Bedford Level Discrepancy

Quote from: Theodolite on August 10, 2011, 08:01:53 PM

Quote from: markjo on August 10, 2011, 07:47:40 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2011, 07:19:57 PM

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

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

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

Since you are the expert in this subject, please tell me if I am right: 6 miles (about 9 kilometers) seems to be the best distance for all the FE theorists' experiments. I think we can all agree that less than 9 kilometers is far too short a distance to see any circumference, whether it is there or not. But 9 kilometers is just enough distance to get inconclusive results, so it is perfect for them. Any test should be repeated with a longer distance, say double the distance, to get unambiguous results. A distance of 18 kilometers, give or take, would be more than enough to avoid having the ducting effect, or refraction, masking the real result.

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

If I was to conduct this experiment, I would use a large bay, where surveyors can all be stationed close to the water line.  Have a team of 12 surveyors, all 1 mile apart, inside a concave bay.  Over a distance of 12 miles, each surveyor would perform measurements to all other visible surveyors.  Each one would have a color coded staff mounted next to them, with different colors each 10cm.  You would be able to tell from a distance which colors are visible at each station, and also measure the vertical angle difference between each color. 

The predicted result is that each color would be the same apparant size, no matter how close to the surface they are.  There would be no compression, stretching or bending, there would merely be a point where the bottom colors arent visible.

Viewing the situation from multiple directions, with many seperate measurements per station, is an example of how surveyors work.

A single surveyor could perform this operation alone, but visualizing 12 of them helps people to understand how surveyors work.

Just so everyone understands, the game will go on forever (or at least as long as the site continues to run), precisely because the REers refuse to stop playing.

Wow, great response.  That sounds to me like a resounding

RE WIN!!!!

Wow, great response.  That sounds to me like a resounding

RE WIN!!!!

Go ahead and keep telling yourself that.

Anyway, let's not stray too much from the topic here.

If I was to conduct this experiment, I would use a large bay, where surveyors can all be stationed close to the water line.  Have a team of 12 surveyors, all 1 mile apart, inside a concave bay.  Over a distance of 12 miles, each surveyor would perform measurements to all other visible surveyors.  Each one would have a color coded staff mounted next to them, with different colors each 10cm.  You would be able to tell from a distance which colors are visible at each station, and also measure the vertical angle difference between each color. 

The predicted result is that each color would be the same apparant size, no matter how close to the surface they are.  There would be no compression, stretching or bending, there would merely be a point where the bottom colors arent visible.

Viewing the situation from multiple directions, with many seperate measurements per station, is an example of how surveyors work.

A single surveyor could perform this operation alone, but visualizing 12 of them helps people to understand how surveyors work.

Also, in this way if you see the expected colors in the expected order you will know that the temperature of the air is stable and that the results are valid.

Quote from: Theodolite on August 11, 2011, 08:31:29 PM

Wow, great response.  That sounds to me like a resounding

RE WIN!!!!

Go ahead and keep telling yourself that.

Anyway, let's not stray too much from the topic here.

Yes, lets stay on topic. Present an explanation that absolves the nutjob that is Rowboatham if you please.

Quote from: Theodolite on August 11, 2011, 06:45:01 PM

If I was to conduct this experiment, I would use a large bay, where surveyors can all be stationed close to the water line.  Have a team of 12 surveyors, all 1 mile apart, inside a concave bay.  Over a distance of 12 miles, each surveyor would perform measurements to all other visible surveyors.  Each one would have a color coded staff mounted next to them, with different colors each 10cm.  You would be able to tell from a distance which colors are visible at each station, and also measure the vertical angle difference between each color. 

The predicted result is that each color would be the same apparant size, no matter how close to the surface they are.  There would be no compression, stretching or bending, there would merely be a point where the bottom colors arent visible.

Viewing the situation from multiple directions, with many seperate measurements per station, is an example of how surveyors work.

A single surveyor could perform this operation alone, but visualizing 12 of them helps people to understand how surveyors work.

Also, in this way if you see the expected colors in the expected order you will know that the temperature of the air is stable and that the results are valid.

It would normally go without saying, but on this forum, I suppose you have to address every inane detail.  These experiments would be performed on an overcast day when the sea and air temperatures are as close to the same as possible

Personally I 've never understood why the flat earthers seem content to assume the Bedford level follows the surface of the planet. It's a flowing body of water, after all. Why assume it matches the surface of the Earth?

The flow there is tidal.  At slack water, I guess it is near flat.

If a surveyor was to perform the experiment, he would measure forwards, backwards and sideways.  Establishing the grade of the water would be elementary

If a surveyor was to perform the experiment, he would measure forwards, backwards and sideways.  Establishing the grade of the water would be elementary

Because no surveyor has ever tried the Bedford level experiment?

