Bedford Level?

Preface:

Once upon a time a fellow named Hampden offered a £500 bet to anyone who could prove the Earth was round. Another fellow named Wallace agreed and the two agreed upon an experiment that would show whether water was flat or convex.

Both sides picked a referee. Hampden picked Mr. Carpenter ("FlatRef"), and Wallace picked Mr. Coulcher ("RoundRef"). They agreed upon an experiment to take place at the Old Bedford canal (you already know the details of the canal, so I'll skip them). Upon one bridge was placed a flag such that its bottom edge was 13' 3" above the water and the center stripe of the flag would be level with a telescope set up on the opposing bridge. Between the two bridges was placed a pole with two disks. The top disk was level with the flag's stripe, and the bottom disk was 4' lower.

Both sides agreed upon the victory conditions of the experiment. If the flag, disk, and telescope were aligned one behind the other then the water was indeed perfectly flat. If the disks rose above the flag, then the water was convex. To this Hampden said "I am perfectly satisfied with your proposed plan. It cannot fail to be thoroughly convincing one way or the other"[nb]http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S179AA.htm[/nb]

Both refs looked through the telescope. RoundRef made a diagram, and FlatRef signed it as being correct. This diagram clearly shows the central pole rising above the flag such that even the lower disk is above it indicating a drop of a bit more than four feet (the calculated drop being around 5 feet).



At this point the bet should have been over as the observation exactly matches one of the victory conditions. However, Hampden argued that since the telescope wasn't leveled this particular observation was invalid.

A Troughton's level--a small inverting telescope with a bubble level, used for surveying--was brought forth and placed at the same height as the original telescope. The telescope was leveled to the satisfaction of FlatRef. Both refs looked through, and both drew diagrams, and both signed the other as being accurate. This was done in both directions, such that each ref drew 2 diagrams. FlatRef's diagrams are reproduced below.

These diagrams also clearly show the central pole rising above the flag about the same amount as before, but this time with the added benefit of providing a level horizon (the horizontal line) against which the observation can be compared. Once again it is clear that there is a convexity to the water as both pole and flag are beneath the horizon.



Once again, this not only matches one of the victory conditions exactly, but it is the same victory condition as the one shown in the first observation--specifically, the victory condition of the round earth.

Question:

My question to flat-earth advocates is this:

Why is the Bedford Level experiment so often touted as being a massive victory for a flat-Earth, which cannot be explained by a round one? It seems pretty clear that the experiment clearly showed a round Earth.

A court ruled that Wallace and Russel defrauded Hampden and had to pay the money to the FEr.


Why do you always pick that one? The Bedford Level experiments were performed 3 times.

Once by Rowbotham. Result Earth Flat.
Once by Russel and Hampden. Result inconclusive because the Round earther cheated.
Once by Lady Blount and again the result is a flat earth.

So 3 results. 2 for FE and a nullified result.

Why do you think FErs point to the Bedford Level experiments? They have only ever proved the earth to be flat. Its just you and your brethren seem to keep ignoring all the other times and keep focussing on the one where the waters were muddied by fraudulent RErs.

I have been on this website for years. NEVER once have I seen a round earther start a thread about Lady Blount's Bedford experiments. Not once. Search. 40,000 threads and not one.
But thousands focussing on the Hampden one. And we are accused of picking and choosing? What annoys me is the Hampden one had a court rule in favour of the FErs, and yet RErs still love to argue about its validity.

A court ruled that Wallace and Russel defrauded Hampden and had to pay the money to the FEr.


Why do you always pick that one? The Bedford Level experiments were performed 3 times.

Once by Rowbotham. Result Earth Flat.
Once by Russel and Hampden. Result inconclusive because the Round earther cheated.
Once by Lady Blount and again the result is a flat earth.

So 3 results. 2 for FE and a nullified result.

Why do you think FErs point to the Bedford Level experiments? They have only ever proved the earth to be flat. Its just you and your brethren seem to keep ignoring all the other times and keep focussing on the one where the waters were muddied by fraudulent RErs.

