Hi, all FE-ers.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask you to justify your model.

I have been reading the Repository, and have noted that while you have amassed many reasons as to why you believe that RE is incorrect, you have little evidence directly backing up the FE model. (bendy light etc.)

Can you please utilise this area to post all hard evidence that you have which supports this conclusion? Photographs, mathematical proofs, videos etc.

(Note: I would request that all RE'ers keep from this forum, so that it is kept purely for intellectual elucidation)

Thankyou.
Sam

I would like to take this opportunity to ask you to justify your model.

I have been reading the Repository, and have noted that while you have amassed many reasons as to why you believe that RE is incorrect, you have little evidence directly backing up the FE model. (bendy light etc.)

Can you please utilise this area to post all hard evidence that you have which supports this conclusion? Photographs, mathematical proofs, videos etc.

(Note: I would request that all RE'ers keep from this forum, so that it is kept purely for intellectual elucidation)

Thankyou.
Sam

Thank you for taking the time to read the Information Repository. However, I don't think anybody is going to honour your request. Evidence will be posted on these fora as it is obtained; in the meantime, you may wish to read Earth: Not a Globe which contains the details of several experiments on which Flat Earth Theory is based.

EDIT: I wrote this in a word document then copied and pasted it. Please excuse any missing characters. I do not have this problem on any other forum but, hey, TFES is special. 

You should understand why no one is really inclined to respond... it's a bit lazy of you to want it all on a silver platter. Evidence can be found all over the forums, in nice little chunks. Distances on flat earth maps are more accurate, pictures of buildings show no curvature, etc, etc etc.

But alright, I accept your challenge. First, I want you to, just for a moment, forget everything you think you know about the shape of the earth. Forget everything you think you know about it and just let your senses be your guide, see what you can find out instinctively from your own observation. Just for the time being. Now I want you to take a few minutes and step outside. Look around you. What do you see? You probably see trees, grass, fields; if you're in the city, maybe you see buildings and streets; if you're in the suburbs, you likely see lawns and other houses. Now look at what they are standing on. Are they standing on a curved surface? Remember to forget outside influences for a moment and just look for yourself. Any reasonable person will see that the earth looks flat, and not at all like a globe.

Now, round earthers will go to great lengths and come up with quite elaborate, fantastic explanations for why this is so. ?The earth IS curved,? one might tell you, ?it's just that you can't see it from that close up.? Okay, that's fine. It seems you can come up with any elaborate ?science? to disprove what is right in front of your face. So let's move on, shall we?

The following selection from one of my favorite books describes one experiment that was performed over a hundred years ago, and continues to be performed with minimal equipment and budget.

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! There could be no mistake as to the distance passed over, as the man in charge of the boat had instructions to lift one of his oars to the top of the arch the moment he reached the bridge. The experiment commenced about three o'clock in the afternoon of a summer's day, and the sun was shining brightly and nearly behind or against the boat during the whole of its passage. Every necessary condition had been fulfilled, and the result was to the last degree definite and satisfactory. The conclusion was unavoidable that the surface of the water for a length of six miles did not to any appreciable extent decline or curvate downwards from the line of sight. But if the earth is a globe, the surface of the six miles length of water would have been 6 feet higher in the centre than at the two extremities, as shown in diagram fig. 2; but as the telescope was only 8 inches above the water, the highest point of the surface would have been at one mile from the place of observation; and below this point the surface of the water at the end of the remaining five miles would have been 16 feet.
Let A B represent the arc of water 6 miles long, and A C the line of sight. The point of contact with the arc would be at T, a distance of one mile from the observer at A. From T to the bridge at B would be 5 miles, and the curvature from T to B would be 16 feet 8 inches. The top of the flag on the boat (which was 5 feet high) would have been 11 feet 8 inches below the horizon T, and altogether out of sight. Such a condition was not observed; but the following diagram, fig. 3, exhibits the true state of the case--A, B, the line of sight, equi-distant from or parallel with the surface of the water throughout the whole distance of 6 milts: From which it is concluded that the surface of standing water is not convex, but horizontal.

This, however,  is not the only such experiment. Here are 15 others that were done.

Along the edge of the water, in the same canal, six flags were placed, one statute mile from each other, and so arranged that the top of each flag was 5 feet above the surface. Close to the last flag in the series a longer staff was fixed, bearing a flag 3 feet square, and the top of which was 8 feet above the surface of the water--the bottom being in a line with the tops of the other and intervening flags, as shown in the following diagram, Fig, 4.

On looking with a good telescope over and along the flags, from A to B, the line of sight fell on the lower part of the larger flag at B. The altitude of the point B above the water at D was 5 feet, and the altitude of the telescope at A above the water at C was 5 feet; and each intervening flag had the same altitude. Hence the surface of the water C, D, was equidistant from the line of sight A, B; and as A B was a right line, C, D, being parallel, was also a right line; or, in other words, the surface of the water, C, D, was for six miles absolutely horizontal.

If the earth is a globe, the series of flags in the last experiment would have had the form and produced the results represented in the diagram, Fig. 5. The water curvating from C to D, each flag would have been a given amount below the line A, B. The first and second flags would have determined the direction of the line of sight from A to B, and the third flag would have been 8 inches below the second; the fourth flag, 32 inches; the fifth, 6 feet; the sixth, 10 feet 8 inches; and the seventh, 16 feet 8 inches; but the top of the last and largest flag, being 3 feet higher than the smaller ones, would have been 13 feet 8 inches below the line of sight at the point B. The rotundity of the earth would necessitate the above conditions; but as they cannot be found to exist, the doctrine must be pronounced as only a simple theory, having no foundation in fact--a pure invention of misdirected genius; splendid in its comprehensiveness and bearing upon natural phenomena; but, nevertheless, mathematical and logical necessities compel its denunciation as an absolute falsehood.

The above-named experiments were first made by the author in the summer of 1838, but in the previous winter season, when the water in the "Old Bedford" Canal was frozen, he had often, when lying on the ice, with a good telescope observed persons skating and sliding at known distances of from four to eight miles. He lived for nine successive months within a hundred yards of the canal, in a temporary wooden building, and had many opportunities of making and repeating observations and experiments, which it would only be tedious to enumerate, as they all involved the same principle, and led to the same conclusions as those already described. It may, however, interest the reader to relate an instance which occurred unexpectedly, and which created such a degree of con-fusion, that he was repeatedly tempted to destroy the many memoranda he had previously made. Up to this time all his observations had been made in the direction of Welney, the bridge there affording a substantial signal point; but on one occasion, a gentleman who resided within a few miles of the temporary residence already alluded to, and with whom conversations and discussions had been repeatedly held, insisted upon the telescope being directed upon a barge sailing in an opposite direction to that previously selected. Watching the slowly receding vessel for a considerable time, it suddenly disappeared altogether! The gentleman co-observer cried out in a tone of exultation, "Now, sir, are you satisfied that the water declines?" It was almost impossible to say anything in reply. All that could be done was to "gaze in mute astonishment" in the direction of the lost vessel--compelled to listen to the jeers and taunts of the apparent victor. After thus wonderingly gazing for a considerable time, with still greater astonishment the vessel was seen to suddenly come again into view? Obliged to admit the reappearance of the vessel; neither of us could fairly claim the victory, as both were puzzled and equally in an experimental "fix." This condition of the question at issue lasted for several days, when, one evening conversing with a "gunner" (a shooter of wild fowl), upon the strange appearance referred to, he laughingly undertook to explain the whole affair. He said that at several miles away, beyond the ferry-house, the canal made a sudden bend in the shape of the letter V when lying horizontally, and that the vessel disappeared on account of its entering into one side of the triangle, and reappeared after passing down the other side and entering the usual line of the canal! After a time a large map of the canal was found in a neighbouring town, Wisbeach, and the "gunner's" statement fully verified.

