EnaG Experiments Critiqued One At A Time

To see the figures please visit: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm
EXPERIMENT 1.

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

p. 12

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

 
FIG. 2.

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

p. 13

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.

 
FIG. 3.

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 rather infamous experiment is faulty by design. In order to assure that shape of the canal does not affect the observation, the observation must be made in the opposite direction at the same time. Without this second observation, the protocol is faulty and the experiment considered inconclusive. Second, to avoid the effect of temperature inversions, the experiment must be repeated under various temperatures and wind conditions. Without this variation the protocol is again faulty and the experiment considered inconclusive.

The definitive result is in favor of the RET. Please reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment and its citations.

I would like to point out that experiment has also caused the earth to appear concave on several occasions, flat on others and round on yet others again, all depending on the temperature.

 I would like to point out that "a good telescope" parameters aren't specified anywhere. So, if you cared to replicate the experiment and proved otherwise, that earth isn't flat, then you get mountain of accusations that you weren't using "a good telescope" from FEers.

I'll do polaris:

Another phenomenon supposed to prove rotundity, is thought to be the fact that Polaris, or the north polar star

p. 231

sinks to the horizon as the traveller approaches the equator, on passing which it becomes invisible. This is a conclusion fully as premature and illogical as that involved in the several cases already alluded to. It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the "vanishing point" or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible.

What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower.

This lowering of the pole star as we recede southwards; and the rising of the stars in the south as we approach them, is the necessary result of the everywhere visible law of perspective operating between the eye-line of the observer, the object observed, and the plane surface upon which

p. 232

he stands; and has no connection with or relation whatever to the supposed rotundity of the earth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a popular thing that Zets do. Holding the Earth as flat, they logically conclude that phenomena can be explained by any mechanism that they deem fit, without actually doing the mathematics behind it. Here, Robowtham's reasoning is wrong, because he does not consider the degree that perspective would have. using parralax and other methods, we find that the Pole Star is several light years away, so if we move only 10,000km on the same plane, the star would hardley move, much less go towards the horizon

Or you can simply Call a Country on the other side of the planet and ask them why the hell the Sun is high in the sky and why you are starring at the moon.. Really, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the planet isn't flat, and to realize that Flat Earther's are merely religious in nature with some odd ideological construct to which denies reality as some conspiracy theory.. It's actually pretty pathetic, if not incredibly moronic.

you can say whatever you wanna say shape denier.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za21.htm
my turn:

IF a ball is allowed to drop from the mast-head of a ship at rest, it will strike the deck at the foot of the mast. If the same experiment is tried with a ship in motion, the same result will follow; because, in the latter case, the ball is acted upon simultaneously by two forces at right angles to each other--one, the momentum given to it by the moving ship in the direction of its own motion; and the other, the force of gravity, the direction of which is at right angles to that of the momentum. The ball being acted upon by the two forces together, will not go in the direction of either, but will take a diagonal course, as shown in the following diagram, fig. 46.

so far so good

Let the ball be thrown upwards from the mast-head of a stationary ship, and it will fall back to the mast-head, and pass downwards to the foot of the mast. The same result would follow if the ball were thrown upwards from the mouth of a mine, or the top of a tower, on a stationary earth. Now put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two motions--the upward or vertical, A, C, and the horizontal, A, B, as shown in fig. 47; but because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D. By the time the ball has arrived at D, the ship will have reached the position, 13; and now, as the two forces will have been expended, the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H; but during its fall towards H, the ship will have passed on to the position S, leaving the ball at H, a given distance behind it.

This is wrong, the 2 forces have not been expended. The force of the ball moving horizontally is not expended until it hits something. If this was true, then when people play basketball, the ball will suddenly curve down, but it does not. reference:

The reader is advised not to deceive himself by imagining that the ball would take a parabolic course, like the balls and shells from cannon during a siege or battle. The parabolic curve could only be taken by a ball fired from a cannon inclined more or less from the vertical; when, of course, gravity acting in an angular direction against the force of the gunpowder, the ball would be forced to describe a parabola. But in the experiment just detailed, the gun was fixed in a perfectly vertical direction, so that the ball would be fired in a line the very contrary to the direction of gravity. The force of the powder would drive it directly upwards, and the force of gravity would pull it directly downwards. Hence it could only go up in a right line, and down or back to its starting point; it could not possibly take a path having the slightest degree of curvature.

ship moves and the ball is thrown upwards, it still takes a diagonal path. so when the ball and the cannon is already moving, why won't it? This cannon experiment is no different from the dropping from tower experiment.

When sitting in a rapidly-moving railway carriage, let a spring-gun 1 be fired forward, or in the direction in which the train is moving. Again, let the same gun be fired, but in the opposite direction; and it will be found that the ball or other projectile will always go farther in the first case than in the latter.

It's called air resistance. The spinning earth is not affected because it has been rotating for a very long time. The air moves at the same rate as the earth.

Experiment 4

Things still move east to west, but not at the same rate.

