Light Refraction in the Bedford Level Experiment

Hey,

FET proposes that the curvature of the Earth perceived, say, when we're standing at the top of a mountain or when we see ships descend off the horizon is due to light refraction. How does this work in the Bedford Level Experiment, which would have been affected by the same light refraction? Wouldn't it have produced the same curve we see from high mountains?

Also on the validity of the BLE, has this been reproduced on other rivers? That particular river may have been oddly sloped.

Thanks!

You may or may not be aware that the BLE was repeated by other people along the same waterway and the results were at odds with those reported by Dr Rowbotham.
I like to think of Rowbotham's experiment as the Victorian version of Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion capers - world changing experiment that mysteriously nobody else has been able to reproduce.

You may or may not be aware that the BLE was repeated by other people along the same waterway and the results were at odds with those reported by Dr Rowbotham.
I like to think of Rowbotham's experiment as the Victorian version of Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion capers - world changing experiment that mysteriously nobody else has been able to reproduce.

He's not asking someone to come along to reinforce his beliefs, he's asking for an FE opinion on a topic. Please stop being ignorant. Furthermore, every reproduction of BLE has found the Earth to be flat with the exception of Wallace, whose experiment was nullified in a court of law.

Hey,

FET proposes that the curvature of the Earth perceived, say, when we're standing at the top of a mountain or when we see ships descend off the horizon is due to light refraction. How does this work in the Bedford Level Experiment, which would have been affected by the same light refraction? Wouldn't it have produced the same curve we see from high mountains?

Also on the validity of the BLE, has this been reproduced on other rivers? That particular river may have been oddly sloped.

Thanks!

So essentially RE'ers came up with the idea of this form of refraction to explain the fact that experiments regularly find the Earth to be flat. It's actually the same kind of logic that we FE'ers are regularly accused of, although we are not regularly guilty of. It's basically "hey, this doesn't fit my worldview. Let's come up with a BS explanation of why using a phenomenon we already know exists!"

As for it being performed on other bodies of water, Bedford Canal was chosen for just that reason. It has no curvature relative to the Earth. That is, there was no waterflow. It's quite difficult to find similar bodies of water, which is why now that Bedford no longer exists BLE is performed quite irregularly.

Hey,

I guess I was misinterpreting the FET posts on light refraction; this makes sense now.

So the question now is -- how come the Earth looks curved when I look at it from high altitudes? Also, why do ships seem to "fall" off the horizon when I watch them go into the distance?

Thanks!

 why do no modern FErs do the experiment? just wondering because it would be very easy to do for almost no money? we now have better telescopes better cameras and better mesuring devices. maby this comunity should arange something? when was the last time this experiment was performed?

Hey, Pythagoras,

Of course, I've only been on the forums for a day, but my interpretation is that the BLE is no longer done because the Bedford waterway perfect environment is no longer available, and any other body of water would yeild imperfect results due to elevation changes. Constructing such a body of water would, of course, be pretty expensive.

My recommendation to the FES for proving the FET would be to build a working GPS according to the FET schematic, since the propagated method by which GPS works relies on an ellipsoidal Earth. Thus if the FET GPS works reliably, RE proponents know something's wrong with their perception of the world.

My question on the Earth looking curved from high altitudes still stands.

Thanks!

Hey,

I guess I was misinterpreting the FET posts on light refraction; this makes sense now.

So the question now is -- how come the Earth looks curved when I look at it from high altitudes? Also, why do ships seem to "fall" off the horizon when I watch them go into the distance?

Thanks!

The Earth only starts to look curved at very high altitudes. I believe the minimum is something like 60,000 feet, which is much higher than commercial airliners fly. An appearance of curvature does regularly occur, especially on commercial jets, but that mainly due to the windows you're viewing from being curved (this is also an RE explanation). Pictures from very high elevations, for example those (very cool) videos you can find on youtube where people send cameras up in weather balloons are caused by the cameras themselves. If you watch one of these videos carefully you'll see that depending on where the camera is pointed the horizon fluctuates between concavity, flatness, and even convexity.