The following diagram will explain this strange, and for a time confounding, phenomenon. A, represents the position of the observer, and the arrows the direction of the vessel, which, on arriving at the point B, suddenly entered the "reach" B, C, and disappeared, but which, on arriving at C, became again visible, and remained so after entering and sailing along the canal from C to D. The ferry-house and several trees, which stood on the side of the canal, between the observer and the "bend," had prevented the vessel being seen during the time it was passing from B to C. Thus the "mystery" was cleared away; the author was the real victor; and the gentleman referred to, with many others of the neighbourhood, subsequently avowed their conviction that the water in the "Bedford Level" at least, was horizontal, and they therefore could not see how the earth could possibly be a globe.

And another experiment. A good theodolite was placed on the northern bank of the canal, midway between Welney Bridge and the Old Bedford Bridge, which are fully six miles apart, as shown in diagram, fig. 7. The line of sight from the "levelled" theodolite fell upon the points B, B, at an altitude, making allowance for refraction, equal to that of the observer at T. Now the points B, B, being three miles from T, would have been the square of three, or nine times 8 inches, or 6 feet below the line of sight, C, T, C, as seen in the following diagram, fig. 8.

On several occasions the six miles of water in the old Bedford Canal have been surveyed by the so-called "forward" process of levelling, which consisted in simply taking a sight of, say 20 chains, or 440 yards, noting the point observed, moving the instrument forward to that point, and taking a second observation; again moving the instrument forward, again observing 20 chains in advance, and so on throughout the whole distance. By this process, without making allowance for convexity, the surface of the water was found to be perfectly horizontal. But when the result was made known to several surveyors, it was contended "that when the theodolite is levelled, it is placed at right angles to the earth's radius--the line of sight from it being a tangent; and that when it is removed 20 chains forward, and again 'levelled,' it becomes a second and different tangent; and that indeed every new position is really a fresh tangent--as shown in the diagram, fig. 9, T 1, T 2, and T 3, representing the theodolite levelled at three different positions, and therefore square to the radii 1, 2, 3. Hence, levelling forward in this way, although making no allowance for rotundity, the rotundity or allowance for it is involved in the process." This is a very ingenious and plausible argument, by which the visible contradiction between the theory of rotundity and the results of practical levelling is explained; and many excellent mathematicians and geodesists have been deceived by it. Logically, however, it will be seen that it is not a proof of rotundity; it is only an explanation or reconciliation of results with the supposition of rotundity, but does not prove it to exist. The following modification was therefore adopted by the author, in order that convexity, if it existed, might be demonstrated. A theodolite was placed at the point A, in fig. 10, and levelled; it was then directed over the flag-staff B to the cross-staff C--the instrument A, the flag-staff B, and the cross-staff C, having exactly the same altitude. The theodolite was then advanced to B, the flag-staff to C, and the cross-staff to D, which was thus secured .as a continuation of one and the same line of sight A, B, C, prolonged to D, the altitude of D being the same as that of A, B, and C. The theodolite was again moved forward to the position C, the flag-staff to D, and the cross-staff to the point E--the line of sight to which was thus again secured as a prolongation of A, B, C, D, to E. The process was repeated to F, and onwards by 20 chain lengths to the end of six miles of the canal, .and parallel with it. By thus having an object between the theodolite and the cross-staff, which object in its turn becomes a test or guide by which the same line of sight is continued throughout the whole length surveyed, the argument or explanation which is dependent upon the supposition of rotundity, and that each position of the theodolite is a different tangent, is completely destroyed. The result of this peculiar or modified survey, which has been several times repeated, was that the line of sight and the surface of the water ran parallel to each other; and as the. line of sight was, in this instance, a right line, the surface of the water for six miles was demonstrably horizontal.

This mode of forward levelling is so very exact and satisfactory, that the following further illustration may be given with advantage. In fig. 11, let A, B, C, represent the first position, respectively of the theodolite, flag-staff, and cross-staff; B, C, D, the second position; C, D, E, the third position; and D, E, F, the fourth; similarly repeated throughout the whole distance surveyed.

The remarks thus made in reference to simple "forward" levelling, apply with equal force to what is called by surveyors the "back-and-fore-sight" process, which consists in reading backwards a distance equal to the distance read forwards. This plan is adopted to obviate the necessity for calculating, or allowing for the earth's supposed convexity. It applies, however, just the same in practice, whether the base or datum line is horizontal or convex; but as it has been proved to be the former, it is evident that "back-and-fore-sight" levelling is a waste of time and skill, and altogether unnecessary. Forward levelling over intervening test or guide staves, as explained by the diagram, fig. 11, is far superior to any of the ordinary methods, and has the great advantage of being purely practical? and not involving any theoretical considerations. Its adoption along the banks of any canal, or lake, or standing water of any kind, or even along the shore of any open sea, will demonstrate to the fullest satisfaction of any practical surveyor that the surface of all water is horizontal.
Although the experiments already described, and many similar ones, have been tried and often repeated, first in 1838, afterwards in 1844, in 1849, in 1856, and in 1862, the author was induced in 1870 to visit the scene of his former labours, and to make some other (one or more) experiment of so simple a character that no error of complicated instrument or process of surveying could possibly be involved. He left London (for Downham Market Station) on Tuesday morning, April 5, 1870, .and arrived at the Old Bedford Sluice Bridge, about two miles from the station, at twelve o'clock. The atmosphere was remarkably clear, and the sun was shining brightly on and against the western face of the bridge. On the right hand side of the arch a large notice-board was affixed (a table of tolls, &c., for navigating the canal). The lowest edge of this board was 6 feet 6 inches above the water, as shown at B, fig. 12.

A train of several empty turf boats had just entered the canal from the River Ouse, and was about proceeding to Romsey, in Huntingdonshire. An arrangement was made with the "Captain" to place the shallowest boat the last in the train; on the lowest part of the stern of this boat a good telescope was fixed--the elevation being exactly 18 inches above the water. The sun was shining strongly against the white notice-board, the air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water "smooth as a molten mirror;" so that everything was extremely favourable for observation. At 1.15, p.m., the train of boats started for Welney. As the boats receded the notice-board was kept in view, and was plainly visible to, the naked eye for several miles; but through the telescope it was distinctly seen throughout the whole distance of six miles. But on reaching Welney Bridge, a very shallow boat was procured, and so fixed that the telescope was brought to within 8 inches of the surface of the water; and still the bottom of the notice-board was clearly visible. The elevation of the telescope being 8 inches, the line of sight would touch the. horizon, if convexity exists, at the distance of one statute mile;. the square of the remaining five miles, multiplied by 8 inches, gives a curvature of 16 feet 8 inches, so that the bottom of the notice-board--6 feet 6 inches above the water--should have been 10 feet 2 inches below the horizon, as shown in fig. 13--B, the notice-board; H, the horizon; and T, the telescope.

