Bedford Level?

It doesn't matter who set up the experiment, who agreed with what, the type of negligence involved, where the foul play took place, or even if foul play took place. The fact that this was a WAGER invalidates this "impartial experiment" on many grounds. Further tarnishing is the fact that the referees were not assigned form a neutral source and we don't really know the full details of the experiment's set up.

Furthermore, and an aside, if we look at the drawings we see that the near and far circle of the markers are exactly the same size in the image, despite being a long distance away from each other. How can this be? We are told that these drawings were accurate.

I'm not here to discuss the details of an invalid experiment. Nearly everything about this experiment is trash.

Trashy only because it doesn't fit into your world view and it directly contradicts the one-and-only experiment ever done that could ever be considered evidence for a flat earth.

Trashy only because it doesn't fit into your world view and it directly contradicts the one-and-only experiment ever done that could ever be considered evidence for a flat earth.

Not "one-and-only". If you read the material you would find that many water experiments were involved, over a period of 35 years.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 10, 2013, 10:11:12 AM

Trashy only because it doesn't fit into your world view and it directly contradicts the one-and-only experiment ever done that could ever be considered evidence for a flat earth.

Not "one-and-only". If you read the material you would find that many water experiments were involved, over a period of 35 years.

Pathetic.

It stands to reason that Wallace would do the experiment himself beforehand to know the result before the trial. During this he would see that the earth is flat, whether he suspected it to appear that way for another cause or not.

Wallace may have paid someone hiding in the fens to modify the equipment as everyone was walking away from the set up, miles back to the starting point. That sure sounds like someone at risk of losing his home and savings would do.

It stands to reason that Wallace would do the experiment himself beforehand to know the result before the trial. During this he would see that the earth is flat, whether he suspected it to appear that way for another cause or not.

Wallace may have paid someone hiding in the fens to modify the equipment as everyone was walking away from the set up, miles back to the starting point. That sure sounds like someone at risk of losing his home and savings would do.

Of course, it's a conspiracy! All evidence for a RE is a conspiracy. All evidence for a FE is non existent... also a conspiracy.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 10, 2013, 10:39:03 AM

It stands to reason that Wallace would do the experiment himself beforehand to know the result before the trial. During this he would see that the earth is flat, whether he suspected it to appear that way for another cause or not.

Wallace may have paid someone hiding in the fens to modify the equipment as everyone was walking away from the set up, miles back to the starting point. That sure sounds like someone at risk of losing his home and savings would do.

Of course, it's a conspiracy! All evidence for a RE is a conspiracy. All evidence for a FE is non existent... also a conspiracy.

As I said, the wager invalidates this experiment.

It stands to reason that Wallace would do the experiment himself beforehand to know the result before the trial. During this he would see that the earth is flat, whether he suspected it to appear that way for another cause or not.

Wallace may have paid someone hiding in the fens to modify the equipment as everyone was walking away from the set up, miles back to the starting point. That sure sounds like someone at risk of losing his home and savings would do.

Can you support your claim with an evidence? Btw, if you disagree with the individuals then why don't you do the experiments and present your evidence and result to BSA just like what Oldham did?

I do not feel compelled to discuss the details of an invalid experiment. Nearly everything about this experiment is trash.

Of course you cannot discuss what's wrong with Wallace/Oldham method because there is nothing wrong with that.

It doesn't matter who set up the experiment, who agreed with what, the type of negligence involved, where the foul play took place, or even if foul play took place.

Of course it matters.  Why shouldn't it?  Moral grounds do render invalid physical facts.

The fact that this was a WAGER, a big enough one to pursue legal recourse over, invalidates this "impartial experiment" on many grounds.

There was no legal challenge to the validity of the experiment.  There was legal challenge to Hampden's libelous remarks, and over the method of payment, but never over the experiment proper.  This is a matter of public record, so do not distort the truth.

Further tarnishing is the fact that the referees were not assigned form a neutral source and we don't really know the full details of the experiment's set up.

There was a check to the partisanship of the referees, in that they had to sign off on each other's diagrams.  This is not a strong point.

Furthermore, and an aside, if we look at the drawings we see that the near and far circle of the markers are exactly the same size in the image, despite being a long distance away from each other. How can this be? We are told that these drawings were accurate.

I do not feel compelled to discuss the details of an invalid experiment. Nearly everything about this experiment is trash.

Perhaps read the source I linked you to that has diagrams of his experimental set up. If Wallace's experiment is trash, why isn't Rowbotham's that had obvious sources of error that were not accounted for such as refraction, mirage and a lack of surveying experience?

Pathetic.

Honestly, quit it with the crap posts.  If you have nothing to add, then don't post.  Consider this a warning.

Furthermore, and an aside, if we look at the drawings we see that the near and far circle of the markers are exactly the same size in the image, despite being a long distance away from each other.

Are you referring to this image?



If so, you need to check your comprehension skills. Both circular markers are on the one post, at the one distance from the observer, so should look exactly the same size. The stripe on the banner hung on the far bridge was at the same height above the water as the top circle, and so was the telescope used to observe this scene. There is no question that curvature is present.