Rowbotham’s triumphant result stood until 1870, when naturalist, surveyor, and obvious crackpot Alfred Russel Wallace attempted to disprove the result. His endeavor ended only in a heated argument — and eventually a libel suit against the “planists.” (Round-earthers are clearly desperate men.)

Wallace was a qualified surveyor.

The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager.

He did not do the things you suggest. You just make things up. I do not believe you are a proper surveyor. I suspect you make tea for surveyors in your office.

The flow there is tidal.  At slack water, I guess it is near flat.

Eh, is it? I always assumed it was a flowing body of water, hence the various sluices, weirs and locks along it.

Regardless, water flowing in and out of it won't make it much flatter. We also don't know the state of the tide when these level observations were taken, so they aren't much use.

Quote from: Theodolite on August 20, 2011, 11:23:25 PM

If a surveyor was to perform the experiment, he would measure forwards, backwards and sideways.  Establishing the grade of the water would be elementary

Because no surveyor has ever tried the Bedford level experiment?

Quote from: http://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/07/28/the-bedford-level-experiment/

Rowbotham’s triumphant result stood until 1870, when naturalist, surveyor, and obvious crackpot Alfred Russel Wallace attempted to disprove the result. His endeavor ended only in a heated argument — and eventually a libel suit against the “planists.” (Round-earthers are clearly desperate men.)

Wallace was a qualified surveyor.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager.

He did not do the things you suggest. You just make things up. I do not believe you are a proper surveyor. I suspect you make tea for surveyors in your office.

How do you know that Wallace did not do the things that Theodolite suggested?  Have you found a detailed account of every action that Wallace performed during the experiment?

Markjo, you know how he did it. You have been here for ages. He did not go taking measurements in all directions. It was just a google away.

He described these in his Zetetic Astronomy. In 1870, one of his followers, John Hampden of Swindon, bet £500 that a new experiment would demonstrate the flatness of the earth and Alfred Russel Wallace, the evolutionist, took up the bet, encouraged by Charles Lyell, the geologist. The first experiment was unsatisfactory. They then set up three equally spaced markers at the same height above the water and sighted from the first to the last. The middle marker clearly appeared about 5 ft above the line of sight. Unfortunately the two parties drew different conclusions from this observation, with the 'planists' thinking the position of the telescope crosshair indicated the observer's position.

Markjo, you know how he did it. You have been here for ages. He did not go taking measurements in all directions. It was just a google away.

Quote from: http://lclane2.net/bedford.html

He described these in his Zetetic Astronomy. In 1870, one of his followers, John Hampden of Swindon, bet £500 that a new experiment would demonstrate the flatness of the earth and Alfred Russel Wallace, the evolutionist, took up the bet, encouraged by Charles Lyell, the geologist. The first experiment was unsatisfactory. They then set up three equally spaced markers at the same height above the water and sighted from the first to the last. The middle marker clearly appeared about 5 ft above the line of sight. Unfortunately the two parties drew different conclusions from this observation, with the 'planists' thinking the position of the telescope crosshair indicated the observer's position.

Sorry Thork, but you bolded the wrong sentence.  I fixed that for you.

Quote from: Thork on August 21, 2011, 08:53:53 AM

Markjo, you know how he did it. You have been here for ages. He did not go taking measurements in all directions. It was just a google away.

Quote from: http://lclane2.net/bedford.html

He described these in his Zetetic Astronomy. In 1870, one of his followers, John Hampden of Swindon, bet £500 that a new experiment would demonstrate the flatness of the earth and Alfred Russel Wallace, the evolutionist, took up the bet, encouraged by Charles Lyell, the geologist. The first experiment was unsatisfactory. They then set up three equally spaced markers at the same height above the water and sighted from the first to the last. The middle marker clearly appeared about 5 ft above the line of sight. Unfortunately the two parties drew different conclusions from this observation, with the 'planists' thinking the position of the telescope crosshair indicated the observer's position.

Sorry Thork, but you bolded the wrong sentence.  I fixed that for you.

*sigh*

Rowbotham’s triumphant result stood until 1870, when naturalist, surveyor, and obvious crackpot Alfred Russel Wallace attempted to disprove the result. His endeavor ended only in a heated argument — and eventually a libel suit against the “planists.” (Round-earthers are clearly desperate men.)

You should question biased sources.

Why is my source biased? It has nothing to do with the flat earth society. Its independent.

So, FE'ers refused to accept evidence that the earth is round in 1870 just as they refuse to accept evidence that the earth is round today.  It's nice to see that some things never change.

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on August 20, 2011, 07:23:07 PM

The flow there is tidal.  At slack water, I guess it is near flat.

Eh, is it? I always assumed it was a flowing body of water, hence the various sluices, weirs and locks along it.