The following important experiment has recently been tried at Brighton, in Sussex. On the new or Western Pier a good theodolite was fixed, at an elevation of 30 feet above the water, and directed to a given point on the pier at Worthing, a distance of at least ten statute miles. Several small yachts and other vessels were sailing about between the two piers, one of which was brought to within a few yards of the Brighton Pier, and directed to sail as nearly as possible in a straight line towards the pier at Worthing; when the top of the mast, which scarcely reached the theodolite, was observed to continue below the line of sight throughout the whole distance, as shown in fig. 14?A, representing the theodolite, and B, the pier at Worthing. From which it is concluded that the surface of the water is horizontal throughout the whole length of ten miles. Whereas, if the earth is a globe, the water between the two piers would be an arc of a circle (as shown in fig. 15), the centre of which would be 16 feet 8 inches higher than the two extremities, and the vessel starting. from A, would ascend an inclined plane, rising over 16 feet, to the summit of the arc at C, where the mast-head would stand considerably above the line of sight. From this point the vessel would gradually descend to the point B, at Worthing. As no such behaviour of the vessel was observed, the ten miles of water between the two piers must be horizontal.

[continued in next post...]

The sea horizon, to whatever distance it extends to the right and left of an observer on land, always appears as a perfectly straight line, as represented by H, H, in fig. 16. Not only does it appear to be straight as far as it extends, but it may be proved to be so by the following simple experiment. At any altitude above the sea-level, fix a long board--say from 6 to 12 or more feet in length--edgewise upon tripods, as shown in fig. 17. Let the upper edge be smooth, and perfectly levelled. On placing the eye behind and about the centre of the board B, B, and looking over it towards the sea, the distant horizon will be observed to run perfectly parallel with its upper edge. If the eye be now directed in an angular direction to the left and to the right, there will be no difficulty in observing a length of ten to twenty miles, according to the altitude of the position; and this whole distance of twenty miles of sea horizon will be seen as a perfectly straight line. This would be impossible if the earth were a globe, and the water of the sea convex. Ten miles on each side would give a curvature of 66 feet (102 x 8 = 66 feet 8 inches), and instead of the horizon touching the board along its whole length, it would be seen to gradually decline from the centre C, and to be over 66 feet below the two extremities B, B, as shown in fig. 18. Any vessel approaching from the left would be seen to ascend the inclined plane H, B, C, and on passing the centre would descend from C towards the curvating horizon at H. Such a phenomenon is never observed, and it may be fairly concluded that such convexity or curvature does not exist.

A very striking illustration of the true form of the sea horizon may be observed from the high land in the neighbourhood of the head of Portsmouth Harbour. Looking across Spithead to the Isle of Wight, the base or margin of the island, where water and land come together, appears to be a straight line from east to west, a length of twenty-two statute miles. If a good theodolite is directed upon it, the cross-hair will show that the. land and water line is perfectly horizontal, as shown in fig. 19.
If the earth is globular, the two ends east and west of the Isle of Wight would be 80 feet below the centre, and would appear in the field of view of the theodolite as represented in fig. 20. As a proof that such would be the appearance, the same instrument directed upon any object having an upper outline curved in the smallest degree, will detect and plainly show the curvature in relation to the cross-hair a b; or the levelled board employed in experiment 7, fig. 18, will prove the same condition to exist; viz., that the margin of the Isle of Wight is, for twenty-two miles, a perfectly straight line; and instead of curvating downwards 80 feet each way from the centre, as it certainly would if convexity existed, it is absolutely horizontal.

From the lighthouse on Bidstone Hill, near Liverpool, the. whole length of the Isle of Man, on a clear day and with a good telescope, is distinctly visible, and presents the same horizontal base line as that observed in the Isle of Wight.

From the high land near Douglas harbour, Isle of Man, the whole length of the coast of North Wales is often plainly visible to the naked eye--a distance extending from the point of Ayr, at the mouth of the River Dee, towards Holyhead, not less than fifty miles. Whatever test has been employed, the line, where the sea and the land appear to join, is always found to be perfectly horizontal, as shown in the following diagram; fig. 21. whereas, if the earth is spherical, and therefore the surface of all water convex, such an appearance could not exist. It would of necessity appear as shown in fig. 22. A line stretched horizontally before the observer would not only show the various elevations of the land, but would also show the declination of the horizon H, H, below the cross-line S, S. The fifty miles length of the Welsh coast seen along the horizon in Liverpool Bay, would have a declination from the centre of at least 416 feet (252 x .8 inches = 416 feet 8 inches). But as such declination, or downward curvation, cannot be detected, the conclusion is logically inevitable that it has no existence. Let the reader seriously ask whether any and what reason exists in Nature to prevent the fall of more than 400 feet being visible to the eye, or incapable of detection by any optical or mathematical means whatever. This question is especially important when it is considered that at the same distance, and on the upper outline of the same land, changes of level of only a few yards extent are quickly and unmistakably perceptible. If he is guided by evidence and reason, and influenced by a love of truth and consistency, he cannot longer maintain that the earth is a globe. He must feel that to do so is to war with the evidence of his senses, to deny that any importance attaches to fact and experiment, to ignore entirely the value of logical process, and to cease to rely upon practical induction.

The distance across St. George's Channel, between Holyhead and Kingstown Harbour, near Dublin, is at least 60 statute miles. It is not an uncommon thing for passengers to notice, when in, and for a considerable distance beyond the centre of the Channel, the Light on Holyhead Pier, and the Poolbeg Light in Dublin Bay, as shown in fig. 23. The Lighthouse on Holyhead Pier shows a red light at an elevation of 44 feet above high water; and the Poolbeg Lighthouse exhibits two bright lights at an altitude of 68 feet; so that a vessel in the middle of the Channel would be 30 miles from each light; and allowing the observer to be on deck, and 24 feet above the water, the horizon on a globe would be 6 miles away. Deducting 6 miles from 30, the distance from the horizon to Holyhead, on the one hand, and to Dublin Bay on the other, would be 24 miles. The square of 24, multiplied by 8 inches, shows a declination of 384 feet. The altitude of the lights in Poolbeg Lighthouse is 68 feet; and of the red light on Holyhead Pier, 44 feet. Hence, if the earth were a globe, the former would always be 16 feet and the latter 340 feet below the horizon, as seen in the following diagram, fig. 24. The line of sight H, S, would be a tangent touching the horizon at H, and passing more than 300 feet over the top of each lighthouse.

