Bedford Level Discrepancy

  • 91 Replies
  • 17253 Views
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #60 on: August 22, 2011, 04:36:31 AM »
Digging up the old tide tables will tell you the one and the observations made will tell you the other.

I'm not sure I follow.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #61 on: August 22, 2011, 09:01:21 AM »
Digging up the old tide tables will tell you the one and the observations made will tell you the other.

I'm not sure I follow.
There is not much to follow. Mrs. Peach claims we should be able to find the conditions under which the experiment was done at the time, and with this information find whether the experiment was valid.

Of course, we cannot find a table which tells us whether the water was flowing towards the sea or from it, or a table which tells us whether the temperature of the air was stable over the canal at that moment. Even if we find that the experiment was done right at the middle between high tide and low tide we cannot know by how much the movement of the water lags the movement of the tides, and we still have no table with the temperature of the air at water level and at some 8 meters above the water at various places on the canal that day.

The right way to settle this would be to make the experiment again, choosing a better location and controlling for the known sources of error. This is easily done, for example, making careful observations of large boats going away from you, preferably on a calm sea or lake, and preferably with a good telescope. If you can repeat Rowbotham's results on a better experiment, you are welcome to a Nobel Prize and world wide recognition.

Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #62 on: August 22, 2011, 01:20:29 PM »
It's more I don't follow how knowing when slack water occurred explains why the canal becomes level. I would expect it to vary along it's length at all times, especially as the Great Ouse produces tidal bores rather than going up and down along it's whole length smoothly with the tide.

There's not much point in looking up the tide tables anyway, as Rowbotham neglected to mention the time he performed any of his experiments. The closest we have is 'about three o'clock in the afternoon of a summer's day', which is hard to match up to any one time. The fact he hasn't mentioned anything about the tides in his experiments makes me think he didn't take them into account when performing them.

?

Thork

Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #63 on: August 22, 2011, 01:33:26 PM »
Why are you all worrying about tides? It was a canal. By definition there are no tides. Canals have locks and sluice gates to manage water levels. If the locks are closed, there is no movement of water. River's have weirs with locks to ensure constant flow. Canals do not.
Rowbotham need only have asked the gate keeper to keep the lock closed at either end and he would have a still body of water. There is only any flow when the gates are open anyway. Consider canals as still water. Its why he would have picked a canal in the first place.

Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #64 on: August 22, 2011, 02:20:24 PM »
The source has no FE bias.
(Round-earthers are clearly desperate men.)"
Incorrect.

?

Thork

Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #65 on: August 22, 2011, 02:22:59 PM »
The source has no FE bias.
(Round-earthers are clearly desperate men.)"
Incorrect.
It is not written by an FEr. Its not an FE web site. The author's observation is that RErs must be desperate. I'll admit, I almost peed myself when I found that source, but there you have it. A source that ridicules RE and not FE. Maybe the worm is turning at last?

Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #66 on: August 22, 2011, 03:21:50 PM »
Why are you all worrying about tides?

Because:
The flow there is tidal.

I can find nothing that suggests Rowbotham made sure all the locks were closed. I also wonder whether they could have all been safely closed for long enough to allow the immense length of water to fully level out. If there are records of Rowbotham making sure that the water was still before performing the experiment, it would help if you pointed them out so we can clear this issue with the experiment. Otherwise, we have no reason to think the water in these canals matches the overall shape of the Earth.

?

Thork

Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #67 on: August 22, 2011, 03:23:01 PM »
Canals are not tidal. That is not how a canal works.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #68 on: August 22, 2011, 03:50:55 PM »
Why are you all worrying about tides?

Because:
The flow there is tidal.


You forget to mention my posts were simply a clarification of your idea of the behavior of the water there.
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?

There is nothing to 'get' or 'follow' other than that. 

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #69 on: August 22, 2011, 04:00:51 PM »
Canals are not tidal. That is not how a canal works.

It is when it's a drainage canal.  I see no reference to any locks anywhere along the river and only one dam (Welches Dam).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Bedford_River
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #70 on: August 22, 2011, 04:26:33 PM »
Canals are not tidal. That is not how a canal works.

It is when it's a drainage canal.  I see no reference to any locks anywhere along the river and only one dam (Welches Dam).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Bedford_River
Also, when one of the ends of the canal reaches the ocean, tides are critical. And the photo on the Wikipedia page shows a very narrow canal, which will level off very slowly.