Now I seriously doubt that Tom knows which experiment we are talking about. Here's the side view showing the two possible outcome depending on the shape of the earth.



And here's the description:

The experiment finally agreed upon was as follows: The iron parapet of Welney bridge was thirteen feet three inches above the water of the canal. The Old Bedford bridge, about six miles off, was of brick and somewhat higher. On this bridge I fixed a large sheet of white calico, six feet long and three feet deep, with a thick black band along the centre, the lower edge of which was the same height from the water as the parapet of Welney bridge; so that the centre of it would be as high as the line of sight of the large six-inch telescope I had brought with me. At the centre point, about three miles from each bridge, I fixed up a long pole with two red discs on it, the upper one having its centre the same height above the water as the centre of the black band and of the telescope, while the second disc was four feet lower down. It is evident that if the surface of the water is a perfectly straight line for the six miles, then the three objects—the telescope, the top disc, and the black band—being all exactly the same height above the water, the disc would be seen in the telescope projected upon the black band; whereas, if the six-mile surface of the water is convexly curved, then the top disc would appear to be decidedly higher than the black band, the amount due to the known size of the earth being five feet eight inches, which amount will be reduced a little by refraction to perhaps about five feet.

Courtesy of Thork http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54769.html

A similar (at least in manner of basic experiment) was carried out due to interest in hollow earth theory. It came out, surprisingly, against the orthodox expected result.

Of note too is that Wallace was particularly poor at the time of the initial wager and took it on not to prove the earth round, but instead to pad his pocket books since his Evolutionist work was apparently not paying the bills.

Of note too is that Wallace was particularly poor at the time of the initial wager and took it on not to prove the earth round, but instead to pad his pocket books since his Evolutionist work was apparently not paying the bills.

This is a repetition of something Tom Bishop brought up many times in this thread.  Although, you brought it up in a much better fashion.  However, since no one can prove that money clouded his or misguided his work in any way, it is not relevant as more than a side note.

I am curious why FEs cling to results from an experiment made over 100 years ago....using comparatively crude tools...when it seems a relatively simple thing to re-create the same experiment today using modern measuring tools. The results should be identical and would certainly bolster their argument.

Why has this not been done?

I am curious why FEs cling to results from an experiment made over 100 years ago....using comparatively crude tools...when it seems a relatively simple thing to re-create the same experiment today using modern measuring tools. The results should be identical and would certainly bolster their argument.

Why has this not been done?

If the results show a round earth then it is dismissed by FE as being caused by atmospheric refraction.

And the same would happen vice-versa. Its just a crappy experiment.

Throughout history, experiments and observations conducted by FEers have provided proof of Earth shape.  It continues today. 

To a certain extent it is understandable that as FEers conduct convincing data gathering activity and presenting it to REers, that we wait the time necessary for REers to come to their own realization of error. Diligence and patience seems a benefit of Zetetic reality.

You'll get there. There being here, on this side.   

Throughout history, experiments and observations conducted by FEers have provided proof of Earth shape.  It continues today. 

To a certain extent, it is understandable that as FEers conduct convincing data gathering activity and presenting it to REers, that we wait the time necessary for REers to come to their own realization of error. Diligence and patience seems a benefit of Zetetic reality.

You'll get there. There being here, on this side.   

Would you mind showing us some of this proof?

Throughout history, experiments and observations conducted by FEers have provided proof of Earth shape.  It continues today. 

To a certain extent it is understandable that as FEers conduct convincing data gathering activity and presenting it to REers, that we wait the time necessary for REers to come to their own realization of error. Diligence and patience seems a benefit of Zetetic reality.

You'll get there. There being here, on this side.   

Is it opposite day, cause what you're saying has never happened.

Quote from: John Davis on September 20, 2013, 01:01:12 PM

Of note too is that Wallace was particularly poor at the time of the initial wager and took it on not to prove the earth round, but instead to pad his pocket books since his Evolutionist work was apparently not paying the bills.

This is a repetition of something Tom Bishop brought up many times in this thread.  Although, you brought it up in a much better fashion.  However, since no one can prove that money clouded his or misguided his work in any way, it is not relevant as more than a side note.

Thanks for filling me in a bit.

I suppose; A similar argument could be made for the flip side - since we cannot prove the money did not introduce confirmation bias its fair to assume it did, especially given his supposed financial state, the ease of replication, and the further already completed replications. No man can act without knowledge he has; he was aware of the bet. 

This is of course ignoring that science is by large a crooked affair of fudging numbers, lying, cheating, stealing, fraud, libel, and the like. I think its fair to assume its possible he would have done anything (like any scientist before him) to advance science in any way he could, prove wrong his bitter rival, and gain a tidy sum.

Take a few of the champions of RE:  Einstein, Copernicus, Newton have been caught in Academic fraud or similar misdeeds. Einstein was notorious for ignoring results that conflicted with relativity and was blatantly caught in one instance. Copernicus' model was patently wrong and theres no way he didn't know it, unless of course he couldn't see two tide shifts in one day (common knowledge at the time). Newton was notoriously an awful person driven to madness who would often forge results, steal work, and actively work to deny others credit for their work.