I have been on this website for years. NEVER once have I seen a round earther start a thread about Lady Blount's Bedford experiments. Not once. Search. 40,000 threads and not one.
But thousands focussing on the Hampden one. And we are accused of picking and choosing? What annoys me is the Hampden one had a court rule in favour of the FErs, and yet RErs still love to argue about its validity.

Why do you always say that Wallace defrauded Hambden?  Wallace had to pay the money back because of a technicality in how payment can and cannot be arranged in a bet.  It had -nothing- to do with the results of the experiment, which were in favor of a RE.  You say this time and again Thork.  Either you did not read the court documents you claim, or you did not understand them or are deliberately misleading people.

Quote from: Ævan on August 09, 2013, 12:22:23 PM

A court ruled that Wallace and Russel defrauded Hampden and had to pay the money to the FEr.


Why do you always pick that one? The Bedford Level experiments were performed 3 times.

Once by Rowbotham. Result Earth Flat.
Once by Russel and Hampden. Result inconclusive because the Round earther cheated.
Once by Lady Blount and again the result is a flat earth.

So 3 results. 2 for FE and a nullified result.

Why do you think FErs point to the Bedford Level experiments? They have only ever proved the earth to be flat. Its just you and your brethren seem to keep ignoring all the other times and keep focussing on the one where the waters were muddied by fraudulent RErs.

I have been on this website for years. NEVER once have I seen a round earther start a thread about Lady Blount's Bedford experiments. Not once. Search. 40,000 threads and not one.
But thousands focussing on the Hampden one. And we are accused of picking and choosing? What annoys me is the Hampden one had a court rule in favour of the FErs, and yet RErs still love to argue about its validity.

Why do you always say that Wallace defrauded Hambden?  Wallace had to pay the money back because of a technicality in how payment can and cannot be arranged in a bet.  It had -nothing- to do with the results of the experiment, which were in favor of a RE.  You say this time and again Thork.  Either you did not read the court documents you claim, or you did not understand them or are deliberately misleading people.

A court ruled that Wallace and Russell colluded to defraud Hampden. That's historical fact. I can link you the court transcript if you like.
So some seriously fishy business ... that experiment needs to be scratched from the records.
The other two that weren't tampered with both show earth is flat. But RErs never want to discuss those.

A court ruled that Wallace and Russel defrauded Hampden and had to pay the money to the FEr.


Why do you always pick that one? The Bedford Level experiments were performed 3 times.

Once by Rowbotham. Result Earth Flat.
Once by Russel and Hampden. Result inconclusive because the Round earther cheated.
Once by Lady Blount and again the result is a flat earth.

So 3 results. 2 for FE and a nullified result.

Why do you think FErs point to the Bedford Level experiments? They have only ever proved the earth to be flat. Its just you and your brethren seem to keep ignoring all the other times and keep focussing on the one where the waters were muddied by fraudulent RErs.

I have been on this website for years. NEVER once have I seen a round earther start a thread about Lady Blount's Bedford experiments. Not once. Search. 40,000 threads and not one.
But thousands focussing on the Hampden one. And we are accused of picking and choosing? What annoys me is the Hampden one had a court rule in favour of the FErs, and yet RErs still love to argue about its validity.

A court ruled that Wallace had to give the money back because of a technicality involving how the law saw wagers.

I picked this experiment because it was done 14' above the surface of the water. Water is almost always a different temperature than the air, and that difference heats or cools the air above it creating the ideal conditions for refraction and mirages.

I picked this experiment because it has actual diagrams of what was seen instead of word-of-mouth.

I picked this experiment because it was performed at the request of a FE advocate by a scientist.

I picked this experiment because Hampden himself said "It cannot fail to be thoroughly convincing one way or the other."

Quote from: Rama Set on August 09, 2013, 12:34:38 PM

Quote from: Ævan on August 09, 2013, 12:22:23 PM

A court ruled that Wallace and Russel defrauded Hampden and had to pay the money to the FEr.