As I said many times, finding a canal for this experiment is extremely difficult because nobody wants a canal with still waters. Either it was made for navigation, and you want (but don't need) relatively still water, or you construct it for any other purpose and you need water movement. And nobody has needed navigation canals since before the start of the Industrial Revolution in 1850. Even then these navigation canals were usually too expensive to be cost effective.

So, the use of the canal, the connection to the sea, the tides, the temperature gradients of the air over the canal, all make a difference.

?

Thork

Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #71 on: August 22, 2011, 04:40:32 PM »
The water is managed. its a canal, not a river!


Looking north on the Old Bedford River


Looking south

http://www.welneyanglingclub.co.uk/theoldbedfordriver.htm

You can see why he picked it. If you want to argue its a fast flowing river with no water control go ahead.






That's what they look like from the air. I did my pilot training at an airfield not far from there. I used those canals like big arrows. Dead straight and easy to see.


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #72 on: August 22, 2011, 06:43:08 PM »
The water is managed. its a canal, not a river!

Being managed does not stop it from being a river.  Many rivers have a number of dams for water management.  A canal is pretty much just a man made river.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #73 on: August 22, 2011, 07:15:43 PM »
Those are really not very deep or wide, and not very still canals. When we are looking at a meager 1 meter or so difference between the height of a marker at 3 miles and a marker at 6 miles, all of these factors are critical. I could almost bet that the canal is not deeper than 2 meters in most of its length.

Only an hydraulic engineer can tell us whether such a narrow stream of water follows mostly the Earth's shape or the shape of the canal's bed, since any place that is relatively high will make the water even more shallow and will make the flow of water even slower, creating a high point on the canal's surface.

The real solution for this inconclusive experiment is to design it again, using a distance of at least twice what was used here. And if that is again inconclusive, then you can increase the distance even further. That will not be a problem on a calm lake or a calm part of the sea, which are a lot deeper and do not have the problem of narrow paths altering the shape of the water's surface.

Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #74 on: August 22, 2011, 08:31:00 PM »
The source has no FE bias.
(Round-earthers are clearly desperate men.)"
Incorrect.
It is not written by an FEr. Its not an FE web site. The author's observation is that RErs must be desperate. I'll admit, I almost peed myself when I found that source, but there you have it. A source that ridicules RE and not FE. Maybe the worm is turning at last?
All right, there's no FE bias, but it's still not a neutral statement, or a factual one, any more than "FE'rs are clearly desperate men" is.

Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #75 on: August 23, 2011, 02:17:28 AM »
Only an hydraulic engineer can tell us whether such a narrow stream of water follows mostly the Earth's shape or the shape of the canal's bed, since any place that is relatively high will make the water even more shallow and will make the flow of water even slower, creating a high point on the canal's surface.

This is really an interesting problem trig, and one that I doubt has been seriously considered in the discussion of this experiment.  I did some work to try and reason out what might happen:

The first step, I think, is to consider the nature of a flow such as this.  Assuming that we are looking at the canal during a period of steady-state operation, the principle of conservation of mass requires that the mass flow rate of water through any given cross-section of the canal will be identical with that at any other cross-section. 

To help visualize this, consider drawing an invisible box around a section of the canal.  Unless the volume of water in that box is changing (it is not, because we are working during steady-state), then the amount of time it takes for 1kg of water to flow into the box must be identical to the time it takes for 1kg of water to flow out.


To properly explain what comes next, I must introduce a few concepts related to fluid flow analysis. 

The first is mass flow rate.  In SI units, this is given in kg/s -- it is the quantity discussed above:  the total mass of water that flows through a cross-section of the channel in a given time interval.  Again, this quantity remains constant.

The next is the concept of an incompressible fluid.  For 99% of all fluid flow applications involving liquids, fluids can be treated as incompressible.  This means that density remains constant across all parts of the flow.  There's a lot of unnecessary math that goes into the proof of this; the short version is, it takes an extreme amount of pressure to compress most liquids to a degree that will have any impact at all on measurements taken.  For this application, we're talking a change in density that is many orders of magnitude below what relevant tools can measure (thus, negligible).