Many instances could be given of lights being visible at sea for distances which would be utterly impossible upon a globular surface of 25,000 miles in circumference. The following are examples:--
"The coal fire (which was once used) on the Spurn Point Lighthouse, at the mouth of the Humber, which was constructed on a good principle for burning, has been seen 30 miles off." 1
Allowing 16 feet for the altitude of the observer (which is more than is considered necessary, 2 10 feet being the standard; but 6 feet may be added for the height of the eye above the deck), 5 miles must be taken from the 30 miles, as the distance of the horizon. The square of 5 miles, multiplied by 8 inches, gives 416 feet; deducting the altitude of the light, 93 feet, we have 323 feet as the amount this light should be below the horizon.

The above calculation is made on the supposition that statute miles are intended, but it is very probable that nautical measure is understood; and if so, the light would be depressed fully 600 feet.
The Eger? Light, on west point of Island, south coast of Norway, is fitted up with the first order of the dioptric lights, is visible 28 statute miles, and the altitude above high water is 154 feet. On making the proper calculation it will be found that this light ought to be sunk below the horizon 230 feet.
The Dunkerque Light, on the south coast of France, is 194 feet high, and is visible 28 statute miles. The ordinary calculation shows that it ought to be 190 feet below the horizon.

The Cordonan Light, on the River Gironde, west coast of France, is visible 31 statute miles, and its altitude is 207 feet, which would give its depression below the horizon as nearly 280 feet.
The Light at Madras, on the Esplanade, is 132 feet high, and is visible 28 statute miles, at which distance it ought to be beneath the horizon more than 250 feet.

The Port Nicholson Light, in New Zealand (erected in 1859), is visible 35 statute miles, the altitude being 420 feet above high water. If the water is convex it ought to be 220 feet below the horizon.
The Light on Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland, is 150 feet above high water, and is visible 35 statute miles. These figures will give, on calculating for the earth's rotundity, 491 feet as the distance it should be sunk below the sea horizon.

The above are but a few cases selected from the work referred to in the note on page 29. Many others could be given equally important, as showing the discrepancies between the theory of the earth's rotundity and the practical experience of nautical men.

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 1851, 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.

The following remarks from the Encyclop?dia Brittanica--article, "Levelling"--bear on the question:--
"We suppose the visual ray to be a straight line, whereas on account of the unequal densities of the air at different distances from the earth, the rays of light are incurvated by refraction. The effect of this is to lessen the difference between the true and apparent levels, but in such an extremely variable and uncertain manner that if any constant or fixed allowance is made for it in formula or tables, it will often lead to a greater error than what it was intended to obviate. For though the refraction may at a mean compensate for about one-seventh of the curvature of the earth, it sometimes exceeds one-fifth, and at other times does not amount to one-fifteenth. We have, therefore, made no allowance for refraction in the foregone formul?."

It will be seen from the above that, in practice, refraction need not be allowed for. It can only exist when the line of "sight passes from one medium into another of different density; or where the same medium differs at the point of observation and the point observed. If we allow for the amount of refraction which the ordnance surveyors have adopted, viz., one-twelfth of the altitude of the object observed, and apply it to the various experiments made on the Old Bedford Canal, it will make very little difference in the actual results. In the experiment, fig. 3 for instance, where the top of the flag on the boat should have been 11 feet 8 inches below the horizon, deducting one-twelfth for refraction, would only reduce it to a few inches less than 10 feet.

Others, not being able to deny the fact that the surface of the water in the Old Bedford and other canals is horizontal, have thought that a solution of the difficulty was to be found in supposing the canal to be a kind of "trough" cut into the surface of the earth; and have considered that although the earth is a globe, such a canal or "trough" might exist on its surface as a chord of the arc terminating at each end. This, however, could only be possible if the earth were motionless. But the theory which demands rotundity of the earth also requires rotary motion, and this produces centrifugal force. Therefore the centrifugal action of the revolving earth would, of necessity, throw the waters of the surface away from the centre. This action being equal .at equal distances, and being retarded by the attraction of gravitation (which the theory includes), which is also equal at equal distances, the surface of every distinct and entire mass of water must stand equi-distant from the earth's centre, and, therefore, must be convex, or an arc of a circle. Equi-distant from a centre means, in a scientific sense, "level." Hence the necessity for using the term horizontal to distinguish between "level" and "straight."

If we stand upon the deck of a ship, or mount to the mast-lead, or ascend above the earth in a balloon and look over the sea, the surface appears as a vast inclined plane rising up from beneath us, until in the distance it reaches the level of the eye, and intercepts the line-of-sight.

If a good plane mirror be held vertically in the opposite direction, the horizon will be reflected as a well defined mark or line across the centre, as represented in fig. 25, H, H, the sea horizon, which rises and falls with the observer, and is always on a level with his eye. If he takes a position where the water surrounds him--as, on the deck or the mast-head of a ship out of sight of land, or on the summit of an island far from the mainland--the surface of the sea appears to rise up on all sides equally, and to surround him like the walls of an immense amphitheatre. He seems to be in the centre of a large concavity--a vast watery basin--the circular edge of which expands or contracts as he takes a higher or lower position. This appearance is so. well known to sea-going travellers that nothing more need be said in its support; but the appearance from a balloon is only familiar to a very few observers, and therefore it will be useful to quote the words of some of those who have written upon the subject.

"THE APPARENT CONCAVITY OF THE EARTH AS SEEN FROM A BALLOON.--A perfectly-formed circle encompassed the visibly; planisphere beneath, or rather the concavo-sphere it might now be called, for I had attained a height from which the earth assumed a regularly hollowed or concave appearance--an optical illusion which increases as you recede from it. At the greatest elevation I attained, which was about a mile-and-a-half, the appearance of the world around me assumed a shape or form like that which is made by placing two watch glasses together by their edges, the balloon apparently in the central cavity all the time of its flight at that elevation."--Wise's A?ronautics.

"Another curious effect of the a?rial ascent was that the earth, when we were at our greatest altitude, positively appeared concave, looking like a huge dark bowl, rather than the convex sphere such as we naturally expect to see it. . . . The horizon always appears to be on a level with our eye, and seems to rise as we rise, until at length the elevation of the circular boundary line of the sight becomes so marked that the earth assumes the anomalous appearance as we have said of a concave rather than a convex body."--Mayhew's Great World of London.

[continued in next post]

"The chief peculiarity of a view from a balloon at a consider-able elevation, was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye, at an elevation of two miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary."--London Journal, July 18th, 1857.

Mr. Elliott, an American a?ronaut, in a letter giving an account of his ascension from Baltimore, thus speaks of the appearance of the earth from a balloon:-- "I don't know that I ever hinted heretofore that the a?ronaut may well be the most sceptical man about the rotundity of the earth. Philosophy imposes the truth upon us; but the view of the earth from the elevation of a balloon is that of an immense terrestrial basin, the deeper part of which is that directly under one's feet. As we ascend, the earth beneath us seems to recede--actually to sink away--while the horizon gradually and gracefully lifts a diversified slope, stretching away farther and farther to a line that, at the highest elevation, seems to close with the sky. Thus, upon a clear day, the a?ronaut feels as if suspended at about an equal distance between the vast blue oceanic concave above and the equally expanded terrestrial basin below."

