Bedford Level?

If he's a fish in a pond full of other fish that bite each other, and looks like the other fish that bite each other it is reasonable to assume he is one of said fish until shown otherwise. Induction, while not logically sound, is the basis of much of science and should not be ignored. Especially since we've been given reason to doubt it, and there are other instances of this experiment. While I'm not saying he's guilty, I am saying the results should be ignored.

Scientists for the most part don't care about this dishonesty so long as their passion, science, is advanced. Like Adam Smith, this seems to them the best, if uncomfortably true, route to do so - rough competition. In general, they don't care that their "money" is coming from an expectation to tell us the "Truth". They care about their own goals, passions, and aspirations. So while you find lots of accusations, it really takes a long passionate and determined fight to make anything happen about it, let alone attempt to "prove" it. Or simply time/history, in the case of the notable examples above (and more not included.)

Although I think you are dead wrong, on your own view you should consider Wallace differently. There is evidence that Wallace is not a cheat. It was shown to be libelous to accuse Wallace of cheating in a court of law.

Although I think you are dead wrong, on your own view you should consider Wallace differently. There is evidence that Wallace is not a cheat. It was shown to be libelous to accuse Wallace of cheating in a court of law.

I don't think Wallace is a cheat. I just think its an easy enough experiment that anyone concerned with the truth can repeat it and judge for themselves. There's more than enough question about the experiment. Ignoring this, we can see its repeated results.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 21, 2013, 08:32:03 AM

Although I think you are dead wrong, on your own view you should consider Wallace differently. There is evidence that Wallace is not a cheat. It was shown to be libelous to accuse Wallace of cheating in a court of law.

I don't think Wallace is a cheat. I just think its an easy enough experiment that anyone concerned with the truth can repeat it and judge for themselves. Ignoring this, we can simply ignore the quuestion as it has been repeated.

Ok. That has definitely not been your position the last few posts. I think in journalism this is called "burying the lead". Thanks for the nature article anyway.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 21, 2013, 08:32:03 AM

Although I think you are dead wrong, on your own view you should consider Wallace differently. There is evidence that Wallace is not a cheat. It was shown to be libelous to accuse Wallace of cheating in a court of law.

I don't think Wallace is a cheat. I just think its an easy enough experiment that anyone concerned with the truth can repeat it and judge for themselves. Ignoring this, we can simply ignore the quuestion as it has been repeated.

I've seen only one example of the experiment being repeated in the other experiments section of Bedford Level's wikipedia entry. It says that the results showed a RE but FE'rs blamed refraction.

As I said, it's a poor experiment, because if it doesn't show the results you expect then you can simply blame refraction.

Ironically Rottingroom, refraction is what has been cited as the source of error for Rowbotham's experiment showing the Earth is flat.

Ironically Rottingroom, refraction is what has been cited as the source of error for Rowbotham's experiment showing the Earth is flat.

So, these are all awful experiments, that prove nothing as long as their is always some simple dismissal.

Same with photographic evidence. It can never be considered because it's too easy to just say, "things can be faked".

No intelligent discourse is available here. It seems to me that nobody is being zetetic at all.

It was repeated without knowledge (as far as I can tell) of the Bedford one by those trying to prove a hollow earth hypothesis. I'll look it up tonight and post it here for those interested.

IIRC this time the REer called upon refraction.

Also, I disagree Rama; my position has been straightward and consistent IMHO about this since the beginning. While I won't call him guilty, I certainly wouldn't trust those in a league of the immoral implicitly, especially when so much is to lose for him.

Okay, a quick refresher on refraction over water. Typically, water will be cooler than the air above it, particularly on a summer afternoon. This causes a steep temperature gradient in the air directly above the water, with cooler air at the bottom, and warmer air above it. The difference in density that results from this temperature gradient gives rise to what is called a superior mirage, where objects appear higher than they actually are, and can allow something that would normally be hidden by the horizon to be visible.

Rowbotham's experiment at the Bedford Level can be assumed to have been effected by this mirage, as it was conducted at 3pm on a summer day, and only 8" from the surface of the water^[1].

Wallace's demonstration, on the other hand, was conducted more than 13' above the surface of the water^[2], well out of the steep temperature gradient mentioned above, but still subject to a small amount of refraction in the same direction, just to a lesser degree. Please take note of the italicised part. Light would need to refract in the opposite direction to give the results seen in Wallace's demonstration, which it will only do if the lower layers of air are warmer than those above them, which would certainly not have been the case at the Bedford Level on the day of the demonstration.

As for the suggestion that the money involved influenced the interpretation of the results, all I can say is that both Wallace and Hampden's referees agreed that the following sketches were accurate representations of what was seen through the telescopes:



How those images could possibly be misinterpreted is beyond me.

---

[1] Earth Not a Globe, Chapter II, Experiment 1
[2] Wallace account of Bedford Level

Just to add to what Scintific said:

Those sketches were actually made by Hampden's referee, Capenter, himself and attested by Wallace's referee, Coulcher. Those sketches were drawn upside down due to inverting leveled telescope.

Here are the four sketches made by both referees; each referee drew two sketches - one from each bridge.



http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZzDHPKxDkAwC&pg=PA35&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false