Regardless, water flowing in and out of it won't make it much flatter. We also don't know the state of the tide when these level observations were taken, so they aren't much use.

I don't profess to know the ins and outs of the various constructs of old drainage cuts.  Could it be that they are to hold excess water until it can be released with less damage.  Maybe the Old Bedford Level was not very efficient, hence the need for the New Bedford Level.   

Maybe the old tide tables could still be found by a determined researcher.

I don't profess to know the ins and outs of the various constructs of old drainage cuts.  Could it be that they are to hold excess water until it can be released with less damage.  Maybe the Old Bedford Level was not very efficient, hence the need for the New Bedford Level.   

Maybe the old tide tables could still be found by a determined researcher.

There probably is a lot of water being held back, being let out, or flowing back up the river in the area. The area where Rowbotham made his observations is probably too far up to be affected heavily by the tides, but I see no reason why we should assume that the water there is level with the general shape of the earth. It's hardly standing water.

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on August 21, 2011, 10:58:04 AM

I don't profess to know the ins and outs of the various constructs of old drainage cuts.  Could it be that they are to hold excess water until it can be released with less damage.  Maybe the Old Bedford Level was not very efficient, hence the need for the New Bedford Level.   

Maybe the old tide tables could still be found by a determined researcher.

There probably is a lot of water being held back, being let out, or flowing back up the river in the area. The area where Rowbotham made his observations is probably too far up to be affected heavily by the tides, but I see no reason why we should assume that the water there is level with the general shape of the earth. It's hardly standing water.

It may be as you say but for the New Bedford Level at least (River and Level both being used for these cuts) the following paragraph may help and is available online:

The New Bedford River, also known as the Hundred Foot Drain because of the distance between the tops of the two embankments on either side of the river, is a man-made cut-off or by-pass channel of the River Great Ouse in the Fens of Cambridgeshire, England. It provides an almost straight channel between Earith and Denver Sluices. It is tidal, with reverse tidal flow being clearly visible at Welney, some 30 km from the sea.

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

I'd also opine that the area quite obviously drains poorly and flow is mostly run-off or tidal.  If there were a natural flow, the area would drain naturally and the cuts would never have been needed.

Quote from: Mrs. Peach on August 21, 2011, 10:58:04 AM

I don't profess to know the ins and outs of the various constructs of old drainage cuts.  Could it be that they are to hold excess water until it can be released with less damage.  Maybe the Old Bedford Level was not very efficient, hence the need for the New Bedford Level.   

Maybe the old tide tables could still be found by a determined researcher.

There probably is a lot of water being held back, being let out, or flowing back up the river in the area. The area where Rowbotham made his observations is probably too far up to be affected heavily by the tides, but I see no reason why we should assume that the water there is level with the general shape of the earth. It's hardly standing water.

I have been saying about the same thing for years.

There is a very telling and easy experiment that shows how water friction works: fill a 10 meter long tube of about 4 or 5 mm diameter with water. Place the two ends near a known horizontal line, or side by side if you like. Then move the ends of the tube up and down, trying to keep the level of the water at both ends as close to the horizontal line as possible.

You will see that water is very far from staying level, and that water friction is the most important factor.

Even if on average the Bedford Level channel is level, there is far too much water friction to assure the water is really level and not following the shape of the channel's bed. If not, then water would instantly move with the tide and then instantly stop, instead of flowing all day either to one side or to the other. At the very least, the whole channel is not a reliable place to do this experiment.

What is not to understand about slack water?

Why is my source biased? It has nothing to do with the flat earth society. Its independent.

Well it's certainly not neutral.
"Rowbotham’s triumphant result stood until 1870, when naturalist, surveyor, and obvious crackpot Alfred Russel Wallace attempted to disprove the result. His endeavor ended only in a heated argument — and eventually a libel suit against the “planists.” (Round-earthers are clearly desperate men.) "

The source has no FE bias. Its not affiliated to this site and its main purpose has nothing to do with earth's shape. The author is merely telling it like it is.

What is not to understand about slack water?

How it results in 10km of water matching that of the overall shape of the planet, and whether Rowbotham made his observation during it, I think.

Digging up the old tide tables will tell you the one and the observations made will tell you the other.

Digging up the old tide tables will tell you the one and the observations made will tell you the other.

The lack of repeatability of this experiment is more than enough evidence to not take the results of this experiment as valid. If you think this experiment was not flawed you can repeat it over a distance of at least twice the distance, and do it over a lake, or some other body of water that is not so shallow.

Any half decent scientist will do exactly that: if an experiment gives less than certain results, he does not repeat the same experiment he improves the design and uses better equipment.

The reasoning behind the choice of location should be obvious.  The Old Bedford Level had bridges, the stable platforms he needed, out over the water at a sufficient distance and it had periods of slack water.