Reconducting the Bedford Level Experiment.. and blogging it live

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on August 18, 2009, 08:30:00 AM

Anyway, Daniel put some pics up on facebook now- this is all very exciting! =)

Pictures are invalid evidence. Accept Daniel's pictures, you have to accept those from space that show The Earth Not A Disc.  

When did I claim they were proof on their own?

I'd be curious to see how fast the bedford canal water flows, if at all.  If you don't have a flow meter, you could make some paper boats and time how long they take to go a set distance (10m should be more than enough).  Perhaps at different times of day and across the width of the canal.
I know it's not the most accurate measure of flow, but if you also note the wind direction, it would at least be something.

Wow, this is great!

Quote from: KatiePipkin on August 19, 2009, 01:39:13 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on August 18, 2009, 08:30:00 AM

Anyway, Daniel put some pics up on facebook now- this is all very exciting! =)

Pictures are invalid evidence. Accept Daniel's pictures, you have to accept those from space that show The Earth Not A Disc.  

When did I claim they were proof on their own?

You didn't. I was merely making sure we all knew where we stood regarding the validity of photographs on this forum.

Trust me, after nearly 3 1/2 years here, I'm well aware of where we stand.

I'd be curious to see how fast the bedford canal water flows, if at all.  If you don't have a flow meter, you could make some paper boats and time how long they take to go a set distance (10m should be more than enough).  Perhaps at different times of day and across the width of the canal.
I know it's not the most accurate measure of flow, but if you also note the wind direction, it would at least be something.

If it flows then Daniel must measure the slope of the canal. And take account to where he looks. Upstream or downstream.

It's my understanding that the Bedford Level, which is an old drainage cut, is flushed by tidal action.  Tide tables might be helpful in evaluating Daniel's data.

Quote from: Anduie on August 19, 2009, 01:43:59 PM

Any diagrams or anything other than those few pictures?

I'm working on that now.  There will be detailed diagrams and descriptions of the whole thing in the next couple of days.

I'm sure that since you took your time to go all the way out there you can take the time to write up a report so your data, results, and calculations can be peer reviewed. 

So what became of this experiment?

Massive respect to you for getting out and doing the experiment.

I fear you may be making the same mistakes as Rowbotham if you are not using a theodolite (and know how to use one - you can learn in a day).

Remember when done properly, the experiment had 3 poles (3 miles apart each) each sticking out of the canal by 3 feet, and the middle one appears to be higher than the other two.

A Telescope can not necessarily measure with correct accuracy unless it is at that same height (and stable - which means no dingy) as the poles. You should at least have a spirit level (very accurate one) and markings on the lens of your telescope (maybe a gel).

Even then the "BlancMange effect" (slang astronomer term for shakey telescope) may stuff you up.

Whatever the result -  standing ovation for doing the experiment, and going through with it

Almost three months have passed and we can see no results. I acknowledge the effort, but still there is no indication that you understood or even was bothered with the errors that Rowbotham committed.

This experiment requires a very special canal, one that does not have a current of water. If you have a current, you are most probably measuring the shape of the terrain, not the shape of the Earth. But it is almost impossible to find a canal with no flow of water, since it would have no use for anything except to do this experiment.

There is no indication of how you are going to accommodate the variation in refractive index of the atmosphere in this experiment. You could use longer distances, explain at what time of day you did the experiment and how strong were the winds, or maybe introduce an expected maximum error from this noise source to your error analysis. But just ignoring the problem is not going to make it disappear.

If you really want to do this experiment, do it on a large lake, preferably one without high waves. And do it in mid-afternoon so you get the best temperature stability possible. And do it with a much longer distance.

This past spring, I went up to Old Fort Niagara on the shore of Lake Ontario where some of the taller towers of Toronto are supposed to be visible, however I was unable to see them.  It seemed like a nice enough day, but I guess that the conditions weren't quite right. 

This past spring, I went up to Old Fort Niagara on the shore of Lake Ontario where some of the taller towers of Toronto are supposed to be visible, however I was unable to see them.  It seemed like a nice enough day, but I guess that the conditions weren't quite right. 

Did you use a telescope?

Quote from: markjo on November 22, 2009, 07:14:02 PM

This past spring, I went up to Old Fort Niagara on the shore of Lake Ontario where some of the taller towers of Toronto are supposed to be visible, however I was unable to see them.  It seemed like a nice enough day, but I guess that the conditions weren't quite right. 

Did you use a telescope?

