive.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2011, 07:49:27 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Theodolite

  • 878
  • NASA's Chief Surveyor
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2011, 08:01:53 PM »
No. I was fixing your explanation as a friendly gesture. You should be grateful, not hostile.

Thank you, but no fixing was necessary because there was nothing wrong with what I said.  Perhaps your time and effort would have been better spent researching the phenomenon of ducting so that you could refute it rather than mock it.  Also, if you recall, my stance is that the wide variety of atmospheric refractive phenomena make pretty much any such observation inconclusive.

Actually I am going to have to disagree with both of you.  There are definitely different things that need to be taken into account, and procedures need to be followed to get accurate results, but surveyors perfrom observations all over, and if they follow the procedures correctly, their work always adds up, and is repeatable.  Just as I dont understand intimately the details of your professions, there are details of performing detailed and conclusive surveys that are not understood by the members of this forum.  The problem with the Bedford level experiments isnt the results, or interpreting them.  The problem is that he did not perform the correct procedures to find the information he was looking for, and there were no reverse surveys, sideways tie ins, or any other checks performed.  A survey without checks isnt a survey, its merely an observation, with no way to know if it is accurate or repeatable
Gather round my gentle sheep, I have a wonderful spherical story for you

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12260
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2011, 01:12:10 AM »
It is an acknowledged fact that ships at sea appear to sink below the horizon. However, this is inconsistent with Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment.

Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment is easy to explain.  Since it was a calm, sunny day and Rowbotham's telescope was 18 inches above the waterline, it's very likely that the temperature gradient of the air near the water was enough to induce a refractive phenomenon known as ducting.  This would cause light rays from distant objects to follow the curvature of the earth and be visible even when the object is "over the horizon".
Oh, so the light was bendy. I'm sorry, but that's absolute nonsense as it is well-known that light doesn't bend. I mean, just think about all these times RE'ers said so. It must be true.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #22 on: August 11, 2011, 01:31:21 AM »
It is an acknowledged fact that ships at sea appear to sink below the horizon. However, this is inconsistent with Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment.

Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment is easy to explain.  Since it was a calm, sunny day and Rowbotham's telescope was 18 inches above the waterline, it's very likely that the temperature gradient of the air near the water was enough to induce a refractive phenomenon known as ducting.  This would cause light rays from distant objects to follow the curvature of the earth and be visible even when the object is "over the horizon".
Oh, so the light was bendy. I'm sorry, but that's absolute nonsense as it is well-known that light doesn't bend. I mean, just think about all these times RE'ers said so. It must be true.

Dear PizzaPlanet,

Please stop misrepresenting the beliefs of those who you are debating, and please try to make an effort to actually understand where we are coming from.  I have consistently put forth the effort to try to understand the FE point of view before I take a position for or against, and we really think things would be much more productive if everyone involved (both sides) made the same effort.

Thanks,
The RE community


Now, just in case you don't understand what the claims are being made in the posts you have quoted, please allow me to explain.

When light moves from one medium to another at an angle, and the speed of light in those two mediums is different, it refracts.  This is why you observe things like rainbows, and crystals or glass that cause a rainbow on the wall when they are held up to sunlight.  The different wavelengths we see in visible light behave differently in different mediums, and so when white light travels from one medium to another (say, air into glass) at an angle, these bend at different angles and the light separates into a rainbow.

When the angle is small enough, no rainbow occurs -- the magnitude of separation of the different wavelengths is small enough such that we observe only white light rather than a rainbow.

With regard to the Bedford Level experiment, it can easily and mathematically be demonstrated that a sufficient temperature gradient between the ground and the level of the measurement apparatus would cause light to bend and approximate the natural curvature of the Earth.  This happens because temperature changes cause air density changes, which in turn effect the speed of light in the air.  So, the air acts somewhat like a prism.  0Because no temperature measurements were made and recorded during this experiment, there is no way of verifying whether this effect was the cause of the reported measurements; however, it is important to understand also that the possibility of this effect has not been accounted for in the experiments that are generally cited by the FES.