Since WWII science got a whitewash to make it appear trustworthy and not, you know, Nazi Science. One can even see it now when one looks to drivel like the TV show "The Big Bang Theory."  The main recurrent theme of science is not truth, but instead "my best guess of truth - by any means." Its far more natural and cutthroat than it should be in optimal conditions. Which is fine - it works. It could work better but that's not the issue. And it still goes on, just not in plain sight. A recent survey (which had 51% of its copies returned) showed past (within 3 months) academic dishonesty positive at approximately 1/3 of the studied. 1/3rd in 3 monthes.

Perhaps the issue is partly the overuse of specialism creates the conditions that led to the need of empiricism in the first place - a common need for the movement of power of knowledge from a select elite to the common whole. This is the importance of zeteticism - The People deserve Truth and Honesty in the science they, by and large one way or the other, pay for in labor. A plutocracy, whether it is wealth of money or knowledge, always leads to a ruling class without a sense of the ruleds classes morality - or even in this case a lack of care due to what one can assume is a higher goal, ironically to help the human race.

Very little separates the attitudes and actions of science today (and always) and those who in the past would use their knowledge to power. In short, I'd sooner trust most criminals than a scientist in matters of truth, especially if a grant or vendetta is involved. The side to err on here is caution.

So, in the end, its a wash - one should look to newer replications of this experiment. Hopefully we can hear on Daniels data and we can also look to past similar attempts in other localities.

"since we cannot prove the money did not introduce confirmation bias its fair to assume it did"

This is an incredibly flawed piece of logic.

The rest is mostly hyperbole that does not address the specific circumstances of the Wallace experiment.

"since we cannot prove the money did not introduce confirmation bias its fair to assume it did"

This is an incredibly flawed piece of logic.

The rest is mostly hyperbole that does not address the specific circumstances of the Wallace experiment.

The specific circumstances is that Wallace needed money, already believed he the world was round, and is in a profession known to be liars, cheats and thieves for what they see as the "greater good" or to the ends of continuing their own work.

Its fair to assume due to the relative ease in replication of the experiment, and the further replications that have already been performed that have shown the Earth to not be a globe. Its fair to assume the data is bunk, because one needs to always assume the data is bunk on some level to perform good science. They've given far too many reasons to assume its bunk.

It all is extremely relevant, and I don't think its fair to say its mostly hyperbole. It would be ridiculously naive to not assume Wallace was a man, like anyone else, and would do anything to stop false positive results for a flat earth, in his view, from being released. At the time, it would have been devastating.

"a profession known to be liars, cheats and thieves for what they see as the "greater good" or to the ends of continuing their own work. "

This is the hyperbole I am talking about. I cannot debate this position since it is mere assertion.

"a profession known to be liars, cheats and thieves for what they see as the "greater good" or to the ends of continuing their own work. "

This is the hyperbole I am talking about. I cannot debate this position since it is mere assertion.

I supported that assertion with a study, iirc. I can dig up the particular one if you'd like. I also supported it with three of the top names in science's track record. Its ridiculously easy to come up with plenty more notable examples.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 21, 2013, 07:23:10 AM

"a profession known to be liars, cheats and thieves for what they see as the "greater good" or to the ends of continuing their own work. "

This is the hyperbole I am talking about. I cannot debate this position since it is mere assertion.

I supported that assertion with a study, iirc. I can dig up the particular one if you'd like. I also supported it with three of the top names in science's track record. Its ridiculously easy to come up with plenty more notable examples.

Can you find one for AR Wallace?

EDIT: I would like you to dig up that study too if possible.

Quote from: John Davis on September 21, 2013, 07:27:45 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on September 21, 2013, 07:23:10 AM

"a profession known to be liars, cheats and thieves for what they see as the "greater good" or to the ends of continuing their own work. "

This is the hyperbole I am talking about. I cannot debate this position since it is mere assertion.

I supported that assertion with a study, iirc. I can dig up the particular one if you'd like. I also supported it with three of the top names in science's track record. Its ridiculously easy to come up with plenty more notable examples.

Can you find one for AR Wallace?

p458 in Alfred Russel Wallace: Letters and Reminiscences (available online) , he's at least been accused by contemporaries - Romane for one. Certainly says his peers don't find him beyond the level of reasonable doubt, though it was claimed by AR Wallace to be false.

I believe he went down hill, as well, when he started up on the whole defending mediums against fraud. Or maybe it was his anti-vaccination views. Either way, he's not really the best scientist to trust in the first place, ignoring the chance for unintentional or intentional misinterpreting of experiment results..

Accused only. An important distinction. I have been accused of many false things in the past, they have no bearing on my actual actions.

I am doing my own research now on levels of scientific dishonesty but I would love to see the study you cited.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7043/full/435737a.html

On a related note, his contemporary, Darwin, is thought by some to have stolen much of his work from Wallace. It really is everywhere.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7043/full/435737a.html

On a related note, his contemporary, Darwin, is thought by some to have stolen much of his work from Wallace. It really is everywhere.

Thanks for sharing the link; I am not sure I will shell out the $18 to read it.

On your related note, that is again an accusation, not proof. Furthermore it does not strengthen your case against Wallace.