Finally, the concept of volumetric flow rate.  This has several mathematical definitions, which will be discussed later.  For now, it can be understood as the volume of water that flows through a given cross-section over a specified interval.  This is separate from the mass flow rate, although similar and related.  It is generally given in units of cubic meters per second, or m^3/s.

MATH TIME!
----------------------------------------------
It take a bit of math to relate these three concepts in a way that is useful to the present inquiry.  First, some relevant equations:

MF = m/t                (mass flow rate = mass / time)
d = m/vol               (density = mass / volume)

VF = vol/t               (volume flow rate = volume / time)
vol = A*L                (volume = cross-sectional area * length)
v = L/t                    (flow velocity = length / time)


Solving the density equation for volume and substituting this result into the volumetric flow rate gives the following:
vol = m/d
VF = (m/d)/t = (m/t)/d

Since we know that MF = m/t, we can again substitute and demonstrate that:
VF = MF/d

This is a very important result.  Because both mass flow rate and density are constant, we now know that volumetric flow rate is constant.  Again, we can use this to get some more interesting results.  Combining the equations for volume and volumetric flow rate, we can relate the volumetric flow rate to the channel's geometry:
vol = A*L
VF = vol/t = A*L/t

Further augmenting this, we can mix in the equation for flow velocity:
v = L/t  --> L = v*t
VF = A*L/t = (A/t)*L = (A/t)*(v*t) = A*v

It is important to note here that the time term drops out.  This makes sense mathematically, but it also should make sense intuitively; because we are working at a steady state, none of the properties of the flow are changing with time.

If we examine the equation we just derived (VF = A*v), there are a couple of other important conclusions that can be drawn.  First, we can break down the 'A' term.  For simplicity, I will treat the channel as rectangular.  The precise equations derived might change a bit with different channel geometry (i.e. trapezoidal), but the result will be the same because we are dealing with a channel that is the same at one end as at the other.

A = w*h               (area = width * height, where height is the height of the water from the bottom of the channel)

Going back to the previous equation to substitute, we now have our final result:

VF = w*h*v

------------------------------------------------

This equation is extremely important in applications of open-channel flow.  Because we know that the shape of the channel is constant and the volumetric flow rate is constant, the equation demonstrates that there are two possible variables that can change and that these variables are inversely proportional.  As flow velocity along the channel increases or decreases, the height of the flow must do the opposite.  If the flow speeds up the height of the water will decrease, and if it slows the water will get deeper.


Now, things are finally starting to look like somewhat of a useful result when considering the question that was asked in the first place.  All we need to do is decide whether the flow is faster in the middle or end than at the beginning, and we can make sense of what is happening.

To decide this, we can look at what forces are acting on the fluid.  Most significant to the inquiry at hand is gravity.  Because we are trying to discover the (potential) effect of a round Earth on this system, it is useful to draw a picture to visualize how gravity changes along a flat channel on a round Earth:

http://imgur.com/GBPwc               (please excuse my poor MSPaint skills)

Now we must make a big assumption for this analysis.  This *must* be checked before actually performing the experiment, or none of this is meaningful.  We are assuming that the entire length of the channel (not the water) is flat.  If you take a laser and shine it parallel to the channel at one point, it will remain parallel at every point.

we can see that along any distance the direction of gravity's pull will gradually change.  Because most (or all) of the channel will not experience a gravitational pull that is exactly perpendicular to the channel floor, the gravitational acceleration of the water will have at least a small horizontal component.

Depending on what section you pick, the component will vary from with the flow to against it.  It is easy to see, however, that as you move downstream in any case the amount of horizontal pull that is "helping" the flow will decrease.  If it is initially positive it will become smaller or eventually become negative; if it is initially zero or negative, it will continue to become more negative.


The important part of this is that we have demonstrated that for any flat (as discussed above) channel, two possible cases exist.  The flow will either have a positive acceleration at a downstream location, or it will have a negative acceleration.  The relation here to the acceleration of the flow at the observer's location is unimportant, only whether the fluid downstream is accelerating or decelerating.

In the first case, because positive acceleration always means that the fluid is speeding up, the fluid flow downstream will have a greater velocity.  As we discovered earlier, greater velocity corresponds to lower flow depth.  Thus, in this case the flow downstream will actually be shallower than the flow at the observer's location.  Because the fluid's acceleration is changing, its change in velocity will be nonlinear.  Specifically, a graph of velocity vs. distance would have a positive slope, but a negative curvature.  This means that the change in velocity (and depth) between two points near the observer will be greater than the change between two points downstream.  Thus, although the fluid will be growing shallower it will be curving towards level with the channel (curving upwards, towards the observer but still getting shallower).