During the important balloon ascents, recently made for scientific purposes by Mr. Coxwell and Mr. Glaisher, of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, the same phenomenon was observed.

"The horizon always appeared on a level with the car."--See Mr. Glaisher's Report, in "Leisure Hour," for October 11, 1862.

"The plane of the earth offers another delusion to the traveller in air, to whom it appears as a concave surface, and who surveys the line of the horizon as an unbroken circle, rising up, in relation to the hollow of the concave hemisphere, like the rim of a shallow inverted watch-glass, to the height of the eye of the observer, how high soever he may be--the blue atmosphere above closing over it like the corresponding hemisphere reversed."--Glaisher's Report, in "Leisure Hour," for May 21, 1864.

The appearance referred to in the several foregoing extracts is represented in the following diagram, fig. 26. The surface of the earth C, D, appears to rise up to the level of the observer in the car of the balloon; and at the same time, the sky A, B, seems to descend and to meet the earth at the horizon H, H.

On the eastern pier at Brighton (Sussex) a large wooden quadrant was fixed on a stand, the upper surface placed square to a plumb line, and directed towards the east, then to the south, and afterwards to the west., On looking over this upper surface the line of sight in each case seemed to meet the horizon, H, H, as shown in fig. 27. The altitude of the quadrant was 34 feet; hence, if the earth is a globe, the water would have curvated downwards from the pier, the horizon would have been more than seven miles away, and 34 feet below the surface immediately beneath the observer; which depression, added to the elevation of the quadrant on the pier, would give 68 feet as the amount the horizon H, H, would have been below the line of sight A, B, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 28.

To touch the horizon on a convex surface the line of sight, A, C, C B, would have to "dip" in the direction C, H; as no such "dip" of the eye line is required, convexity cannot exist.

In the case of the balloon at an altitude of two miles, the horizon would have been 127 miles away, and more than 10,000. feet below the summit of the arc of water underneath the balloon, and over 20,000 feet below the line of sight A, B, as shown in fig. 29; and the "dip" C, H, from C, B, to the horizon H, would be so great that the a?ronaut could not fail to observe it; instead of which he always sees it "on a level with his eye," "rising as he rises," and "at the highest elevation, seeming to close with the sky."

The author has seen and tested this apparent rising of the water and the sea horizon to the level of the eye, and to an eye-line at right angles to a plumb-line, from many different places--the high ground near the race-course, at Brighton, in Sussex, from several hills in the Isle of Wight; various places near Plymouth, looking towards the Eddystone Lighthouse; the "Steep Holm," in the Bristol Channel; the Hill of Howth, and "Ireland's Eye," near Dublin; various parts of the Isle of Man, "Arthur's Seat," near Edinburgh; the cliffs at Tynemouth; the rocks at Cromer, in Norfolk; from the top of Nelson's Monument, at Great Yarmouth; and from many other elevated positions. But in Ireland, in Scotland, and in several parts of England, he has been challenged by surveyors to make use of the theodolite, or ordinary "spirit level," to test this appearance of the horizon. It was affirmed that, through this instrument, when "levelled," the horizon always appeared below the cross-hair, as shown in fig. 30--C, C, the cross-hair, and H, H, the horizon.

In every instance when the experiment was tried, this appearance was found to exist; but it was noticed that different instruments gave different degrees of horizontal depression below the cross-hair. The author saw at once that this peculiarity depended upon the construction of the instruments. He ascertained that in those of the very best construction, and of the most perfect adjustment, there existed a certain degree of refraction, or, as it is called technically, "collimation," or a slight divergence of the rays of light from the axis of the eye, on passing through the several glasses of the theodolite. He therefore obtained an iron tube, about 18 inches in length; one end was closed, except a very small aperture in the centre; and at the other end cross-hairs were fixed. A spirit level was then attached, and the whole carefully adjusted. On directing it, from a considerable elevation, towards the sea, and looking through the small aperture at one end, the cross-hair at the opposite end was seen to cut or to fall close to the horizon, as shown at fig. 31. This has been tried in various places, and at different altitudes, and always with the same result; showing clearly that the horizon visible below the cross-hair of an ordinary levelling instrument is the result of refraction, from looking through the various glasses of the telescope; for on looking through an instrument in every respect the same in construction, except being free from lenses, a different result is observed, and one precisely the same as that seen from a balloon, from any promontory, and in the experiment at Brighton, shown in fig. 27, p. 39.

These comparative experiments cannot fail to satisfy any unbiassed observer that in every levelling instrument where lenses are employed, there is, of necessity, more or less divergence of the line of sight from the true or normal axis; and that however small the amount--perhaps inappreciable in short lengths of observation--it is considerable in distances of several miles. Every scientific surveyor of experience is fully aware of this and other peculiarities in all such instruments, and is always ready to make allowances for them in important surveys. As a, still further proof of this behaviour of the telescopic levelling instruments, the following simple experiment may be tried. Select a piece of ground--a terrace, promenade, line of railway, or embankment, which shall be perfectly horizontal for, say, five hundred yards. Let a signal staff, 5 feet high, be erected at one end, and a theodolite or spirit level fixed and carefully adjusted to exactly the same altitude at the other end. The top of the signal will then be seen a little below the cross-hair, although it has the same actual altitude, and stands upon the same horizontal foundation. If the positions of the signal staff and the spirit level be then reversed, the same result will follow.

Another proof will be found in the following experiment. Select any promontory, pier, lighthouse gallery, or small island, and, at a considerable altitude, place a smooth block of wood or stone of any magnitude; let this be "levelled." If, then, the observer will place his eye close to the block, and look along its surface towards the sea, he will find that the line of sight will touch the distant horizon. Now let any number of spirit levels or theodolites be properly placed, and accurately adjusted; and it will be found that, in every one of them, the same sea horizon will appear in the field of view considerably below the cross-hair; thus, proving that telescopic instrumental readings are not the same as those of the naked eye.

In a work entitled "A Treatise on Mathematical Instruments," by J. F. Heather, M.A., of the Royal Military College, Woolwich, published by Weale, High Holborn, London, elaborate directions are given for examining, correcting, and adjusting the collimation, &c.; and at page 103, these directions are concluded by the following words: "The instrument will now be in complete practical adjustment for any distance not exceeding ten chains (220 yards), the maximum error being only 1/1000 of a foot.