Why do you always pick that one? The Bedford Level experiments were performed 3 times.

Once by Rowbotham. Result Earth Flat.
Once by Russel and Hampden. Result inconclusive because the Round earther cheated.
Once by Lady Blount and again the result is a flat earth.

So 3 results. 2 for FE and a nullified result.

Why do you think FErs point to the Bedford Level experiments? They have only ever proved the earth to be flat. Its just you and your brethren seem to keep ignoring all the other times and keep focussing on the one where the waters were muddied by fraudulent RErs.

I have been on this website for years. NEVER once have I seen a round earther start a thread about Lady Blount's Bedford experiments. Not once. Search. 40,000 threads and not one.
But thousands focussing on the Hampden one. And we are accused of picking and choosing? What annoys me is the Hampden one had a court rule in favour of the FErs, and yet RErs still love to argue about its validity.

Why do you always say that Wallace defrauded Hambden?  Wallace had to pay the money back because of a technicality in how payment can and cannot be arranged in a bet.  It had -nothing- to do with the results of the experiment, which were in favor of a RE.  You say this time and again Thork.  Either you did not read the court documents you claim, or you did not understand them or are deliberately misleading people.

A court ruled that Wallace and Russell colluded to defraud Hampden. That's historical fact. I can link you the court transcript if you like.
So some seriously fishy business ... that experiment needs to be scratched from the records.
The other two that weren't tampered with both show earth is flat. But RErs never want to discuss those.

Link it please.

Quote from: Ævan on August 09, 2013, 12:22:23 PM

A court ruled that Wallace and Russel defrauded Hampden and had to pay the money to the FEr.


Why do you always pick that one? The Bedford Level experiments were performed 3 times.

Once by Rowbotham. Result Earth Flat.
Once by Russel and Hampden. Result inconclusive because the Round earther cheated.
Once by Lady Blount and again the result is a flat earth.

So 3 results. 2 for FE and a nullified result.

Why do you think FErs point to the Bedford Level experiments? They have only ever proved the earth to be flat. Its just you and your brethren seem to keep ignoring all the other times and keep focussing on the one where the waters were muddied by fraudulent RErs.

I have been on this website for years. NEVER once have I seen a round earther start a thread about Lady Blount's Bedford experiments. Not once. Search. 40,000 threads and not one.
But thousands focussing on the Hampden one. And we are accused of picking and choosing? What annoys me is the Hampden one had a court rule in favour of the FErs, and yet RErs still love to argue about its validity.

A court ruled that Wallace had to give the money back because of a technicality involving how the law saw wagers.

I picked this experiment because it was done 14' above the surface of the water. Water is almost always a different temperature than the air, and that difference heats or cools the air above it creating the ideal conditions for refraction and mirages.

I picked this experiment because it has actual diagrams of what was seen instead of word-of-mouth.

I picked this experiment because it was performed at the request of a FE advocate by a scientist.

I picked this experiment because Hampden himself said "It cannot fail to be thoroughly convincing one way or the other."

Why didn't you pick Rowbotham's? He detailed everything in Earth Not a Globe. Its far more comprehensive?
You picked this one because you could FUD all over it. 

Quote from: Ævan on August 09, 2013, 12:38:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 09, 2013, 12:34:38 PM

Quote from: Ævan on August 09, 2013, 12:22:23 PM

A court ruled that Wallace and Russel defrauded Hampden and had to pay the money to the FEr.


Why do you always pick that one? The Bedford Level experiments were performed 3 times.

Once by Rowbotham. Result Earth Flat.
Once by Russel and Hampden. Result inconclusive because the Round earther cheated.
Once by Lady Blount and again the result is a flat earth.

So 3 results. 2 for FE and a nullified result.