In the second case we see something similar happening.  The flow's depth will be increasing because it is slowing down, but it will be getting deeper at an increasing rate because gravitational acceleration will have a growing horizontal component against the flow.  Thus, we will again observe a flow that curves upwards toward the observer (and getting deeper).

-----------------------------------------

So here we have very interesting results.  Although in neither case does the flow actually follow the Earth's curvature, observation of either one would demonstrate that such curvature exists.  Without a variation in the gravitational pull (such as on a flat Earth) the forces acting on the flow would be uniform throughout, and the entire expanse would be perfectly even.  Depth might change if the channel is slanted, but the rate of change in depth would be linear and no curvature would be observed.

It is interesting to note that the height of the water relative to the center of the Earth -- and correspondingly, the strength of gravity -- at any point along the canal doesn't really affect the results in this problem.  In a stationary fluid situation this would be significant because the weight of the heavier fluid in the center of the canal would have to balance the combined pressure from the ends and we would likely observe a curvature that matches a round Earth (assuming the Earth is round).  In this case, however, the more important factor is the direction of gravity's pull relative to the plane of the canal.




Finally, it should also be noted that I neglected friction throughout this analysis.  Considering that three sides of the flow are in contact with a solid surface, friction will likely be a significant factor in the actual shape of the flow.  Consider also, however, the sort of effect it would have.  Friction will slow the flow and cause it to get deeper.  In fluid applications, friction between the fluid and a containing surface is directly proportional to the velocity of the fluid.  Thus, as the fluid slows the frictional losses will decrease and the rate at which the fluid slows will correspondingly decrease. 

This will yield an observation that is quite opposite to our two previous results.  The observed effect of this frictional loss will be a flow that is increasing in depth but at a decreasing rate, appearing to curve downward from the observer (though never below horizontal).  If you wish to research this, a good place to start would be to google the Darcy-Weisbach equation.

This is a very complex problem, and the specific interaction between the frictional forces and the gravitational forces would likely have to be measured carefully to determine the net effect.

It is an unfortunate truth, but the nature of fluid dynamics is such that most interesting problems are too complex to solve analytically; instead they must be done experimentally, or computationally using a highly specialized simulation that would probably have to be specifically coded to work for your application.  Oh, and you'd need one heck of a computer because to get the degree of accuracy needed here would require simultaneous computation of thousands, if not millions of tiny fluid elements.


Visualization:
http://imgur.com/OBaLi
note: Greatly exaggerated.  The actual effects would be extremely small over the distances discussed in this thread.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 02:22:51 AM by whatnewguy »

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #76 on: August 23, 2011, 07:07:42 AM »
@whatnewguy:

This is all very enlightening, but it is primarily very good to show how the problem is a lot more complex than the "looks still, must be following the Earth's shape" attitude of some here.

Now consider this: one river has a very slight inclination of 6 meters every 10 kilometers, and another has an inclination of 4 meters in the first 5 kilometers and 2 meters in the last 5 kilometers. Both rivers have an average slope of 5/10000, or 0.05%, which is barely enough to have detectable water movement. If you used one of them for the experiment you would get one answer, if you use the other you get another answer, assuming there are no refractive effects due to unstable air.

As water flows very slowly in small rivers the viscosity of the water becomes a major factor in the shape the water takes. If this were not the case, every river would be made only of rapids and lakes, because even the smallest inclination would make the water flow almost instantaneously down to the next lake. But this is not what we see.

I guess the Bedford Level experiment can be done correctly, if you put measuring equipment every few hundred meters to see if the temperature of the air is stable and the water is really still, if you close the entrance and exit of water for many hours, or even better for a couple of days, and if you abort the experiment if some part of the canal becomes too shallow after closing the water flow. But we know Rowbotham did not even start to take any of these measures, and we know that the same experiment gave contradictory results, so some of the above conditions were not the same in all the experiments, and nobody at the time even understood these problems at the time.