Now it is also important to note that the bending of light under this type of circumstance is significantly different than the proposed bendiness of light required by FE theories.  Most FE models of the Sun and Moon require light to bend at extreme angles over relatively short distances and under a wide variety of conditions, which is not the same as light bending at slight angles over moderate distances under very specific circumstances.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #23 on: August 11, 2011, 06:28:15 AM »
It is an acknowledged fact that ships at sea appear to sink below the horizon. However, this is inconsistent with Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment.

Rowbotham's Bedford Level experiment is easy to explain.  Since it was a calm, sunny day and Rowbotham's telescope was 18 inches above the waterline, it's very likely that the temperature gradient of the air near the water was enough to induce a refractive phenomenon known as ducting.  This would cause light rays from distant objects to follow the curvature of the earth and be visible even when the object is "over the horizon".
Oh, so the light was bendy. I'm sorry, but that's absolute nonsense as it is well-known that light doesn't bend. I mean, just think about all these times RE'ers said so. It must be true.

I never said that light doesn't bend (under certain conditions).  However, I do contend that, for the most part, refraction bends light the wrong way to support FET .
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #24 on: August 11, 2011, 06:35:25 AM »

Dear PizzaPlanet,

Please stop misrepresenting the beliefs of those who you are debating, and please try to make an effort to actually understand where we are coming from.  I have consistently put forth the effort to try to understand the FE point of view before I take a position for or against, and we really think things would be much more productive if everyone involved (both sides) made the same effort.

Thanks,
The RE community

Pizza planet is deliberately confusing refraction with the magic light bending FE requires to work. This is so he can attack from the position of semantics, which is what he always does, since FE has been disproved so thoroughly.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #25 on: August 11, 2011, 07:05:13 AM »
No. I was fixing your explanation as a friendly gesture. You should be grateful, not hostile.

Thank you, but no fixing was necessary because there was nothing wrong with what I said.  Perhaps your time and effort would have been better spent researching the phenomenon of ducting so that you could refute it rather than mock it.  Also, if you recall, my stance is that the wide variety of atmospheric refractive phenomena make pretty much any such observation inconclusive.

Actually I am going to have to disagree with both of you.  There are definitely different things that need to be taken into account, and procedures need to be followed to get accurate results, but surveyors perfrom observations all over, and if they follow the procedures correctly, their work always adds up, and is repeatable.  Just as I dont understand intimately the details of your professions, there are details of performing detailed and conclusive surveys that are not understood by the members of this forum.  The problem with the Bedford level experiments isnt the results, or interpreting them.  The problem is that he did not perform the correct procedures to find the information he was looking for, and there were no reverse surveys, sideways tie ins, or any other checks performed.  A survey without checks isnt a survey, its merely an observation, with no way to know if it is accurate or repeatable
Since you are the expert in this subject, please tell me if I am right: 6 miles (about 9 kilometers) seems to be the best distance for all the FE theorists' experiments. I think we can all agree that less than 9 kilometers is far too short a distance to see any circumference, whether it is there or not. But 9 kilometers is just enough distance to get inconclusive results, so it is perfect for them. Any test should be repeated with a longer distance, say double the distance, to get unambiguous results. A distance of 18 kilometers, give or take, would be more than enough to avoid having the ducting effect, or refraction, masking the real result.

It is clear that the ducting effect cannot refract the light by more than a fraction of a degree, so all experiments done on a lake, with mild weather, on a distance that is far greater than 9 kilometers will be relatively independent of this refraction effect. Why do all FE "theorists" shy away from doing the experiment in those circumstances?

*

Roundy

  • 131
  • Sit and Spin
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #26 on: August 11, 2011, 09:15:34 AM »
No. I was fixing your explanation as a friendly gesture. You should be grateful, not hostile.

