Bedford Level Experment debunked?

  • 49 Replies
  • 4178 Views
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked
« Reply #30 on: July 24, 2018, 11:08:26 AM »
I have. That's how I can tell that Rowbotham either does not understand, or is intentionally misinterpreting how a theodolite works.

Rowbotham spent three decades studying this matter, and you did not.

The fact that this thread is now about theodolites only exemplifies the weakness of the RE position.

Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked
« Reply #31 on: July 24, 2018, 11:23:48 AM »
I have. That's how I can tell that Rowbotham either does not understand, or is intentionally misinterpreting how a theodolite works.

Rowbotham spent three decades studying this matter, and you did not.

The fact that this thread is now about theodolites only exemplifies the weakness of the RE position.

That is an interesting assumption you make about me. Too bad it's incorrect. Sorry your little attempt at snarkiness fails.

Hmm. A topic about the Bedford Experiment conducted by Rowbotham using optical instruments, your insistence I read Rowbotham's writings including a section on optical instruments, and my observation that Rowbotham does not understand optical instruments. Wow. I really derailed this thread, didn't I?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked
« Reply #32 on: July 24, 2018, 11:30:32 AM »
No one gives a hoot about what you read and have "decided." With any argument you make on the matter you are going to have to show, not tell.

Rowbotham, an educated doctor, was debating the entire scientific community of the 1800's and spent decades honing and refining his arguments against them. The science in ENAG is correct for that reason alone.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 11:41:46 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Stash

  • 4802
Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked
« Reply #33 on: July 24, 2018, 11:45:01 AM »

Rowbotham, an educated doctor, was debating the entire scientific community of the 1800's and spent decades honing and refining his arguments against them. The science in ENAG is correct for that reason alone.

So that's all I need?  To be an educated doctor and hone my debating skills and my science notions are automatically correct and unassailable?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked
« Reply #34 on: July 24, 2018, 12:21:29 PM »
No one gives a hoot about what you read and have "decided." With any argument you make on the matter you are going to have to show, not tell.

Rowbotham, an educated doctor, was debating the entire scientific community of the 1800's and spent decades honing and refining his arguments against them. The science in ENAG is correct for that reason alone.

This place is so amusing.

The science in ENAG is correct for that reason alone.
With any argument you make on the matter you are going to have to show, not tell.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17541
Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked
« Reply #35 on: July 24, 2018, 12:45:46 PM »
"'PARALLAX' AT THE LECTURE HALL.--This talented lecturer is again in Greenwich, rivetting the attention of his audiences, and compelling them to submit to the facts which he brings before them--we say submit, for this they do; it seems impossible for any one to battle with him, so powerful are the weapons he uses. Mathematicians argue with him at the conclusion of his lectures, but it would seem as though they held their weapons by the blade and fought with the handle, for sure enough they put the handle straight into the lecturer's hand, to their own utter discomfiture and chagrin. It remains yet to be seen whether any of our Royal Astronomers will have courage enough to meet him in discussion, or whether they will quietly allow him to give the death-blow to the Newtonian theory, and make converts of our townspeople to his own Zetetic philosophy. If 'Parallax' be wrong, for Heaven's sake let some of our Greenwich stars twinkle at the Hall, and dazzle, confound, or eclipse altogether this wandering one, who is turning men, all over England, out of the Newtonian path. 'Parallax' is making his hearers disgusted with the Newtonian and every other theory, and turning them to a consideration of facts and first principles, from which they know not how to escape. Again we beg and trust that some of our Royal Observatory gentlemen will try to save us, and prevent anything like a Zetetic epidemic prevailing amongst us."--Greenwich Free Press, May 19th, 1862.

*

Stash

  • 4802
Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked
« Reply #36 on: July 24, 2018, 12:58:55 PM »
Point being?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked
« Reply #37 on: July 24, 2018, 01:21:47 PM »
Fallacy of being impressed by a newspaper review.