____

The Sinking Ship Effect is caused because as something gets farther away, it appears smaller, especially in relation to waves and swells on the water closer by. The swells and waves start to hide the bottom of the ship as it gets farther, and so it appears to sink.

Actually I believe Old Bedford River Canal, particularly the section around Welney still does exists. Someone living in Norfolk could maybe verify that.

why do no modern FErs do the experiment? just wondering because it would be very easy to do for almost no money? we now have better telescopes better cameras and better mesuring devices. maby this comunity should arange something? when was the last time this experiment was performed?

Well, my current answer is that the water is damned cold where I live at the moment. This summer I plan to measure the relative convexity of a river on which I work as a sailing instructor and to attempt to measure the curvature thusly. I'm going to use the floating orange experiment to measure the flow of the river, which is quite negligible, and use that to find the change in elevation from the start of the experiment to the end. Then I will adjust my results according to this change.

fair enough well i hope you take pictures and post on hear. 

Hey,

On the Sinking Ship effect -- if it is waves that cause the "sinking" effect, then we should see a strict proportion between ship size and horizon distance; that is, a ship twice as tall should be able to go twice as far before "falling" off the horizon. However, this doesn't seem to be the case; the horizon is almost the same for all sizes of ship. Why is that?

Thanks!

i like this guy ^^^^ i never thought of it like that. very good point indeed.

Quote from: dabbler on January 30, 2013, 12:31:57 PM

Hey,

I guess I was misinterpreting the FET posts on light refraction; this makes sense now.

So the question now is -- how come the Earth looks curved when I look at it from high altitudes? Also, why do ships seem to "fall" off the horizon when I watch them go into the distance?

Thanks!

The Earth only starts to look curved at very high altitudes. I believe the minimum is something like 60,000 feet, which is much higher than commercial airliners fly. An appearance of curvature does regularly occur, especially on commercial jets, but that mainly due to the windows you're viewing from being curved (this is also an RE explanation). Pictures from very high elevations, for example those (very cool) videos you can find on youtube where people send cameras up in weather balloons are caused by the cameras themselves. If you watch one of these videos carefully you'll see that depending on where the camera is pointed the horizon fluctuates between concavity, flatness, and even convexity.

____

The Sinking Ship Effect is caused because as something gets farther away, it appears smaller, especially in relation to waves and swells on the water closer by. The swells and waves start to hide the bottom of the ship as it gets farther, and so it appears to sink.

The waves that would be obstructing your view would still be a considerable distance away. And is there always some bulge of waves that lies only between an observer and a ship?

Plus this guy's very good point:

Hey,

On the Sinking Ship effect -- if it is waves that cause the "sinking" effect, then we should see a strict proportion between ship size and horizon distance; that is, a ship twice as tall should be able to go twice as far before "falling" off the horizon. However, this doesn't seem to be the case; the horizon is almost the same for all sizes of ship. Why is that?

Thanks!

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 30, 2013, 09:54:16 AM

You may or may not be aware that the BLE was repeated by other people along the same waterway and the results were at odds with those reported by Dr Rowbotham.
I like to think of Rowbotham's experiment as the Victorian version of Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion capers - world changing experiment that mysteriously nobody else has been able to reproduce.

He's not asking someone to come along to reinforce his beliefs, he's asking for an FE opinion on a topic. Please stop being ignorant. Furthermore, every reproduction of BLE has found the Earth to be flat with the exception of Wallace, whose experiment was nullified in a court of law.