At this stage of the enquiry two distinct questions naturally arise: First, if the earth is a plane, why does the sea at all times appear to rise to the axis of the eye? and secondly, would not the same appearance exist if the earth were a globe? It is a simple fact, that two lines running parallel for a considerable distance will, to an observer placed between them at one end, appear to converge or come together at the other end. The top and bottom and sides of a long room, or an equally bored tunnel, will afford a good example of this appearance; but perhaps a still better illustration is given by the two metallic lines of a long portion of any railway. In fig. 32, let A, B, and C, D, represent the two lines of a straight portion of horizontal railway. If an observer be placed at G, he will see the two lines apparently meeting each other towards H, from the following cause:--Let G represent the eye looking, first, as far only as figs. 1 and 2, the space between 1 and 2 will then be seen by the eye at G, under the angle 1, G, 2. On looking as far as figs. 3 and 4, the space between 3 and 4 will be seen under the diminished angle 3, G, 4. Again on looking forward to the points 5 and 6, the space between the rails would be represented by the angle 5, G, 6; and, as will at once be seen, the greater the distance observed, the more acute the angle at the eye, and therefore the nearer together will the rails appear. Now if one of these rails should be an arc of a circle and diverge from the other, as in the diagram fig. 33, it is evident that the effect upon the eye at G, would be different to that shown by the diagram fig. 32. The line G, 4, would become a tangent to the arc C, D, and could never approach the line G, H, nearer than the point T. The same may be said of lines drawn to 6, opposite 5, and to all greater distances--none could rise higher than the tangent point T. Hence allowing A, B, to represent the sky, and C, D, the surface of the water of a globe, it is evident that A, B, could appear to decline or come down to the point H, practically to a level with the eye at G; but that C, D, could never, by the operation of any known law of optics, rise to the line G, H, and therefore any observation made upon a globular surface, could not possibly produce the effect observed from a balloon, or in any experiment like that represented in.

From the foregoing details the following arguments may be constructed:-- Right lines, running parallel with each other, appear to approach in the distance. The eye-line, and the surface of the earth and sky, run parallel with each other; Ergo, the earth and sky appear to approach in the distance. Lines which appear to approach in the distance are parallel lines. The surface of the earth appears to approach the eye-line; Ergo, the surface of the earth is parallel with the eye-line. The eye-line is a right line. The surface of the earth is parallel or equi-distant; Ergo, the surface of the earth is a right line--a plane.

On the shore near Waterloo, a few miles to the north of Liverpool, a good telescope was fixed, at an elevation of 6 feet above the water. It was directed to a large steamer, just leaving the River Mersey, and sailing out to Dublin. Gradually the mast-head of the receding vessel came nearer to the horizon, until, at length, after more than four hours had elapsed, it disappeared. The ordinary rate of sailing of the Dublin steamers was fully eight miles an hour; so that the vessel would be, at least, thirty-two miles distant when the mast-head came to the horizon. The 6 feet of elevation of the telescope would require three miles to be deducted for convexity, which would leave twenty-nine miles, the square of which, multiplied by 8 inches, gives 560 feet; deducting 80 feet for the height of the main-mast, and we find that, according to the doctrine of rotundity, the mast-head of the outward bound steamer should have been 480 feet below the horizon.

Many other experiments of this kind have been made upon sea-going steamers, and always with results entirely incompatible with the theory that the earth is a globe.

The following sketch, fig. 34, represents a contracted section of the London and North-Western Railway, from London to Liverpool, through Birmingham. The line A, B, is the surface, with its various inclines and altitudes, and C, D, is the datum line from which all the elevations are measured; H, is the station at Birmingham, the elevation of which is 240 feet above the datum line C, D, which line is a continuation of the level of the River Thames at D, to the level of the River Mersey, at C. The direct length of this line is 180 miles; and it is a right or absolutely straight line, in a vertical sense, from London to Liverpool. Therefore, the station at Birmingham is 240 feet above the level of the Thames, continued as a right line throughout the whole length of the railway. But if the earth is a globe, the datum line will be the chord of the arc D, D, D, fig. 35, and the summit of the arc at D, will be 5400 feet above the chord at C; added to the altitude of the station H, 240 feet, the Birmingham station, H, would be, if the earth is a globe, 5640 feet above the horizontal datum D, D, or vertically above the Trinity high water mark, at London Bridge. It is found, practically, and in fact, not to be more than 240 feet; hence the theory of rotundity must be a fallacy. Sections of all other railways will give similar proofs that the earth is in. reality a plane.

The tunnel just completed under Mont Fr?jus, affords a very striking illustration of the truth. that the earth is a plane, and not globular. The elevation above the sea-level of the entrance at Fourneaux, on the French side of the Alps, is 3946 feet, and of the entrance on the Italian side, 4381 feet. The length of the tunnel is 40,000 feet, or nearly eight English statute miles. The gradient or rise, from the entrance on the French side to the summit of the tunnel, is 445 feet; and on the opposite side, 10 feet. It will be seen from the following account, given by M. Kossuth, 1 that the geodetic operations were carried on in connection with a right line, as the axis of the tunnel, and therefore with a horizontal datum which is quite incompatible with the doctrine of rotundity. That the earth is a plane is involved in all the details of the survey, as the following quotation will show:--
"The observatories placed at the two entrances to the tunnel were used for the necessary observations, and each observatory contained an instrument constructed for the purpose. This instrument was placed on a pedestal of masonry, the top of which was covered with a horizontal slab of marble, having engraved upon its surface two intersecting lines, marking a point which was exactly in the vertical plane containing the axis of the tunnel. The instrument was formed of two supports fixed on a tripod, having a delicate screw adjustment. The telescope was similar to that of a theodolite provided with cross-webs, and strongly illuminated by the light from a lantern, concentrated by a lens and projected upon the cross-webs. In using this instrument in checking the axis of the gallery at the northern entrance, for example; after having proved precisely that the vertical plane, corresponding with the point of intersection of the lines upon the slab, also passed through the centre of the instrument, a visual line was then conveyed to the station at Lochalle (on the mountain), and on the instrument being lowered, the required number of points could be fixed in the axis of the tunnel. In executing such an operation, it was necessary that the tunnel should be free from smoke or vapour. The point of collimation was a plummet, suspended from the roof of the tunnel by means of an iron rectangular frame, in one side of which a number of notches were cut, and the plummet shifted from notch to notch, in accordance with the signals of the operator at the observatory. These signals were given to the man whose business it was to adjust the plummet, by means of a telegraph or a horn. The former was found invaluable throughout all these operations.

[continued in next post]

"At the Bardonnecchia (Italian) entrance, the instrument employed in setting out the axis of the tunnel was similar to the one already described, with the exception that it was mounted on a little carriage, resting on vertical columns that were erected at distances 500 metres apart in the axis of the tunnel. By the help of the carriage, the theodolite was first placed on the centre line approximately. It was then brought exactly into line by a fine adjustment screw, which moved the eye-piece without shifting the carriage. In order to understand more clearly the method of operating the instrument, the mode of proceeding may be described. In setting out a prolongation of the centre line of the tunnel, the instrument was placed upon the last column but one; a light was stationed upon the last column, and exactly in its centre; and 500 metres ahead a trestle frame was placed across the tunnel. Upon the horizontal bar of this trestle several notches were cut, against which a light was placed, and fixed with proper adjusting screws. The observer standing at the instrument, caused the light to move upon the trestle frame, until it was brought into an exact line with the instrument and the first line; and then the centre of the light was projected with a plummet. In this way the exact centre was found. By a repetition of similar operations the vertical plane containing the axis of the tunnel was laid out by a series of plummet lines. During the intervals that elapsed between consecutive operations with the instrument, the plummets were found to be sufficient for maintaining the direction in making the excavation. To maintain the proper gradients in the tunnel, it was necessary, at intervals, to establish fixed levels, deducing them by direct levelling from standard bench marks, placed at short distances from the entrance. The fixed level marks, in the inside of the tunnel, are made upon stone pillars, placed at intervals of 25 metres, and to these were referred the various points in setting out the gradients."