*

Stash

  • 4802
Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked
« Reply #38 on: July 24, 2018, 01:23:21 PM »
Fallacy of being impressed by a newspaper review.
I want to hear from Tom.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked
« Reply #39 on: July 24, 2018, 02:34:58 PM »
I see that your "refraction did it" defense was so wobbly that you gave up on it entirely and must resort to just calling Rowbotham a liar now.
This is a Flat Earth Victory
Not in the slightest.
I pointed out he was a liar when you first provided the source.
You completely ignored the OP and then posted a baseless claim which the OP had already dealt with.

This is just another example of FEers grasping at whatever straws they can to avoid reality.

One now merely needs to point to the many water convexity experiments which have shown a Flat Earth result by different people, in different environments, such as fridged environments over ice, and at various altitudes.
No, as there are plenty of experiments which show the exact opposite, that Earth can't be flat.
You need to explain why the sun sets, why the horizon exists and why objects further than the horizon are obscured by it, disappearing from the bottom up.

Why I'm a Flat Earther—37 Must-See Experiments
The first example in this video is blatant ignorance of not understanding how the horizon works.
But it does show the horizon drops below eye level, going complete against the FE claim that it always remains at eye level.
The second is another example of FE dishonesty where the camera is positioned below the cardboard to obstruct the view of the sun.
The distances also fail to match FE entirely.

You have literally nothing showing Earth is flat.
At best you get cases where you cannot distinguish between a flat Earth and a round Earth.
Meanwhile there are mountains of evidence which clearly show Earth is round.

You are the one in the poor position that has to avoid so much of reality.

Rowbotham, an educated doctor, was debating the entire scientific community of the 1800's and spent decades honing and refining his arguments against them. The science in ENAG is correct for that reason alone.
No it isn't. That is not a reason at all.
He completely failed to provide any evidence or rational justification for Earth being flat.
He failed to provide any sound arguments against the scientific community.
As far as I can tell the majority of the scientific community didn't give a damn about his delusional nonsense.
Those that did engage beat him, for example, the bedford level experiment, where Row Boat lost the bet.
Wallace, by virtue of being vastly more competent that Row Boat and actually understanding what he was doing was able to show the problem with Row Boat's claims/experiment and show without a sane doubt that Earth is round.

So no, that is not a reason to think the nonsense he spouts is correct.

Instead his arguments have numerous errors, which even a novice in physics or someone with simple observational skills would be able to figure out if they thought about it; as well as circular reasoning and contradiction.
It is clear that it is not meant as a scientific book to debate with the scientific community, but as a book to con laypeople into thinking his delusions are correct.

--Greenwich Free Press, May 19th, 1862.
The only source I can find for that is his nonsense book.
As he has shown himself to be quite happy to lie, do you have a valid source for that?
Even if you did, so what?
It shows that the laypeople get conned by him while the scientifically literate do not.
All that shows is he is a skilled conman, not that he is correct.

Also note how you are unable to defend any of his claims and instead just focus on baseless appeals to try and pretend he is correct?

?

Dirk

  • 200
Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked
« Reply #40 on: July 24, 2018, 04:56:54 PM »
There are no conjointly motions of first diagonal AD and then vertical DB, resulting in a triangle.

In reality, there are three motions happening at the same time, resulting in a curve consisting of two linear (one vertical, caused by the upward throw; one horizontal, caused by the constant velocity of the ship, which is not lost by the throw, because no horizontal force or acceleration changed it) and a quadratic component (vertical, caused by gravity). Air drag neglected for simplicity.

There might be another FE explanation for a curved throw trajectory, but it is a curve, nonetheless, as everybody can observe themselves.

"triangle" ≠ "curve". Therefore, Rowbotham did not tell the truth. Therefore, there is a high probability, that he did not tell the truth at other locations in his book ENAG for the same reasons.

Where does it say that the ship is traveling at a constant velocity? You are just making things up.
It needs to have a constant velocity. Otherwise Rowbotham's comparison of the moving ship with a rotating Earth in that chapter would be not applicable and it would be more crap than it already is.