Thank you, but no fixing was necessary because there was nothing wrong with what I said.  Perhaps your time and effort would have been better spent researching the phenomenon of ducting so that you could refute it rather than mock it.  Also, if you recall, my stance is that the wide variety of atmospheric refractive phenomena make pretty much any such observation inconclusive.

Actually I am going to have to disagree with both of you.  There are definitely different things that need to be taken into account, and procedures need to be followed to get accurate results, but surveyors perfrom observations all over, and if they follow the procedures correctly, their work always adds up, and is repeatable.  Just as I dont understand intimately the details of your professions, there are details of performing detailed and conclusive surveys that are not understood by the members of this forum.  The problem with the Bedford level experiments isnt the results, or interpreting them.  The problem is that he did not perform the correct procedures to find the information he was looking for, and there were no reverse surveys, sideways tie ins, or any other checks performed.  A survey without checks isnt a survey, its merely an observation, with no way to know if it is accurate or repeatable
Since you are the expert in this subject, please tell me if I am right: 6 miles (about 9 kilometers) seems to be the best distance for all the FE theorists' experiments. I think we can all agree that less than 9 kilometers is far too short a distance to see any circumference, whether it is there or not. But 9 kilometers is just enough distance to get inconclusive results, so it is perfect for them. Any test should be repeated with a longer distance, say double the distance, to get unambiguous results. A distance of 18 kilometers, give or take, would be more than enough to avoid having the ducting effect, or refraction, masking the real result.

It is clear that the ducting effect cannot refract the light by more than a fraction of a degree, so all experiments done on a lake, with mild weather, on a distance that is far greater than 9 kilometers will be relatively independent of this refraction effect. Why do all FE "theorists" shy away from doing the experiment in those circumstances?

Because then the game would be over.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2011, 09:51:21 AM »
Lurk moar.  Tom claims to be able to see children 30 miles or so across Monterey Bay.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2011, 09:56:57 AM »
No. I was fixing your explanation as a friendly gesture. You should be grateful, not hostile.

Thank you, but no fixing was necessary because there was nothing wrong with what I said.  Perhaps your time and effort would have been better spent researching the phenomenon of ducting so that you could refute it rather than mock it.  Also, if you recall, my stance is that the wide variety of atmospheric refractive phenomena make pretty much any such observation inconclusive.

Actually I am going to have to disagree with both of you.  There are definitely different things that need to be taken into account, and procedures need to be followed to get accurate results, but surveyors perfrom observations all over, and if they follow the procedures correctly, their work always adds up, and is repeatable.  Just as I dont understand intimately the details of your professions, there are details of performing detailed and conclusive surveys that are not understood by the members of this forum.  The problem with the Bedford level experiments isnt the results, or interpreting them.  The problem is that he did not perform the correct procedures to find the information he was looking for, and there were no reverse surveys, sideways tie ins, or any other checks performed.  A survey without checks isnt a survey, its merely an observation, with no way to know if it is accurate or repeatable
Since you are the expert in this subject, please tell me if I am right: 6 miles (about 9 kilometers) seems to be the best distance for all the FE theorists' experiments. I think we can all agree that less than 9 kilometers is far too short a distance to see any circumference, whether it is there or not. But 9 kilometers is just enough distance to get inconclusive results, so it is perfect for them. Any test should be repeated with a longer distance, say double the distance, to get unambiguous results. A distance of 18 kilometers, give or take, would be more than enough to avoid having the ducting effect, or refraction, masking the real result.

It is clear that the ducting effect cannot refract the light by more than a fraction of a degree, so all experiments done on a lake, with mild weather, on a distance that is far greater than 9 kilometers will be relatively independent of this refraction effect. Why do all FE "theorists" shy away from doing the experiment in those circumstances?

Because then the game would be over.

The game has been over for months, but the flattists refuse to stop playing.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #29 on: August 11, 2011, 10:12:31 AM »
The game has been over for months, but the flattists refuse to stop playing.

Well, to be fair, this is their playground.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.