The theodolite "was placed on a pedestal of masonry, the top of which was covered with a horizontal slab of marble, having engraved upon its surface two intersecting lines, marking a point which was exactly in the vertical plane containing the axis of the tunnel." This slab was the starting point--the datum which determined the gradients. Its horizontal surface, prolonged through the mountain, passed 445 feet below the summit of the tunnel, and 435 feet below the entrance on the Italian side. This entrance was 4381 feet above the sea, and 435 feet above the horizontal marble slab on the French side. But, if the earth is a globe, the datum line from this horizontal slab would be a tangent, from which the sea-level would curvate downwards to the extent of 42 feet; and the summit of the tunnel, instead of being 10 feet above the Italian entrance, would, of necessity, be 52 feet above it. It is not so, and therefore the datum line is not a tangent, but runs parallel to the sea; the sea-level not convex, and the earth not a globe. This will be rendered plain by the following diagram, fig. 36. Let A represent the summit of the tunnel, and A, T, the axis or centre determined by the theodolite T; S, the marble slab; and D, S, the datum line, running parallel with the sea-level H, H. B, the Italian entrance, at an elevation of 435 feet above D, S, and 4381 feet above the surface of the sea, H, H; A, the summit of the tunnel, 445 feet above the French entrance at T, the same above the datum line D, S; and 4391 feet above the sea-line, H, H. If the earth is a globe, the line, D, S, would be a tangent to the sea at H, S, from which point the sea surface would curvate 52 feet downwards, as shown in diagram, fig. 37. Hence, the elevation of the tunnel at B, would be 52 feet higher above the sea at H, than it is known to be; because taking D, S, as a tangent, and the length of the tunnel being 8 miles--82 miles x 8 inches = 52 feet.

Thus, in a length of 8 statute miles of the most skilful engineering operations, carried on by the most accomplished scientific men, there is a difference between theory and practice of 52 feet! Rather than such a reproach should attach to some of the most eminent practical engineers of the day--those especially who have, with such consummate skill and perseverance, completed one of the most gigantic undertakings of modern times--let the false idea of rotundity in the earth be entirely discarded, and the simple truth acknowledged, that the earth is a plane. It is adopted in practice, why should it be denied in the abstract? Why should the education given in our schools and universities include a forced recognition of a theory which, when practically applied, must ever be ignored and contradicted?

The completion of the great ship canal, which connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez, on the Red Sea, furnishes another instance of entire discrepancy between the theory of the earth's rotundity and the results of practical engineering. The canal is 100 English statute miles in length, and is entirely without locks; so that the water within it is really a continuation of the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. "The average level of the Mediterranean is 6 inches above the Red Sea; but the flood tides in the Red Sea rise 4 feet above the highest, and its ebbs fall nearly 3 feet below the lowest in the Mediterranean." The datum line is 26 feet below the level of the Mediterranean, and is continued horizontally from one sea to the other; and throughout the whole length of the work, the surface of the water runs parallel with this datum, as shown in the following section, fig. 38, published by the authorities. A, A, A, A, is the surface of the canal, passing through several lakes, from one sea to the other; D, D, the bed of the canal, or horizontal datum line to which the various elevations of land, &c., are referred, but parallel to which stands the surface of the water throughout the entire length of the canal; thus proving that the half-tide level of the Red Sea, the 100 miles of water in the canal, and the surface of the Mediterranean Sea, are a continuation of one and the same horizontal line. If the earth is globular, the water in the centre of the canal, being 50 miles from each end, would be the summit of an arc of a circle, and would stand at more than 1600 feet above the Mediterranean and Red Seas (502 x 8 inches = 1666 feet 8 inches), as shown in diagram, fig. 39. A, the Mediterranean Sea; B, the Red Sea; and A, C, B, the arc of water connecting them; D, D, the horizontal datum, which, if the earth is globular, would really be the chord of the arc, A, C, B.

The bed of the Atlantic Ocean, from Valencia (western coast of Ireland) to Trinity Bay, Newfoundland, as surveyed for the laying of the cable, is another illustration or proof that the surface of the great waters of the earth is horizontal, and not convex, as will be seen by the following diagram, contracted from the section, published October 8, 1869, by the Admiralty. C, D, is the horizontal datum line, and A, B, the surface of the water, for a distance of 1665 nautical, or 1942 statute miles. At about one-third the distance from A, Newfoundland, the greatest depth is found--2424 fathoms; the next deepest part is 2400 fathoms; at about two-thirds the distance from A, towards B, Ireland, while in the centre, the depth is less than 1600 fathoms; whereas, if the water of the Atlantic is convex, the centre would stand 628,560 feet, or nearly 120 miles, higher than the two stations, Trinity Bay and Valencia; and the greatest depth would be in the centre of the Atlantic Ocean, where it would be 106,310 fathoms, instead of 1550 fathoms, which it is proved to be by actual soundings. Fig. 41 shows the arc of water which would exist, in relation to the horizontal datum line, between Ireland and Newfoundland, if the earth is a globe. Again, if the water in the Atlantic Ocean is convex--a part of a great sphere of 25,000 miles circumference--the horizontal datum line would be a chord to the great arc of water above it; and the distance across the bed of the Atlantic would therefore be considerably less than the distance over the surface. The length of the cable which was laid in 1866, notwithstanding the known irregularities of the bed of the Ocean, would be less than the distance sailed by the paying-out vessel, the "Great Eastern;" whereas, according to the published report, the distance run by the steamer was 1665 miles, while the length of cable payed out was 1852 miles. It is important to bear in mind that all the foregoing remarks and calculations are made in connection with the fact that the datum line, to which all elevations and depressions are referred, is horizontal, and not an arc of a circle. For many years past, all the great surveys have been made on this principle; but that no doubt may exist in the mind of the reader, the following extract is given from the Standing Orders of the Houses of Lords and Commons on Railway Operations, for the Session of 1862. "The section shall be drawn to the same horizontal scale as the plan, and to a vertical scale of not less than one inch to every one hundred feet; and shall show the surface of the ground marked on the plan, the intended level of the proposed work, the height of every embankment, and the depth of every cutting, and a datum horizontal line, which shall be the same throughout the whole length of the work; or any branch thereof On the page opposite that of the above Standing Order, a section is given to illustrate the meaning of the words of the order--special reference being made to the line D, D, as showing what is intended by the words "datum horizontal line." The drawing of the section there given, and which is insisted upon by Government, is precisely the same as the sections recently published of all the great railways, of the Suez Canal, of the bed of the Atlantic Ocean, taken for the purposes of laying the Electric Cable, and of many other works connected with railways deep-sea ordnance, and other surveying operations. In all these extensive surveys the doctrine of rotundity is, of necessity, entirely ignored; and the principle that the earth is a plane is practically adopted, and found to be the only one consistent with the results, and agreeing with the plans of the great surveyors and engineers of the day.