I get criticised for daring to speak in a thread when I'm not a FE'er, yet when you do speak, you get the facts completely wrong, as a quick visit to Wikipedia shows us...
a supporter by the name of John Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham's experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace, by virtue of his surveyor's training and knowledge of physics, avoided the errors of the preceding experiments and won the bet.[5][6] The crucial step was to set a sight line 4 metres (13 ft) above the water.[7] Despite Hampden initially refusing to accept the demonstration, Wallace was awarded the bet by the referee, editor of The Field sports magazine. Hampden subsequently published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for libel and threatening to kill Wallace.[
Sounds to me like if the court passed a verdict of guilty on libel charges at Hampden, they were officially confirming that in their view, Wallace conducted the experiment properly. The exact opposite of your claim.
The same page then goes on to list the experiment conducted by one Henry Yule Oldham...
In 1901 Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[4][5] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools as until images taken from orbiting satellites became available.[
How does that tie in with "only Wallace found roundness", Tausami?

My own personal experience with this involves a fire control radar with a pin point beam from an aircraft carrier in the middle of the Indian Ocean during a tracking exercise.

We were doing a tracking exercise against a single aircraft flying extremely low to the water. The point was to see how soon we could pick up the aircraft and at what point we lost the aircraft outbound. The radars were situated well over 100 feet off the waterline on the super structure of the ship and though had a featured range of 50 NM we were able to tweak them to about 75 NM. They had audio Doppler conversion as well which was helpful in being able to hear our target as well as see it.

The Indian Ocean, during this time, was glassy... very little waves. It's a surreal view. This is why we did this low flying exercises here, less danger to the aircraft.

During one of the outbounds I was able to stay on the aircraft until I heard a taletell woosh and lost contact. That woosh was water. He had gone beyond the horizon line which was about 17NM if memory serves me for my radar.

That's what happened to me. Not a light wave, not line of sight... an electro-magnetic, microwave beam. It's a Bedford Level with a modern twist.

My own personal experience with this involves a fire control radar with a pin point beam from an aircraft carrier in the middle of the Indian Ocean during a tracking exercise.

We were doing a tracking exercise against a single aircraft flying extremely low to the water. The point was to see how soon we could pick up the aircraft and at what point we lost the aircraft outbound. The radars were situated well over 100 feet off the waterline on the super structure of the ship and though had a featured range of 50 NM we were able to tweak them to about 75 NM. They had audio Doppler conversion as well which was helpful in being able to hear our target as well as see it.

The Indian Ocean, during this time, was glassy... very little waves. It's a surreal view. This is why we did this low flying exercises here, less danger to the aircraft.

During one of the outbounds I was able to stay on the aircraft until I heard a taletell woosh and lost contact. That woosh was water. He had gone beyond the horizon line which was about 17NM if memory serves me for my radar.

That's what happened to me. Not a light wave, not line of sight... an electro-magnetic, microwave beam. It's a Bedford Level with a modern twist.

That's a good analog to the BLE. And it discredits Dr Rowbotham.

Hey,

Thanks, Pythagoras! I actually think I'm going to start a separate thread, so that this one can remain on the BLE.

Thanks!

When  I first came here in 2007 I brought that experience up with the understanding that it's my own personal undocumented experience and if others choose to believe me or not so be it. I respect other people's opinions, even if I find flaw in them.

Bedford Level Experiment, to me, represents a bad case of desired outcome, maybe in both cases but more so in Rowbathom's case. It is a great experiment to repeat because it would show an up and coming generation how to explore the nature of some when you can only see a small portion of it. There are people that have been coming to this site to argue the virtues of our Earth as a Globe and yet they haven't the slightest clue how to prove it. That's why they should wade into a calm body of water and see through a telescope.

At least the Zetectics aren't taking things as defacto truth. I admire there spunk.

Actually I believe Old Bedford River Canal, particularly the section around Welney still does exists. Someone living in Norfolk could maybe verify that.

Looks like a couple sections plus another larger canal parallel to it as of 2006. 
52*31'09.17N      0*15'32.07E  For anyone interested in looking at in on google earth or something.

There are people that have been coming to this site to argue the virtues of our Earth as a Globe and yet they haven't the slightest clue how to prove it. That's why they should wade into a calm body of water and see through a telescope.

At least the Zetectics aren't taking things as defacto truth. I admire there spunk.