No, I used my 35mm film camera (Minolta X700 SLR) with several telephoto lenses ranging from 105mm to 500mm (1000mm with a 2x teleconverter).  I'm not saying that the CN Tower can't be seen from there.  In fact, they even have a big sign there showing the tops of the buildings that can be seen from there.  I'm just saying that I couldn't see them, probably because the viewing conditions weren't ideal (as I recall, there cloud cover on the Canadian side that may have obscured my view).  Then again, it's around 30 miles or so from Fort Niagara to Toronto across the lake, so there probably wasn't a whole lot to see anyways.

I'm not calling this a victory of failure for either side.  Rather, I'm calling it inconclusive.

No

Oh. Let us know when you recreate the experiment then.

Almost three months have passed and we can see no results. I acknowledge the effort, but still there is no indication that you understood or even was bothered with the errors that Rowbotham committed.

This experiment requires a very special canal, one that does not have a current of water. If you have a current, you are most probably measuring the shape of the terrain, not the shape of the Earth. But it is almost impossible to find a canal with no flow of water, since it would have no use for anything except to do this experiment.

There is no indication of how you are going to accommodate the variation in refractive index of the atmosphere in this experiment. You could use longer distances, explain at what time of day you did the experiment and how strong were the winds, or maybe introduce an expected maximum error from this noise source to your error analysis. But just ignoring the problem is not going to make it disappear.

If you really want to do this experiment, do it on a large lake, preferably one without high waves. And do it in mid-afternoon so you get the best temperature stability possible. And do it with a much longer distance.

This

And
How does the pictured recreate:

A boat, with a flag-staff, the top of the flag 5 feet above the surface of the water, was directed to sail from a place called "Welche's Dam" (a well-known ferry passage), to another called "Welney Bridge." These two points are six statute miles apart. The author, with a good telescope, went into the water; and with the eye about 8 inches above the surface, observed the receding boat during the whole period required to sail to Welney Bridge. The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance!

?

Quote from: zork on August 18, 2009, 01:50:11 PM

Quote from: d00gz on August 18, 2009, 08:33:14 AM

I await the results, proving the earth is round, which will of course be tweaked every way possible to prove FE.

I don't wait any results but only some descriptions about Daniel doings. As far as I know he doesn't have any equipment with him there. At least it wasn't mentioned here.

I would have posted in more detail today but my mobile's internet connection in the middle of nowhere was very unreliable.  Anyway, I did have some equipment with me (I uploaded some pictures on Facebook during the experiment).  I'd actually made a big marker pole with bright orange blocks but ended up not being able to use it because of how the canal is blocked off on one end and overrun with plants along pretty much the entirety of both shores.  So that didn't end up being used.  I did, however, have a reasonably powerful telescope and a digital SLR camera:



It's not professional surveying equipment by a long shot but it did the job reasonably well.  Looking through the telescope, I was able to see cars passing by on the bridge 6 miles away.  And the cars were elevated well above the surface of the canal -- far more than they would have been with the anticipated drop over the 6 miles due to the earth's supposed curvature..

I'll post a more detailed account of the experiment with illustrations and higher-quality images taken through the telescope in the next few days.  Then everyone can decide for themselves.

I would like to point out that at our elevation you should surely be able to see cars on the opposing bridge, since your telescope free to rotate away from level. At 6mi the 'bump' of water between you and the ground on the target side is only 1.4m. From where your telescope is pictured you are easily higher than 1.4m off the water, and the cars on the target bridge are also likely at least 1.4m. Hence, I would call this test inconclusive, however bravo for attempting it.

I just noticed that the nearby Vedder canal is about 4km long and very accessible. I am going to try to get a hold of a telescope and a few long sticks. Do you think I will be able to take pictures with a normal digital camera, like a Nikon Coolpix?
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=49.106691,-122.072525&spn=0.052705,0.219727&z=13
Any tips?

I just noticed that the nearby Vedder canal is about 4km long and very accessible. I am going to try to get a hold of a telescope and a few long sticks. Do you think I will be able to take pictures with a normal digital camera, like a Nikon Coolpix?
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=49.106691,-122.072525&spn=0.052705,0.219727&z=13
Any tips?

I don't think that 4km (a little over 2 miles) will be long enough for a proper recreation.  The BLE was performed over a stretch of almost 10 km (6 miles).  From my calculations, the first 2 miles or so only produce a few inches of curvature.  I would recommend at least a 5 mile stretch if you can find one. 