If a good theodolite is placed on the summit of Shooter's Hill, in Kent, and levelled, the line of sight, on being directed to Hampstead Hill, will cut the cross on St. Paul's Cathedral, and fall upon a part of Hampstead Hill, the altitude of which is the same as that of Shooter's Hill. The altitude of each of these points is 412 feet above the Trinity high water mark, at London Bridge. The distance from Shooter's Hill to St. Paul's Cathedral is 7 statute miles, and from St. Paul's to Hampstead Hill, 5 miles. If the earth is a globe, the line of sight from the "levelled" theodolite would be a tangent, below which St. Paul's cross would be 32 feet, and Hampstead Hill 96 feet. The highest point of Hampstead Hill is 430 feet, which we find, on making the proper calculation, would be 78 feet below the summit of Shooter's Hill; whereas, according to the Ordnance Survey, and as may be proved by experiment, the three points are in the same direct line; again demonstrating that the earth is a plane.

The diagrams, figs. 42 and 43, will show the difference between the theory of rotundity and the results of actual survey. A, represents Hampstead Hill; C, St. Paul's cross; B, Shooter's Hill; and D, D, the datum line--the Trinity high water mark. In fig. 43, A, B, C, and D, D, represent the same points respectively as in fig. 42. In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.

From the first floor of the "grand" hotel, opposite the new or western pier, at Brighton, in Sussex, a well-constructed instrument, called a "Clinometer," was "levelled," and directed towards the sea. The water seemed to ascend as an inclined plane, until it intercepted the line of sight at the point H 1, as shown in fig. 44. On taking the instrument to a higher position, again "levelling," and looking over the sea, the surface seemed to ascend a second time, until it met the eye-line at H 2. The instrument was then taken to the highest room, and again directed to the sea, when the uprising surface was again seen to meet the eye-line, as at the point H 3 As already shown, these results are precisely those which an optical or perspective law produces, in connection with a right line, or a plane surface. Upon a globular surface, the appearance would necessarily be as seen in fig. 45. From the position A, the horizon would be seen at H 1, and at a considerable angle downwards; from B, the horizon would be at H 2; and from C, at II 3; and the downward angle, or "dip," would increase as the altitude of the observer increased. But as nothing of the kind is anywhere to be seen, and the directly contrary at all times visible, we are compelled by the force of practical evidence to deny the existence of rotundity, and to declare that, "to all intents and purposes," absolutely and logically, beyond doubt, THE EARTH IS A VAST IRREGULAR PLANE.

In some of the selections above, most of which are from Earth Not A Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, illustrations help to get the full benefit of the reading. These were removed by me in order to preserve loading time in this post, however feel free to read the book for yourself if you wish. A link is provided at the bottom of this post.

Rowbotham's experiments have been repeated time and time again and continue to prove that the earth is flat... one such example is provided in the following selection. It describes how a certain Lady Blout recreated one of Rowbotham's experiments. 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.

A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water. The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. The train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible, and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat moored near them.

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). The curvature of the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd. A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!

There are plenty of phenomena that supposedly ?prove? the shape of the earth however these have been addressed plenty of times on the forums and I see no point in going into them now. But I will say that the mind will believe what it is made to believe; if it is told again and again that the earth is a sphere, the earth is a sphere, and asked to accept that without questioning, it will naturally do so. This is one of many, many things told to us in school as fact when in reality it is just a theory. One of Adolf Hitler's ministers of propaganda once defended the school system, saying that it is the absolute right of the state to monitor the formation of public opinion. This is what schools are for... that, and to condition people to behave in a way beneficial to government and big businesses. Did you know that the school system was originally designed to create good factory workers? However I'm getting off track here... you asked me to prove the shape of the earth, so let me stay true to the topic at hand.

[continued in next post]

In Round Earth theory it is stated that people magically stick to the earth. Ask any round earther why this is and he will simply shrug and respond, ?Gravity.? If you ask, ?What is gravity?? He'll likely respond, ?It is what keeps us from falling off of the earth.? This is very clearly circular logic. We stick to the earth because of gravity, and gravity is what makes us stick to the earth. Gravity as a force actually doesn't exist in either round earth theory or flat earth theory. Gravity is just a word, like zebra-horsintime, and few people actually understand what it supposedly means ? if they did, they would realize it doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up. One could just as easily respond that ?zebra-horsintime? is what keeps us stuck to the earth. It doesn't mean anything. It's just a word.

Now, I feel I have proven pretty conclusively that the earth is flat. There is too much evidence to deny such a glaring bold truth. Stop going to all this trouble to justify the contradiction of your own eyes, of your own common sense! Just take a deep breath and relieve yourself of the burden. Accept the truth, and the truth will set you free.

I have gone to quite a bit of trouble to type this whole thing up for you, so I would very much appreciate it if you would show a bit of gratitude... round earthers on this site can often be pretty rude and demanding, and then wonder why no flat earthers want to answer their questions, coming to the bold conclusion that they are ?afraid? to answer. Well, no one is afraid, and I have done this for your benefit despite your rudeness, however, if you choose to show no gratitude or appreciation, don't expect me to ever answer your questions again. I'm sorry if this comes off as harsh but it has to be said.

Every necessary condition had been fulfilled, and the result was to the last degree definite and satisfactory. The conclusion was unavoidable that the surface of the water for a length of six miles did not to any appreciable extent decline or curvate downwards from the line of sight. But if the earth is a globe, the surface of the six miles length of water would have been 6 feet higher in the centre than at the two extremities, as shown in diagram fig. 2; but as the telescope was only 8 inches above the water, the highest point of the surface would have been at one mile from the place of observation; and below this point the surface of the water at the end of the remaining five miles would have been 16 feet.

Did Rowbotham ever consider that what he was seeing through his telescope was actually a refractive phenomenon known as "looming"?

Looming and sinking are the simplest of all the refraction phenomena. They're simply abnormally large and small refraction, respectively. As was first shown by Lambert (1759), a constant density gradient in the lower atmosphere produces only a vertical displacement of distant objects, not a distortion. So looming is just an exaggeration of normal refraction, produced by a steeper than usual decrease in density with height.

Quote from: W on September 10, 2009, 06:41:29 PM

Every necessary condition had been fulfilled, and the result was to the last degree definite and satisfactory. The conclusion was unavoidable that the surface of the water for a length of six miles did not to any appreciable extent decline or curvate downwards from the line of sight. But if the earth is a globe, the surface of the six miles length of water would have been 6 feet higher in the centre than at the two extremities, as shown in diagram fig. 2; but as the telescope was only 8 inches above the water, the highest point of the surface would have been at one mile from the place of observation; and below this point the surface of the water at the end of the remaining five miles would have been 16 feet.

Did Rowbotham ever consider that what he was seeing through his telescope was actually a refractive phenomenon known as "looming"?

Quote from: http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/mirages/mirsims/loom/loom.html

Looming and sinking are the simplest of all the refraction phenomena. They're simply abnormally large and small refraction, respectively. As was first shown by Lambert (1759), a constant density gradient in the lower atmosphere produces only a vertical displacement of distant objects, not a distortion. So looming is just an exaggeration of normal refraction, produced by a steeper than usual decrease in density with height.

I don't know, I never had the chance to ask him.