But no matter if the ship is moving with a constant speed, accelerating or decelerating. The horizontal speed of the ball is defined by the current speed of the ship at the time of the throw. So, nevertheless, the path of the ball would be a curve, not a triangle.

Ergo, Rowbotham's text is still a lie.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 05:11:53 PM by Dirk »

*

rabinoz

  • 26280
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked
« Reply #41 on: July 24, 2018, 06:19:23 PM »
"'PARALLAX' AT THE LECTURE HALL.--This talented lecturer is again in Greenwich, riveting the attention of his audiences, and compelling them to submit to the facts which he brings before them--we say submit, for this they do; it seems impossible for anyone to battle with him, so powerful are the weapons he uses."--Greenwich Free Press, May 19th, 1862.
Yes, that describes Rowbotham so well! A "talented lecturer is again in Greenwich, riveting the attention of his audiences, and compelling them to submit to" what he claims are facts.

This should be in the "brainwashing" thread because that is what Rowbotham did and it is what Jeranism (Jeran Campalla) does very effectively on YouTube.
But a glib tongue is no guarantee that the words spoken are factual.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39541
Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked
« Reply #42 on: July 24, 2018, 06:35:28 PM »
Rowbotham, an educated doctor, was debating the entire scientific community of the 1800's and spent decades honing and refining his arguments against them. The science in ENAG is correct for that reason alone.
Appeal to authority fallacy.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Bedford Level Experment
« Reply #43 on: July 24, 2018, 11:54:06 PM »
Nope. Read the ENAG link. There were multiple flaws. This is a complex surveying experiment, far unlike the simple pass/fail convexity experiments elsewhere in ENAG.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/
If the answer is so clear and simple, I don't see why it takes all of this back and forth nonsense. Just give an answer with valid proof behind it.

Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked
« Reply #44 on: July 25, 2018, 01:11:43 AM »
Rowbotham, an educated doctor, was debating the entire scientific community of the 1800's and spent decades honing and refining his arguments against them. The science in ENAG is correct for that reason alone.

Really? The entire scientific community of the 1800's? All of them? Yet he doesn't seem to rate a mention anywhere outside his own book.
When did he debate William Herschel or his son John Herschel?
Did he debate Carl Friedrich Gauss? Amedeo Avogadro? or Joseph-Louis Gay-Lussac? Charles Darwin? Thomas Edison?
What about those in totally unrelated fields like Marie Curie or Georges Cuvier? Did he interrupt their work just to debate them on the shape of the Earth?
If he did debate anyone it appears he totally failed to convince anyone of note, else he would actually be given mention in history books along side the real scientists of the day.

I think what you should have said was :

"Rowbotham, who I alone claim was an educated doctor , claims to have debated some people of the 1800's and, although there is no record of said debates, claimed that he was victorious. Despite this the scientific community largely ignored him. I personally believe ENAG is correct for that reason alone."

ps This is another flat earth defeat.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 01:33:45 AM by Lag_Man »

Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked
« Reply #45 on: July 25, 2018, 01:45:52 AM »
Nope. Read the ENAG link. There were multiple flaws. This is a complex surveying experiment, far unlike the simple pass/fail convexity experiments elsewhere in ENAG.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/
If the answer is so clear and simple, I don't see why it takes all of this back and forth nonsense. Just give an answer with valid proof behind it.

Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked
« Reply #46 on: July 27, 2018, 12:15:21 PM »
No one gives a hoot about what you read and have "decided." With any argument you make on the matter you are going to have to show, not tell.

Rowbotham, an educated doctor, was debating the entire scientific community of the 1800's and spent decades honing and refining his arguments against them. The science in ENAG is correct for that reason alone.

Bahaha   you fails to see the irony in your two contradictary statements.

Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked?
« Reply #47 on: July 29, 2018, 06:17:15 PM »
Nope. Read the ENAG link. There were multiple flaws. This is a complex surveying experiment, far unlike the simple pass/fail convexity experiments elsewhere in ENAG.

Samuel Birley Rowbotham, under the pseudonym 'Parallax', lectured for two decades up and down Britain promoting his unique flat earth theory. This book, in which he lays out his world system, went through three editions, starting with a 16 page pamphlet published in 1849 and a second edition of 221 pages published in 1865. The third edition of 1881 (which had inflated to 430 pages) was used as the basis of this etext.

Rowbotham was an accomplished debater who reputedly steamrollered all opponents, and his followers, who included many well-educated people, were equally tenacious. One of them, John Hampden, got involved in a bet with the famous naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace about the flat earth. An experiment which Hampden proposed didn't resolve the issue, and the two ended up in court in 1876. The judge ruled against Hampton, who started a long campaign of legal harassment of Wallace. Rowbotham hints at the incident in this book.

Rowbotham believed that the earth is flat. The contients float on an infinite ocean which somehow has a layer of fire underneath it. The lands we know are surrounded by an infinite wilderness of ice and snow, beyond the Antarctic ocean, bordered by an immense circular ice-cliff. What we call the North Pole is in the center of the earth.

The polar projection of the flat earth creates obvious discrepancies with known geography, particularly the farther south you go. Figure 54 inadvertantly illustrates this problem. The Zetetic map has a severly squashed South America and Africa, and Australia and New Zealand in the middle of the Pacific. I think that by the 19th century people would have noticed if Australia and Africa were thousands of miles further apart than expected, let alone if Africa was wider than it was long!

The Zetetic Sun, moon, planets and stars are all only a few hundred miles above the surface of the earth. The sun orbits the north pole once a day at a constant altitude. The moon is both self-illuminated and semi-transparent. Eclipses can be explained by some unknown object occulting the sun or moon. Zetetic cosmology is 'faith-based', based, that is, on a literal interpretation of selected Biblical quotes. Hell is exactly as advertised, directly below us. Heaven is not a state of mind, it is a real place, somewhere above us. He uses Ussherian Biblical chronology to mock the concept that stars could be millions of light years away. He attacks the concept of a plurality of worlds because no other world than this one is mentioned in the Bible.

Rowbotham never adequately explains his alternative astronomy. If the Copernican theory so adequately explains planetary motions, why discard it, and what would he use in its place? What is the sun orbiting around once a day and how does it work like a spotlight, not a 'point source'? If the moon is self-luminous, what creates its phases? If gravity appears to work here on earth, why doesn't it apply to the celestial objects just a few hundred miles up?

To make his system work he had to throw out a great deal of science, including the scientific method itself, using instead what he calls a 'Zetetic' method. As far as I can see this is simply a license to employ circular reasoning (e.g., the earth is flat, hence we can see distant lighthouses, hence the earth is flat).

Zetetic Astronomy is a key work of flat-earth thought, just as Donnelly's Atlantis, the Antediluvian World is still considered required reading on the subject of Atlantis. If you ever have to debate the flat earth pro or con, this book is a complete agenda of each point that you'll have to argue.

All from http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/
If the answer is so clear and simple, I don't see why it takes all of this back and forth nonsense. Just give an answer with valid proof behind it.

Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked?
« Reply #48 on: August 11, 2018, 04:39:49 PM »
So, can flat-earthers take the "Bedford level experiment" out of their precious FAQ?
Or are they gonna continue to promote incorrect information?
If the answer is so clear and simple, I don't see why it takes all of this back and forth nonsense. Just give an answer with valid proof behind it.

Re: Bedford Level Experment debunked?
« Reply #49 on: August 12, 2018, 01:49:00 PM »
So, can flat-earthers take the "Bedford level experiment" out of their precious FAQ?

It's doctrine, so no, they won't take it out.

Quote
Or are they gonna continue to promote incorrect information?
This is the Flat Earth Society.  Promoting incorrect information is their raison d'etre.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.