In conclusion, people have to understand that an experiment that tries to measure a meager 0.05 degree angle (or something like that) have to take extraordinary measures to make the experiment correctly. "The water looks still" does not cut it.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 07:10:15 AM by trig »

?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2444
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #77 on: August 23, 2011, 07:50:45 AM »
The thing is, there is no inclination. The Fens (where the Old Bedford Canal is located) are huge tidal flats. The only alterations will be minute.
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #78 on: August 23, 2011, 08:38:38 AM »
The thing is, there is no inclination. The Fens (where the Old Bedford Canal is located) are huge tidal flats. The only alterations will be minute.
There is no inclination compared to what?

The land is never as flat as, say, a computer hard disk. The surface of the Earth is lifting and sinking all the time, due to erosion, tectonic plate moving, sedimentation and other phenomena. I can guarantee you that if you make a hole in any place you will see sedimentation layers. There is no such thing as a perfectly flat surface that has been created by tidal sedimentation or something and has remained unaffected by any of the phenomena above, particularly if you are declaring that there are no depressions or mounds of even one meter.

In fact, if the surface were that flat, you would not even have a river. And whether this man-made canal has a flat bed or not depends on how precise the people who constructed it decided to be. I assure you they were not payed to find any 1 meter depression over several kilometers and fix it.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #79 on: August 23, 2011, 10:30:40 AM »
So, you guys are claiming the bottom being 'not as flat as a computer hard disk' amounts to some fatal flaw in Rowbotham's observations?  Congrats anyway on novel RE thinking. 


?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #80 on: August 23, 2011, 10:51:37 AM »
It is an acknowledged fact that ships at sea appear to sink below the horizon. However, this is inconsistent with Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment.


I think you are all getting off topic here.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #81 on: August 23, 2011, 11:03:27 AM »
Okay, here ya go.  Some boats and an admission that the earth may well be flat.

http://www.canaljunction.com/canal/east_anglia.htm

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #82 on: August 23, 2011, 11:07:39 AM »
So, you guys are claiming the bottom being 'not as flat as a computer hard disk' amounts to some fatal flaw in Rowbotham's observations?  Congrats anyway on novel RE thinking.
The case is simple. You have a very old experiment that did not take into account a lot of things. Furthermore, the same experiment was repeated with contradictory results. There is a very clear case for doubting the results of all the "flat", "inconclusive" and "round" results. The experiment is almost as bad as looking out of your window.

The correct course of action in science is to redesign the experiment, using the improved equipment now available and the current knowledge about sources of error. This experiment is essentially equivalent to looking at a large ship sailing away from you, and this has been seen so many times that there is not much doubt about this. The refraction effects are not proportional to the distance from the ship to the observer, and the ship is big enough to do the experiment on a distance much longer than 6 miles, so the result is quite unambiguous.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #83 on: August 23, 2011, 11:15:32 AM »
In other words, some other experiment cause we don't like Rowbotham's?  Let us know the particulars of your new experiment, especially those of the water bed's perfect flatness.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #84 on: August 23, 2011, 11:29:46 AM »
Okay, here ya go.  Some boats and an admission that the earth may well be flat.
So now your evidence is a tourist pamphlet? Are you now going to accept at face value the tourist pamphlets that say "many people have heard the sound of chains being pulled over the floors of this castle; nobody has ever been able to explain this"?

Now, if this information is correct, and Lady Blount used a sheet, instead of a well designed banner with symbols and other easily recognizable visual elements, then her whole experiment was a bust. How can you recognize the lower end of a sheet from the refraction effect that causes dark horizontal lines in most mirages? This is just one more proof that those who made this experiment were amateurs, not trained scientists or surveyors.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #85 on: August 23, 2011, 11:45:19 AM »
In other words, some other experiment cause we don't like Rowbotham's?  Let us know the particulars of your new experiment, especially those of the water bed's perfect flatness.
I don't like Rowbotham's experiment and I don't like the follow-ups. I just don't think anyone has demonstrated that the Bedford Level is good enough for this experiment. If you cannot show that the water is still, you cannot rely on the water of a shallow canal following the shape of the Earth.

Almost any lake that is long enough is a better place for this experiment because lakes are a lot deeper than the Bedford Level. And it is not difficult to find a lake that is calm enough so that waves are not an issue. Any lake that is about 30 km long at least should be a good place. The sea coast is also good enough in places where the weather is rather calm.