Why do you think FErs point to the Bedford Level experiments? They have only ever proved the earth to be flat. Its just you and your brethren seem to keep ignoring all the other times and keep focussing on the one where the waters were muddied by fraudulent RErs.

I have been on this website for years. NEVER once have I seen a round earther start a thread about Lady Blount's Bedford experiments. Not once. Search. 40,000 threads and not one.
But thousands focussing on the Hampden one. And we are accused of picking and choosing? What annoys me is the Hampden one had a court rule in favour of the FErs, and yet RErs still love to argue about its validity.

Why do you always say that Wallace defrauded Hambden?  Wallace had to pay the money back because of a technicality in how payment can and cannot be arranged in a bet.  It had -nothing- to do with the results of the experiment, which were in favor of a RE.  You say this time and again Thork.  Either you did not read the court documents you claim, or you did not understand them or are deliberately misleading people.

A court ruled that Wallace and Russell colluded to defraud Hampden. That's historical fact. I can link you the court transcript if you like.
So some seriously fishy business ... that experiment needs to be scratched from the records.
The other two that weren't tampered with both show earth is flat. But RErs never want to discuss those.

Link it please.

With compliments of the house.

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 09, 2013, 12:40:50 PM

Quote from: Ævan on August 09, 2013, 12:22:23 PM

A court ruled that Wallace and Russel defrauded Hampden and had to pay the money to the FEr.


Why do you always pick that one? The Bedford Level experiments were performed 3 times.

Once by Rowbotham. Result Earth Flat.
Once by Russel and Hampden. Result inconclusive because the Round earther cheated.
Once by Lady Blount and again the result is a flat earth.

So 3 results. 2 for FE and a nullified result.

Why do you think FErs point to the Bedford Level experiments? They have only ever proved the earth to be flat. Its just you and your brethren seem to keep ignoring all the other times and keep focussing on the one where the waters were muddied by fraudulent RErs.

I have been on this website for years. NEVER once have I seen a round earther start a thread about Lady Blount's Bedford experiments. Not once. Search. 40,000 threads and not one.
But thousands focussing on the Hampden one. And we are accused of picking and choosing? What annoys me is the Hampden one had a court rule in favour of the FErs, and yet RErs still love to argue about its validity.

A court ruled that Wallace had to give the money back because of a technicality involving how the law saw wagers.

I picked this experiment because it was done 14' above the surface of the water. Water is almost always a different temperature than the air, and that difference heats or cools the air above it creating the ideal conditions for refraction and mirages.

I picked this experiment because it has actual diagrams of what was seen instead of word-of-mouth.

I picked this experiment because it was performed at the request of a FE advocate by a scientist.

I picked this experiment because Hampden himself said "It cannot fail to be thoroughly convincing one way or the other."

Why didn't you pick Rowbotham's? He detailed everything in Earth Not a Globe. Its far more comprehensive?
You picked this one because you could FUD all over it. 

Quote from: Rama Set on August 09, 2013, 12:41:18 PM

Quote from: Ævan on August 09, 2013, 12:38:03 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on August 09, 2013, 12:34:38 PM

Quote from: Ævan on August 09, 2013, 12:22:23 PM

A court ruled that Wallace and Russel defrauded Hampden and had to pay the money to the FEr.


Why do you always pick that one? The Bedford Level experiments were performed 3 times.

Once by Rowbotham. Result Earth Flat.
Once by Russel and Hampden. Result inconclusive because the Round earther cheated.
Once by Lady Blount and again the result is a flat earth.

So 3 results. 2 for FE and a nullified result.

Why do you think FErs point to the Bedford Level experiments? They have only ever proved the earth to be flat. Its just you and your brethren seem to keep ignoring all the other times and keep focussing on the one where the waters were muddied by fraudulent RErs.

I have been on this website for years. NEVER once have I seen a round earther start a thread about Lady Blount's Bedford experiments. Not once. Search. 40,000 threads and not one.
But thousands focussing on the Hampden one. And we are accused of picking and choosing? What annoys me is the Hampden one had a court rule in favour of the FErs, and yet RErs still love to argue about its validity.