Copernicus required, in his theory of terrestrial motions, that the earth moved in an extensive elliptical path round the sun, as represented in the following diagram, fig 53, where S is the sun, A, the earth in its place in June, and B, its position in December; when desired to offer some proof of this orbital motion he suggested that a given star should be selected for observation on a given date; and in six months afterwards a second observation of the same star should be made. The first observation A, D, fig. 53, was recorded; and on observing again at the end of six months, when the earth was supposed to have passed to B, the other side of its orbit, to the astonishment of the assembled astronomers, the star was observed in exactly the same position, B, C, as it had been six months previously! It was expected that it would be seen in the direction B, D, and that this difference in the direction of observation would demonstrate the earth's motion from A to B, and also furnish, with the distance A, S, B, the elements necessary for calculating the actual distance of the star D.

the angle does change, but by very little

The problem with the experiment is that it only looked at a distance 6 miles. This is not long enough to see any meaningful curvature of the earth. Maybe if the distance was 100+ miles it would be a useful experiment. But 6? No way.

This experiment can be dismissed on this basis alone.

The problem with the experiment is that it only looked at a distance 6 miles. This is not long enough to see any meaningful curvature of the earth. Maybe if the distance was 100+ miles it would be a useful experiment. But 6? No way.

This experiment can be dismissed on this basis alone.

Not true. According to basic trigonometry, if we assume the earth is indeed round with mean radius 6371km, if we were to move 6 miles (9.6km) along its surface, the apparent drop in height (for an observer looking directly horizontal) would be:

square root(6371²+9.6²)-6371

= 7.23 meters

This is would easily have been enough of a drop in height to obscure the boat from view as it traveled along the river. Mathematically speaking, the Bedford Level experiment is a legitimate test.

Quote from: Uberrod on December 06, 2010, 02:41:14 PM

The problem with the experiment is that it only looked at a distance 6 miles. This is not long enough to see any meaningful curvature of the earth. Maybe if the distance was 100+ miles it would be a useful experiment. But 6? No way.

This experiment can be dismissed on this basis alone.

Not true. According to basic trigonometry, if we assume the earth is indeed round with mean radius 6371km, if we were to move 6 miles (9.6km) along its surface, the apparent drop in height (for an observer looking directly horizontal) would be:

square root(6371²+9.6²)-6371

= 7.23 meters

This is would easily have been enough of a drop in height to obscure the boat from view as it traveled along the river. Mathematically speaking, the Bedford Level experiment is a legitimate test.

I agree, which is why the many times it has been repeated and given a different result than when Rowbotham did it are good evidence of a round Earth.

Quote from: Uberrod on December 06, 2010, 02:41:14 PM

The problem with the experiment is that it only looked at a distance 6 miles. This is not long enough to see any meaningful curvature of the earth. Maybe if the distance was 100+ miles it would be a useful experiment. But 6? No way.

This experiment can be dismissed on this basis alone.

Not true. According to basic trigonometry, if we assume the earth is indeed round with mean radius 6371km, if we were to move 6 miles (9.6km) along its surface, the apparent drop in height (for an observer looking directly horizontal) would be:

square root(6371²+9.6²)-6371

= 7.23 meters

This is would easily have been enough of a drop in height to obscure the boat from view as it traveled along the river. Mathematically speaking, the Bedford Level experiment is a legitimate test.

Research must not be your strong suit, look up others who have done the same experiment. You'll find that Rowbotham wasn't the only one. In fact, a man once won a bet over that experiment, then when it was proven the Earth was round he freaked out and refused to pay. TFES hasn't changed much over the last 100 years.

next up: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za51.htm

That the eclipsor of the moon is a shadow at all is assumption--no proof whatever is offered.

There is nothing else that can have done this. We can rule out anything blocking it, as it would have been visible before eclipsing the moon. We can rule out the moon being a light source and going red, because it receives it's light from the sun (as we will see later)

That the moon receives her light from the sun, and that therefore her surface is darkened by the earth intercepting the sun's light, is not proved.

If you do any travelling, you will see that when the sun and moon are on the same side of the earth, at night you will see a new moon. Also notice that lunar eclipses occur only at full moons, and solar eclipses at new moons. Also, the ancients have made accurate predictions under this assumption (source:http://www.bibalex.org/eclipse2006/HistoricalObservationsofSolarEclipses.htm). This shows that the moon does reflect light from the sun.

also: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za60.htm

They got its properties wrong, how is that proof that newtonian laws fail? They still discovered it.

nice to see you back clocktower

would saying that the solar eclipse make a umbra and a part that is a partial eclipse count? becuase that means that the moon passes over between the earth an the sun
also, that would disprove the moon has light theory, as the moon will show no light in a total solar eclipse
and the sun is behind the moon is shown with the corona

yes, I know that this is 3 months old, but decided to post here instead of creating a new thread.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za56.htm

"an illusion of our senses,"

what happened to zeteticism? maybe earth looking flat is also an illusion?

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za28.htm

The following diagram, fig. 66, will show also that, as the sun recedes from the meridian, over a plane surface, the light, as it strikes the atmosphere, must give a larger disc.

This magnification is only a small amount in FET, and does not cover the huge differences in distance. It would have to be magnified to about 2x at least. air does not magnify that much, or when you walk around, everything would noticeably get smaller.

Finally,

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

How then is it possible for the moon with only one eighty-seventh part of the attractive power of the earth, to lift up the waters of the ocean and draw them towards herself? In other words, how can the lesser power overcome the greater?

It does not. The water remains on the earth, drawn a little bit closer to the moon.