But this experiment. in which large ships are seen leaving port and disappearing into the sea, has been made so many times since before Columbus that almost nobody even cares to repeat it again. Somebody did repeat it and posted the photos in this forum, so it is up to you to repeat it and post your results.

PS. The problem with Rowbotham's experiment is not the bed's flatness, it is the combination of a less than flat bed and flowing water. If Rowbotham and the others (on both sides of the issue) had demonstrated that the water was really still, the experiment would have been closer to acceptable scientific standards.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 11:49:53 AM by trig »

?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2444
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #86 on: August 23, 2011, 12:29:24 PM »
In other words, some other experiment cause we don't like Rowbotham's?  Let us know the particulars of your new experiment, especially those of the water bed's perfect flatness.
I don't like Rowbotham's experiment and I don't like the follow-ups. I just don't think anyone has demonstrated that the Bedford Level is good enough for this experiment. If you cannot show that the water is still, you cannot rely on the water of a shallow canal following the shape of the Earth.

Almost any lake that is long enough is a better place for this experiment because lakes are a lot deeper than the Bedford Level. And it is not difficult to find a lake that is calm enough so that waves are not an issue. Any lake that is about 30 km long at least should be a good place. The sea coast is also good enough in places where the weather is rather calm.

But this experiment. in which large ships are seen leaving port and disappearing into the sea, has been made so many times since before Columbus that almost nobody even cares to repeat it again. Somebody did repeat it and posted the photos in this forum, so it is up to you to repeat it and post your results.

PS. The problem with Rowbotham's experiment is not the bed's flatness, it is the combination of a less than flat bed and flowing water. If Rowbotham and the others (on both sides of the issue) had demonstrated that the water was really still, the experiment would have been closer to acceptable scientific standards.
Because large lakes have remarkably flat water compared to a man made canal in the Fens.
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #87 on: August 23, 2011, 09:34:15 PM »
In other words, some other experiment cause we don't like Rowbotham's?  Let us know the particulars of your new experiment, especially those of the water bed's perfect flatness.
I don't like Rowbotham's experiment and I don't like the follow-ups. I just don't think anyone has demonstrated that the Bedford Level is good enough for this experiment. If you cannot show that the water is still, you cannot rely on the water of a shallow canal following the shape of the Earth.

Almost any lake that is long enough is a better place for this experiment because lakes are a lot deeper than the Bedford Level. And it is not difficult to find a lake that is calm enough so that waves are not an issue. Any lake that is about 30 km long at least should be a good place. The sea coast is also good enough in places where the weather is rather calm.

But this experiment. in which large ships are seen leaving port and disappearing into the sea, has been made so many times since before Columbus that almost nobody even cares to repeat it again. Somebody did repeat it and posted the photos in this forum, so it is up to you to repeat it and post your results.

PS. The problem with Rowbotham's experiment is not the bed's flatness, it is the combination of a less than flat bed and flowing water. If Rowbotham and the others (on both sides of the issue) had demonstrated that the water was really still, the experiment would have been closer to acceptable scientific standards.
Because large lakes have remarkably flat water compared to a man made canal in the Fens.
Because large lakes are deep enough that the the shape of the bed does not change the shape of the surface.

If you can show us that a 10 meter or less wide canal, which is most probably less than a meter and a half deep in most places flows so slowly that viscosity of the water is not a determining factor, then we can accept your experiment as potentially valid. If not, redesign the experiment so the viscosity of water is not an issue.

Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #88 on: August 23, 2011, 10:52:41 PM »
In other words, some other experiment cause we don't like Rowbotham's?  Let us know the particulars of your new experiment, especially those of the water bed's perfect flatness.

It's not a matter of whether or not somebody likes the experiment, on either side.  The problem is that the experiment is based on incomplete knowledge of the experimental environment and that it does not account for a number of things which could skew the result. 

The problem is much more complicated than Rowbotham anticipated, and his results are inconclusive because there are several unaccounted-for phenomena which could easily cause his observed result even if the world is not flat.  It is not unreasonable to suggest that the experiment be revised in order to eliminate or otherwise account for the possible sources of error in the original.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Bedford Level Discrepancy
« Reply #89 on: August 23, 2011, 11:37:09 PM »
What are you talking about?  No one even hinted that your wanting to do a new experiment is unreasonable.