I've found myself conducting photography experiments to see things for myself.  I find it rather fun.  The bridge and hillside pictures I posted a little while back showed things dropping below the horizon when viewed from just above the water due to my observation height changing, with refraction allowing me to still see shoreline objects, only somewhat compressed.  I was pointed toward ENaG, but it didn't completely explain it.  RET explains it though.

Quote from: Tausami on January 30, 2013, 12:25:59 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 30, 2013, 09:54:16 AM

You may or may not be aware that the BLE was repeated by other people along the same waterway and the results were at odds with those reported by Dr Rowbotham.
I like to think of Rowbotham's experiment as the Victorian version of Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion capers - world changing experiment that mysteriously nobody else has been able to reproduce.

He's not asking someone to come along to reinforce his beliefs, he's asking for an FE opinion on a topic. Please stop being ignorant. Furthermore, every reproduction of BLE has found the Earth to be flat with the exception of Wallace, whose experiment was nullified in a court of law.

I get criticised for daring to speak in a thread when I'm not a FE'er, yet when you do speak, you get the facts completely wrong, as a quick visit to Wikipedia shows us...
a supporter by the name of John Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham's experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace, by virtue of his surveyor's training and knowledge of physics, avoided the errors of the preceding experiments and won the bet.[5][6] The crucial step was to set a sight line 4 metres (13 ft) above the water.[7] Despite Hampden initially refusing to accept the demonstration, Wallace was awarded the bet by the referee, editor of The Field sports magazine. Hampden subsequently published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for libel and threatening to kill Wallace.[
Sounds to me like if the court passed a verdict of guilty on libel charges at Hampden, they were officially confirming that in their view, Wallace conducted the experiment properly. The exact opposite of your claim.
The same page then goes on to list the experiment conducted by one Henry Yule Oldham...
In 1901 Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[4][5] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools as until images taken from orbiting satellites became available.[
How does that tie in with "only Wallace found roundness", Tausami?

No, I didn't criticize you for 'daring to speak in a thread when you're not an FE'er'. I criticized you for using his question as a shallow opportunity to reinforce your own and the OP's beliefs when that's the opposite of what the OP was asking for. Imagine a liberal asking a conservative why he does not believe in gun control and another liberal jumping in and saying it's because he's an idiot. The second liberal is only going to annoy everyone.

As for the rest of your post, Wiki is far from an unbiased source when it comes to FET. They essentially state outright that they believe us to be incorrect. The court ruled that Wallace was not owed money by Hampden as the wager was improper. They ruled that Hampden was guilty of libel, but on the other hand he was. Hampden was kind of a jerk by all accounts.

Oldham had no witnesses and therefore counts for very little as far as evidence is concerned. Also, because his name is Oldham I can't help picture him as a little old man with a camera wading into a canal with waders too big for him. Is that weird?

Hey,

On the Sinking Ship effect -- if it is waves that cause the "sinking" effect, then we should see a strict proportion between ship size and horizon distance; that is, a ship twice as tall should be able to go twice as far before "falling" off the horizon. However, this doesn't seem to be the case; the horizon is almost the same for all sizes of ship. Why is that?

Thanks!

Quite a fair point. However, it's somewhat mathematically fallacious. The equation for the angular diameter of an object (its apparent size) is given by z=2arctan(.5x/y), where z is the angular diameter, x is the actual size of the object, and y is the distance to the object. Now this difficult to graph, being in three variables, so let's presuppose that the object is 6 meters across. If we increase the diameter to 12 meters, the angular diameter is not also doubled. I made a graph of these two in Wolfram Alpha for visual purposes

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2arctan%283%2Fy%29%3Dz (diameter is 6)
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2arctan(6%2Fy)%3Dz (diameter is 12)

Observe how the angular diameter does not double between these two. It increases, but this is intuitive and easily observable in nature. Larger objects do indeed take longer to go over the horizon.