Why do you always say that Wallace defrauded Hambden?  Wallace had to pay the money back because of a technicality in how payment can and cannot be arranged in a bet.  It had -nothing- to do with the results of the experiment, which were in favor of a RE.  You say this time and again Thork.  Either you did not read the court documents you claim, or you did not understand them or are deliberately misleading people.

A court ruled that Wallace and Russell colluded to defraud Hampden. That's historical fact. I can link you the court transcript if you like.
So some seriously fishy business ... that experiment needs to be scratched from the records.
The other two that weren't tampered with both show earth is flat. But RErs never want to discuss those.

Link it please.

With compliments of the house.

The link does not state anywhere that Wallace or any of his associates defrauded Hampden.  I have no idea how you would even infer that.  It does say that the contract was void because it was deemed a wager, and so Wallace was only entitled to his deposit back.  It specifically cites 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s 18 which is the relevant statute for the voiding of the wager, but again, this has nothing to do with cheating or fraud as you are claiming.  Please provide some sort of evidence that a fraud took place.

Why didn't you pick Rowbotham's? He detailed everything in Earth Not a Globe. Its far more comprehensive?
You picked this one because you could FUD all over it. 

ENaG Experiment 1 was done in the afternoon of a summer's day, when the air nearest the cool water is colder and thereby denser, making refraction a serious problem in any optical experiment. As has been stated previously, a gradient of only .11 C per meter would cause light to perfectly match the curvature of the Earth.

It also lacks any diagrams of what was observed.

ENaG Experiment 2 doesn't even appear to have been done. It just mentions what could be done, and that the RE expectation wouldn't be seen if it did exist. It goes on to further explain how a boat seemingly vanished for a moment before reappearing--impossible on either round or flat Earth unless there was some serious refraction happening.

ENaG Experiment 3 has no diagrams of what was observed, but is astonishingly similar to Wallace and Hampden's experiment. In those diagrams it is apparent that the round-Earth model is visible, not the flat-earth one.

ENaG Experiment 4 appears to be leveling a theodolite at various points across the water at sticks. This would be interesting if you just had a string of spirit-levels, as if there was a curve you'd see the farthest spirit levels tilting downward. Instead they're just sticks, and only show that a theodolite, when leveled, is parallel to the water beneath it.

Again, there are no diagrams as to what was seen.

ENaG Experiment 5 was taken extremely close to the surface of the water, dramatically increasing the chances that its observations were marred by refraction.

There are still no diagrams to show what was seen.

ENaG Experiment 6 is extremely clever in everything except the fact that a leveled theodolite wouldn't, as Figure 15 suggests, look directly at the opposite pier. As was shown in the previous experiment, it's parallel to the water directly beneath the theodolite, so the idea that the ship's mast is constantly beneath the horizontal is expected.

Still no diagrams.

ENaG Experiment 7 requires the eye to be able to distinguish at sea level the arc of the Earth, which is impossible.

ENaG Experiment 8 requires the same thing, but for an even smaller field of view (that through a theodolite).

ENaG Experiment 9 involves viewing across fast distances of oceans and that only sometimes are the lighthouses visible from extreme distances implying that refraction is to blame, as if only if the observations were consistent would that not be the case.

So, back to why I chose Wallaces, it was because he was high enough to avoid most refraction effects caused by the water; because his referees drew diagrams as to what they saw; because all parties involved agreed prior to the experiment that it would provide results one way or another.

The link does not state anywhere that Wallace or any of his associates defrauded Hampden.

The subject of that fraud, Wallace, has been covered so many times, I have a hard time believing people are still trying to defend him.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 09, 2013, 01:16:38 PM

The link does not state anywhere that Wallace or any of his associates defrauded Hampden.

The subject of that fraud, Wallace, has been covered so many times, I have a hard time believing people are still trying to defend him.

