Flat Earth Kryptonite

People keep quoting the statement that refraction lies as the key reason that Rowbotham's experiments succeeded.  However, the truth remains that differences from vacuum to air and angles of light entry into the atmosphere result in refraction patterns.  Such refraction is responsible for even the setting sun and changes in color.  The sky being blue during the day proves refraction occurs as well...  In Rowbotham's case, every single experiment used a hygromoter (measures water vapor levels), thermometer, and barometer (measures air pressure).  We desire not to explain away refraction.  We embrace the aforementioned atmospheric phenomena as being probable and realistic.

Except we're not saying "Refraction does not exist" we are saying "Refraction does not work in the way that you require it to do so for a star to remain visible to the south for the entire night for the entire southern hemisphere while it is actually spinning around the outside of the hemisphere."

Refraction is a real phenomenon with real properties. It working how you need it to to explain the Southern cross is neither probable nor realistic.

People keep quoting the statement that refraction lies as the key reason that Rowbotham's experiments succeeded.  However, the truth remains that differences from vacuum to air and angles of light entry into the atmosphere result in refraction patterns.  Such refraction is responsible for even the setting sun and changes in color.  The sky being blue during the day proves refraction occurs as well...  In Rowbotham's case, every single experiment used a hygromoter (measures water vapor levels), thermometer, and barometer (measures air pressure).  We desire not to explain away refraction.  We embrace the aforementioned atmospheric phenomena as being probable and realistic.

Please show where Rowbotham (or any other FE'er) takes those measurements at several different heights above the water level.  It is very common for significant temperature gradients to exist close to the water level where Rowbotham likes to perform his observations and these temperature gradients can be responsible for a variety of refractive phenomena, such as ducting and lofting.

People keep quoting the statement that refraction lies as the key reason that Rowbotham's experiments succeeded.  However, the truth remains that differences from vacuum to air and angles of light entry into the atmosphere result in refraction patterns.  Such refraction is responsible for even the setting sun and changes in color.  The sky being blue during the day proves refraction occurs as well...  In Rowbotham's case, every single experiment used a hygromoter (measures water vapor levels), thermometer, and barometer (measures air pressure).  We desire not to explain away refraction.  We embrace the aforementioned atmospheric phenomena as being probable and realistic.

Plus, when the experiment was done well above the water, it's results perfectly coincided with a round Earth. One of those results is wrong, obviously. Could it be the one that's much closer to the water, where much more severe temperature gradients are comment, and thus is much more susceptible to refraction. Or is it the one that isn't as susceptible to any known phenomena and must then be explained by magic?

no the experiment proved a flat earth.  Wallace's results received immediate annulment. 

no the experiment proved a flat earth.  Wallace's results received immediate annulment.

No technicalities of the wager disallowed Wallace from collecting what Hampden owed him. The results weren't in dispute. The legality of the wager itself was.

no the experiment proved a flat earth.  Wallace's results received immediate annulment.

It was not immediate annulment, and indeed, Hampden was successfully sued in a libel case for the comments he made about Wallace.

no the experiment proved a flat earth.  Wallace's results received immediate annulment.

*sigh*

Read this: Re: Fraudulent Claim about Wallace

Also, read (and take the trouble to understand) this: Wallace account of Bedford Level

I already read everything that needs reading.  Wallace's account I already encountered in a previous post.  Read everything there, and I still lack satisfaction about that swindler.

I already read everything that needs reading.  Wallace's account I already encountered in a previous post.  Read everything there, and I still lack satisfaction about that swindler.

Is there any evidence he is a swindler?  Nothing from the courts. I would be interested in where you formed this opinion from.