Bedford Level wager

Quote from: Ragnarr on June 24, 2009, 10:15:07 AM

I never attacked EA, and I won't ask you to argue it.  I just wanted to know what you base your belief off of.

It just seems like a very reasonable explanation.

You seem to reject the Bedford experiments alltogether, and by far that has been what most base their belief off of.  At least according to my observation.  Do you base your belief of FE the same way you base your belief of EA?

You seem to reject the Bedford experiments alltogether, and by far that has been what most base their belief off of.  At least according to my observation.  Do you base your belief of FE the same way you base your belief of EA?

Lets not turn this into a "why believe in FET" thread. I already have a thread for that.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=29417.0

See this is different, since I have always understood Rowbatham as the reason for the belief in a flat earth.  However in NEEMAN's case (correct me if I am wrong), he appears to have different reasons.

See this is different, since I have always understood Rowbatham as the reason for the belief in a flat earth.  However in NEEMAN's case (correct me if I am wrong), he appears to have different reasons.

As indicated in the thread I linked to, if Rowbotham does not make them a believer, then the apparently flat piece of earth they see out their window does. I know you can't draw conclusions based on what you see out your window, and this has been debated in the relevant thread I linked to.

Now, to get back on topic, I found another source which confirms Carpenter's observations: Eccentric Lives and Peculiar Notions‎ by John Michell.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZzDHPKxDkAwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0500013314&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=3

It also describes the other experiment Tom referred to. I would prefer to keep this thread on topic, though, unless you have the photograph (I can't find it).

NEEMAN already answered your question, Tom never will (I think it is against his programming).

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 24, 2009, 10:25:38 AM

Quote from: Ragnarr on June 24, 2009, 10:15:07 AM

I never attacked EA, and I won't ask you to argue it.  I just wanted to know what you base your belief off of.

It just seems like a very reasonable explanation.

You seem to reject the Bedford experiments alltogether, and by far that has been what most base their belief off of.  At least according to my observation.  Do you base your belief of FE the same way you base your belief of EA?

Partly, but the main reason is slightly different. My realisation that the earth is probably flat (it should be noted that as a matter of principle I never discount the possiblity of anything, even a generally spherical earth) stemmed from a number of philosophical conclusions which I reached roughly a year ago. I must stress that my belief is not based on those conclusions; they merely helped me to approach all matters of logic and reason in a new way, and from this I came to the conclusion that the earth was probably flat. I hope you will forgive me for not expressing what those conclusions are and how I came to them, but I am currently trying to refine them to the point where I can incorporate them into a personal philosophical work, and until I have found the wording to express my ideas clearly and to my own satisfaction (a process which may take some years- I hope to have a draft by the time I am finished my degree, but even that is optimistic), I am not willing to express them at all. In summary, I want to collect and refine my thoughts before sharing them.

Quote from: Ragnarr on June 24, 2009, 11:39:33 AM

Quote from: NEEMAN on June 24, 2009, 10:25:38 AM

Quote from: Ragnarr on June 24, 2009, 10:15:07 AM

I never attacked EA, and I won't ask you to argue it.  I just wanted to know what you base your belief off of.

It just seems like a very reasonable explanation.

You seem to reject the Bedford experiments alltogether, and by far that has been what most base their belief off of.  At least according to my observation.  Do you base your belief of FE the same way you base your belief of EA?

Partly, but the main reason is slightly different. My realisation that the earth is probably flat (it should be noted that as a matter of principle I never discount the possiblity of anything, even a generally spherical earth) stemmed from a number of philosophical conclusions which I reached roughly a year ago. I must stress that my belief is not based on those conclusions; they merely helped me to approach all matters of logic and reason in a new way, and from this I came to the conclusion that the earth was probably flat. I hope you will forgive me for not expressing what those conclusions are and how I came to them, but I am currently trying to refine them to the point where I can incorporate them into a personal philosophical work, and until I have found the wording to express my ideas clearly and to my own satisfaction (a process which may take some years- I hope to have a draft by the time I am finished my degree, but even that is optimistic), I am not willing to express them at all. In summary, I want to collect and refine my thoughts before sharing them.

I have no choice but to take your word on this, though I am disappointed because this leaves you and me with nothing to debate regarding flat earth theory.  You do not put forth any argument in support of a flat earth to critique and examine, and the existing arguments for flat earth you appear for the most part to reject.

Given that mirages are capable of bending light either up or down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

Can we trust these kinds of surveying experiments at all?

(If The Earth is flat and light bends upwards then it will appear round, and if The World is round and light bends down then it will appear flat.)