The full account (albeit from Wallace's perspective), as provided by Thork: Wallace account of Bedford Level

My response to one of Ski's previous claims that Wallace defrauded Hampden: Re: Fraudulent Claim about wallace

Why do you always pick that one? The Bedford Level experiments were performed 3 times.

Once by Rowbotham. Result Earth Flat.
Once by Russel and Hampden. Result inconclusive because the Round earther cheated.
Once by Lady Blount and again the result is a flat earth.

So 3 results. 2 for FE and a nullified result.

Why do you think FErs point to the Bedford Level experiments? They have only ever proved the earth to be flat. Its just you and your brethren seem to keep ignoring all the other times and keep focussing on the one where the waters were muddied by fraudulent RErs.

I have been on this website for years. NEVER once have I seen a round earther start a thread about Lady Blount's Bedford experiments. Not once. Search. 40,000 threads and not one.
But thousands focussing on the Hampden one. And we are accused of picking and choosing? What annoys me is the Hampden one had a court rule in favour of the FErs, and yet RErs still love to argue about its validity.

None of this is true.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,56900.msg1425808/topicseen.html#msg1425808

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,57093.msg1432335.html#msg1432335

Quote from: Rama Set on August 09, 2013, 01:16:38 PM

The link does not state anywhere that Wallace or any of his associates defrauded Hampden.

The subject of that fraud, Wallace, has been covered so many times, I have a hard time believing people are still trying to defend him.

He isn't looking for the subject of the fraud, he's looking for evidence of the fraud.  Big difference.  Remember that Hampden was successfully sued for libel, so you really can't take his word for it.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 09, 2013, 01:16:38 PM

The link does not state anywhere that Wallace or any of his associates defrauded Hampden.

The subject of that fraud, Wallace, has been covered so many times, I have a hard time believing people are still trying to defend him.

Me neither!  How can you say there was a fraud when there is no evidence and only the word of someone who the courts ruled was making libelous comments?  It blows my mind. To date, I have not seen a single piece of evidence that Wallace defrauded anyone.

Thork provided the document he claimed showed Wallace's fraud according to the courts, but that is obviously not the case. So where, if not from recorded history, does this idea of Wallace being a fraud come from?

Plus, to echo what Scintific Method said in another thread, the account of the experiment clearly shows that Hampden's ref (who, by the way, wrote a book to which Hampden had recently bought the copyright, so they weren't exactly strangers) verified that the experiment was set up properly.

So tell me, where did the experiment go wrong? Why should it be discredited?

Why didn't you pick Rowbotham's? He detailed everything in Earth Not a Globe. Its far more comprehensive?

Is there any way for me to be able to read the book?

Quote from: Ævan on August 09, 2013, 12:44:01 PM

Why didn't you pick Rowbotham's? He detailed everything in Earth Not a Globe. Its far more comprehensive?

Is there any way for me to be able to read the book?

Right here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/

Sorry if I have to revive this one month old thread, but I just found a valuable resource and I'm too lazy to make a new thread.

To summarize, the following people have done the Bedford Level Experiments

When	Who	How	Result
1838	Rowbotham	Looking at one object 6 miles away	FE won (allegedly)
1870	Wallace/Hampden	Comparing the height of three poles	RE won
1901	Yule Oldham	Comparing the height of three poles	RE won
1904	Lady Blount	Looking at one object 6 miles away	FE won (allegedly)

We can see that the result vary depending on the method used. The apparent victory on FE side is explained by refraction of light near the surface of the water. Earth is not necessarily flat by observing one object 6 miles away. Comparing the height of three poles can eliminate the refraction factor. Surveyors know this (Wallace and Oldham were trained surveyors). This method consists of fixing a set of three poles at equal height above water level along the length of the river. When viewed carefully through a theodolite, the middle poles is higher than the poles at each end.