Last year I tried to spot the Toronto Skyline from Old Fort Niagara across Lake Ontario (30 or so miles), but there was enough haze where I wasn't able to see it.  I hope to try again in a few months when it warms up.  According to Tom, I should be able to see the SkyDome too, but I'd settle for the top of the CN Tower.

Quote from: ERTW on February 01, 2010, 12:58:40 AM

I just noticed that the nearby Vedder canal is about 4km long and very accessible. I am going to try to get a hold of a telescope and a few long sticks. Do you think I will be able to take pictures with a normal digital camera, like a Nikon Coolpix?
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=49.106691,-122.072525&spn=0.052705,0.219727&z=13
Any tips?

I don't think that 4km (a little over 2 miles) will be long enough for a proper recreation.  The BLE was performed over a stretch of almost 10 km (6 miles).  From my calculations, the first 2 miles or so only produce a few inches of curvature.  I would recommend at least a 5 mile stretch if you can find one.  

Last year I tried to spot the Toronto Skyline from Old Fort Niagara across Lake Ontario (30 or so miles), but there was enough haze where I wasn't able to see it.  I hope to try again in a few months when it warms up.  According to Tom, I should be able to see the SkyDome too, but I'd settle for the top of the CN Tower.

My calculation says the water bump should be 30cm.

bump=R(1-cos(S/R))
R=6530km
S=2km (half the arclength)
bump=0.30m

My calculation says the water bump should be 30cm.

bump=R(1-cos(S/R))
R=6530km
S=2km (half the arclength)
bump=0.30m

I'm just not sure if a 12" hump is going to be significant enough to make a point. 

The question is will it be noticeable? As far as I can tell the Vedder canal is the closest I can get near to where I live. Of course it has to be worth it or I won't bother.

Daniel, what kind of telescope did you use? I am trying to decide what type would be best for this type of observation (reflector or refractor). I suppose Tom should also know since he regularly looks across a 32mi bay at beaches.

so this is the big experiment by Daniel? seriously? a camera & a telescope, no professional surveying equipment, and no results? mmm...

and as for being able to see cars going over the bridge from 6 miles away, well, no surprise there, the clue is the bit about the bridge, which kinda elevates them from sea level, but hey, what do we care about facts around here, just so long as someone says it is enough

I expected more from the site legend

You don't care about much except speculation.  Not even facts, figures or maths.  Sad, really.

If that is not the case, then step up to the plate.

empty rhetoric from FET again. I am asking for facts and figure, it is the FET to accept speculation, not facts, ie, "look outside, it looks flat, so it must be that way", which kinda ignores the facts presented to you by various space agencies, but then of course the FET 'fact' to refute this data is 'it is a fake' or ' it is part of the conspiracy'

I laugh at how you try to take the intellectual high road on factual matters when you cannot provide even one yourself

no professional surveying equipment or a control = speculation, not fact, please don't insult your own intelligence by arguing otherwise, it's boring and cringe worthy to read

Precisely my opinion of your posts.  Pure conjecture.  Exactly what you accuse other of.

Do you know:

• How high Daniel was above the water?
• How high above the water the roadbed on the bridge is?
• The distance to the horizon at Daniel's position?
• The dip, or distance below the horizon that the distant bridge should be?
• How far atmospheric refraction should raise the image above its geometric position?
• The lapse rate or other conditions at the time of viewing?
• Any of the math and science involved in this?

From your posts, it appears that you do not know, nor do you care to find out.  You're not an idiot, none of this is beyond your ability.   So why not post with more facts, figures and understanding of the situation?  Conjecture on your part is not a strong argument.  You can do better.

he has supplied no info, no methodologies, no data, just simple observations. there is no conclusion given, no control, no verification, not even an indication of the mathematics used. the whole experiment is a faliure. however, and you cannot discount this as irrelevant, he is not using any professional surveying equipment, so, the data is only empirical, and subjective, and open to massive miscalculations due to the inaccuracies of using the human eye to made fine judgment calls on distance, and when scaled up, these small miscalculations become massive mistakes. Don’t you ever wonder why the millions of quantity surveyors in the world have never noticed nor questioned their findings when doing this sort of stuff?

Good!  That's getting closer.   Daniel just does not give enough info for us to know one way or the other.  Too bad.
Surveying equipment would be handy, but is not necessary.  I fact, it can lead you astray if you don't know how to use.

No time to explain now, I've got a plane to catch!  (more when I return)

Good!  That's getting closer.   Daniel just does not give enough info for us to know one way or the other. 

I think that was his point.  Daniel did not post enough information about his observations to make them useful.