Given that mirages are capable of bending light either up or down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

Can we trust these kinds of surveying experiments at all?

(If The Earth is flat and light bends upwards then it will appear round, and if The World is round and light bends down then it will appear flat.)

I don't think an inferior mirage can cause a stable image of a sinking ship or marker.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 26, 2009, 02:18:33 PM

Given that mirages are capable of bending light either up or down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

Can we trust these kinds of surveying experiments at all?

(If The Earth is flat and light bends upwards then it will appear round, and if The World is round and light bends down then it will appear flat.)

I don't think an inferior mirage can cause a stable image of a sinking ship or marker.

But a single-frame, snap-shot photo might be misleading?

Or perhaps a mirage always gives very obvious distortions?

Quote from: cdenley on June 26, 2009, 02:23:35 PM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on June 26, 2009, 02:18:33 PM

Given that mirages are capable of bending light either up or down:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirage

Can we trust these kinds of surveying experiments at all?

(If The Earth is flat and light bends upwards then it will appear round, and if The World is round and light bends down then it will appear flat.)

I don't think an inferior mirage can cause a stable image of a sinking ship or marker.

But a single-frame, snap-shot photo might be misleading?

Or perhaps a mirage always gives very obvious distortions?

An inferior mirage is always distorted, as far as I know. Wouldn't the light be moving horizontally across the flat earth? I don't think this can cause the sharp change in temperature required to bend light.

What, if anything, did we conclude about the (historical) Bedford Level Experiment / Wager?

What, if anything, did we conclude about the (historical) Bedford Level Experiment / Wager?

It is strong evidence that the earth has curvature which would be consistent with RET. It is stronger historical evidence than Rowbotham's experiment since Carpenter's observations contradicted his own theory, which eliminated the possibility of bias. The reluctance of any FE'er to actually address these observations seems similar to Carpenter denying the fact that his observations would indicate the earth has curvature. They ignore inconsistencies with their belief.

A woman named Lady Bount was among the first to peer review Rowbotham's work:

"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.

Pardon me, but do I see that correctly (I mean 20 feet below part)? As the earth's surface curves at approximately 8 inches per mile (RE theory) I get 4 feet below horizon if watched at earth level and about 6 feet below horizon if observerd at the height of 2 feet. And if atmosperic refraction comes to play then maybe its possible to see all that stuff...

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the
horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex).

I agree.

The curvature of the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in.

If first mile and a half gives 18 inch curvature then how the remaining four and a half mile gives 162 inch curvature instead of 54 inch?

If my calculations are wrong, then please correct me.

Quote

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the
horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex).

I agree.

Quote

The curvature of the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in.

If first mile and a half gives 18 inch curvature then how the remaining four and a half mile gives 162 inch curvature instead of 54 inch?

If my calculations are wrong, then please correct me.

I think that you're confusing the curvature of the earth with the slope of a line .

...As the earth's surface curves at approximately 8 inches per mile (RE theory)

Really, RET math gives us an eight inch drop per mile?  I never bothered to figure this out myself (never had a reason), but I never would have thought it to be that much.

If this is the case, couldn't one simply construct a simple apparatus consisting of a long tube say an eighth of a mile long (this is only about two football fields or so, right?) with a center tap.  With both ends and the center tap held up in the air a bit, fill the tube with water.  The level of the water in the three tube ends can be lined up with each other and sighted with a scope to check all three levels in the tube ends.

According to RET, the water level in the center tap should be a bit higher than the two ends, right?  And likewise, according to FET, the three levels should all line up exactly.

Am I explaining this well enough?

I think that you're confusing the curvature of the earth with the slope of a line .

yep. sorry for mixing them up and thanks for pointing that out.

Quote from: amanita muscaria on June 29, 2009, 01:51:37 PM

...As the earth's surface curves at approximately 8 inches per mile (RE theory)

Really, RET math gives us an eight inch drop per mile?  I never bothered to figure this out myself (never had a reason), but I never would have thought it to be that much.

No, that's 8 inches for the first mile.  The rate of drop increases for each additional mile.

Quote from: equinox on June 29, 2009, 02:41:23 PM

Quote from: amanita muscaria on June 29, 2009, 01:51:37 PM

...As the earth's surface curves at approximately 8 inches per mile (RE theory)

Really, RET math gives us an eight inch drop per mile?  I never bothered to figure this out myself (never had a reason), but I never would have thought it to be that much.

No, that's 8 inches for the first mile.  The rate of drop increases for each additional mile.

Of course, my bad.  It's a curve.  So an eighth of a mile would not be one inch as I figured then obiously.  Still, my overall idea would be valid, I think.