In addition to that, Oldham result was published in a scientific journal; Report Of The Seventy First Meeting - British Association for the Advancement of Science (now known as British Science Association). His method was taught in schools until photographs of the Earth from space became available. This is what Oldham said in 1901:

In 1870 Dr. A. H. Wallace performed his well-known Bedford Level experiment. In the summers of 1900 and a series of similar experiments was made with the special object of obtaining photographic records of the same. The Bedford Level is a portion of the Fens north of Kly, through which, in the seventeenth century two great canals were made, shortening the course of the Ouse. Of these, one, the New Bedford river, is tidal ; the other, the old Bedford river, has locks at each end, and presents long, straight stretches of water without current or tide. The six-mile stretch of the old Bedlord river between Welney and Denver was selected, as it is perfectly straight, has a "bridge at each end, but none in between. The height of the parapet of Welney bridge above the water level was measured, a mark was set up on Denver bridge at the same height above the water-level, and midway three miles from each end a mark was set up on a pole at the same height above the water-level. A telescope was then directed from the parapet of Welney bridge to the mark on Denver bridge, and the middle mark was seen to stand up about six feet above the line of sight, agreeing with the effect calculated to be produced by the curvature of the earth's surface.

A scanned version this report is available in PDF format and can be downloaded for free from the following URL. Oldham's report is at page 725.

http://openlibrary.org/books/ia:reportoftheseven030432mbp/Report_Of_The_Seventy_First_Meeting

I hope that helps.

The apparent victory on FE side is explained by refraction of light near the surface of the water.

So can the "victories" on the RE side. I don't see your point.

In the Wallace/Hampden experiment both men walked away claiming that they had won. The Wallace/Hampden experiment is further marred since it was not truly an impartial experiment, but a WAGER for an amount which was at the time for a year's worth of pay. As Wallace was a struggling scientist at the time, losing this wager would have been a great loss for him. I don't see any reason at all for why this WAGER should be accepted as an impartial experiment. Only someone of desperation would persist using the results of this WAGER as a point of something.

Per Oldham, he never wrote more than a paragraph about his alleged experiments. The "report" in the quote and paper you provided above is nothing more than a single paragraph. I would like to hear more. But as Oldham was also known for calling Rowbotham a "multi-headed eagle," a "conman," and other sladerous terms, for some reason I question his impartiality.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 07, 2013, 10:29:09 AM

The apparent victory on FE side is explained by refraction of light near the surface of the water.

So can the "victories" on the RE side. I don't see your point.

In the Wallace/Hampden experiment both men walked away claiming that they had won. The Wallace/Hampden experiment is further marred since it was not truly an impartial experiment, but a WAGER for an amount which was at the time for a year's worth of pay. As Wallace was a struggling scientist at the time, losing this wager would have been a great loss for him. I don't see any reason at all for why this WAGER should be accepted as an impartial experiment. Only someone of rather low intelligence would persist using the results of this WAGER as a point of something.

Per Oldham, he never wrote more than a paragraph about his alleged experiments. The "report" in the paper you provided above is nothing more than a single paragraph. I would like to hear more. But as Oldham was also known for calling Rowbotham a "multi-headed eagle," a "conman," and other sladerous terms, for some reason I question his impartiality.

The differences in the claims of victory are this:

Hampden refuses to look through the telescope, claims victory, makes libelous comments about Wallace which he is successfully sued for.

Wallace has a referee from field magazine look through the telescope and awards victory to Wallace.

Wallaces's experimental set up was above the height at which refraction plays a significant part.

Despite your citation of Wallace never writing about his experiment this link contains diagrams pertaining to it.  A picture is worth 1000 words, or should at least be worth more than a paragraph.

Your statement about money being a motivating factor for Wallace to cheat is nothing more than a red herring. There is no evidence of him cheating and Hampden was successfully sued for libel for claiming so, which is strong support that Wallace did not cheat.

Wallace

Once again, it was a WAGER, not an experiment. It was a wager for an amount which was about equal to an average year's pay at the time, no less. Impartial experiments do not result in one scientist going broke and having his home repossessed.