Hey,

While this is absolutely true, we're not dealing with angular size at a certain distance here. We're looking at the distance required to reach a certain angular size (the angular size that starts being obscured by close waves). Since formula has it as 2arctan(0.5(x/y)), then for the angular size to be the same, if x is doubled, then y is also doubled (x is proportional to y).

(On a side note, the formula for the angular size of the object in this case is actually simply z=arctan(x/y), since we're positioned at the bottom of the object; the formula you gave is for angular diameter when the triangle formed by us and the ends of the object is isoceles; when we're in the "middle" of the object).

We can do this whole problem without trig, though --
Draw line l representing the sea. Take point P on l, and draw wave AB perpendicular to l somewhere to the right of P, with B on l. In order for ship XY to be "sunk" (with Y on l), segment XY cannot intersect PB (if it did, light could travel from XY to P without intersecting AB). Thus the horizon distance is determined by side PY of triangle PXY similar to PAB (closest XY can be without intersecting PB). Since all such triangles are similar, PY is proportional to XY.

So... what's this?

Thanks!

Here's a crude approximation of the diagram, if you're having trouble drawing it.


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Dinosaur Neil also makes the very good point that if you're looking at it from a standpoint higher than the highest wave, the wave now has to be taller than the boat to obscure it.

Thanks!

Dinosaur Neil (though often unproductive)

At least I don't keep putting "Thanks!" at the end of every post - you know that's annoying?

That diagram isn't quite accurate, because SSE isn't the only phenomenon at work. There's also atmospheric visibility, refraction, edification, and (according to some) electromagnetic acceleration. Therefore, the hypotenuse of that triangle is not actually straight. It should be exponential. Therefore, the same light ray which reaches the top of ship 1 would not also reach the top of ship 2.

Quote from: dabbler on January 31, 2013, 04:57:19 AM

Dinosaur Neil (though often unproductive)

At least I don't keep putting "Thanks!" at the end of every post - you know that's annoying?

SHHH, adults talking.

That diagram isn't quite accurate, because SSE isn't the only phenomenon at work. There's also atmospheric visibility, refraction, edification, and (according to some) electromagnetic acceleration. Therefore, the hypotenuse of that triangle is not actually straight. It should be exponential. Therefore, the same light ray which reaches the top of ship 1 would not also reach the top of ship 2.

...all of which should be reproducible. I feel a science field experiment coming on. I should at least test using a laser and photo equipment. I have an amateur radio license but building a radar... wait... a radar gun kit. This is why I love this site, gets my juices going.

THANKS

I'm actually working on a way to include that in my planned BLE. I'd appreciate some ideas.

I'm actually working on a way to include that in my planned BLE. I'd appreciate some ideas.

Cool. Where are you going to do it?

Hey,

That diagram isn't quite accurate, because SSE isn't the only phenomenon at work. There's also atmospheric visibility, refraction, edification, and (according to some) electromagnetic acceleration. Therefore, the hypotenuse of that triangle is not actually straight. It should be exponential. Therefore, the same light ray which reaches the top of ship 1 would not also reach the top of ship 2.

So, I may be misinterpreting this, but I think the argument posed here is that light bends, so that a ship of double height isn't able to go double distance but in fact log(2x)/log(x) = log(2)/log(x) + 1 times as far, with x being the original distance. How would this light bending manifest in the BLE?

Thanks!

Well, here's how I think about it. For the results of the Bedford Level Experiment to be consistent with a round Earth, light would have to consistently refract logarithmically. For the results of the Sinking Ship Effect to be consistent with a flat Earth, light would have to consistently refract exponentially. Now, exponential refraction is regularly observed in day to day life, for example in mirages. Logarithmic refraction not so much. This, in my own opinion, is evidence of a flat Earth. However, I would like to quantify this refraction if possible. The one flaw in Rowbotham's work is that his results were qualitative. When I reproduce his experiments more modernly I hope to record my results in a quantitative manner, at which point we will be able to determine whether there is exponential or logarithmic curvature to the light.