I would suggest you and the other RE'ers in this thread refrain from posting about the Wallace wager in the future, to save yourselves from further embarrassment.

I don't understand why you attack the personality behind the work. That experiment has been documented in a scientific report. Anyone can repeat it if they like. If anyone can prove that Oldham is rubbish then so be it.

Do it. Don't just talk

I don't understand why you attack the personality behind the work. That experiment has been documented in a scientific report.

So has magic.

Nothing about this is remotely embrassing. There is no evidence Wallace did anything untoward in this experiment. Prove that money affected the outcome or that Wallace cheated... Can't?  Thought so.

Prove that Hampden was successfully sued for libel for calling Wallace a cheater. Ok!

http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S248A.htm

In case you do not know what "libel" means:

http://m.dictionary.com/definition/libel

In sum, to say Wallace cheated or lied is a misrepresentation of him. He did not lie or cheat in this experiment, as certified by a court of law, and it showed the water to be convex. Unfortunately this is a real problem for FE arguments.

Are you still arguing that a wager for a large sum of money is a proper and valid form of scientific inquiry?

How shameful and embarrassing. I wonder what your high school science teachers would think.

Quote from: Cartesian on September 07, 2013, 11:22:44 AM

I don't understand why you attack the personality behind the work. That experiment has been documented in a scientific report.

So has magic.

If that journal shows you how public can do magic, then what's the problem with that? Do you want to do magic? Then follow the procedure as described in the journal. I don't have any issue with that. Maybe there is a magic to make this world flat. Who knows?

The same applies for the BSA report. It shows you how public can do to prove the curvature of Earth. The last person I know did it is Oldham, and he proved that Earth is round. If you disagree then repeat the experiment yourself. Maybe you can appear in the next BSA report. Who knows?

Do you see any issue here?

Are you still arguing that a wager for a large sum of money is a proper and valid form of scientific inquiry?

How shameful and embarrassing. I wonder what your high school science teachers would think.

At that time, it may be called wager but nowadays, that is called challenge like this one for example. But regardless that libel case, the work done by both men in relation to prove the shape of the earth remains valid nonetheless.

If that journal shows you how public can do magic

It's not. It's a journal about magic and mysticism.

At that time, it may be called wager but nowadays, that is called challenge like this one for example. But regardless that libel case, the work done by both men in relation to prove the shape of the earth remains valid nonetheless.

XPrize is not a wager. The contestants don't lose their homes if they lose.

Are you still arguing that a wager for a large sum of money is a proper and valid form of scientific inquiry?

How shameful and embarrassing. I wonder what your high school science teachers would think.

Tom, stop the Ad Hominem attacks.  You are trying to disqualify actual results based on a philosophical question of ethics.  You cannot show that the experiment was invalid on any substantial grounds.  You cannot show that Wallace cheated or defrauded Hampden.  You basically have nothing to say on the matter at hand, and so you try and make me feel bad.  It is interesting though that you do not condemn Hampden for framing scientific inquiry as a wager.  Do you think that Hampden was unethical for proposing the bet in the first place?

Quote from: Cartesian on September 07, 2013, 12:10:49 PM

If that journal shows you how public can do magic

It's not. It's a journal about magic and mysticism.

So what's your point then? And why do you leave out the rest of my comment? Can you not answer it?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 07, 2013, 11:26:53 AM

Quote from: Cartesian on September 07, 2013, 11:22:44 AM

I don't understand why you attack the personality behind the work. That experiment has been documented in a scientific report.

So has magic.

If that journal shows you how public can do magic, then what's the problem with that? Do you want to do magic? Then follow the procedure as described in the journal. I don't have any issue with that. Maybe there is a magic to make this world flat. Who knows?

The same applies for the BSA report. It shows you how public can do to prove the curvature of Earth. The last person I know did it is Oldham, and he proved that Earth is round. If you disagree then repeat the experiment yourself. Maybe you can appear in the next BSA report. Who knows?

Do you see any issue here?