Revisiting the Candle Experiment

  • 58 Replies
  • 1471 Views
Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« on: November 08, 2019, 09:35:28 PM »
Greetings all,

So, back in August, Mr. Davis threw down a bit of a challenge to the "roundies" in an attempt to prove the truth behind the shape of planet Earth.  For those that would like to get caught up:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82883.0

The premise is both simple and vague: take a quarter length mile of twine, stretch it between two sticks at a given height, place a candle at the center, and be amazed as the center will never dip low enough to burn.

This would be truly amazing if the following were true:

That Mr. Davis actually performed the task and discovered the problems in setting up the experiment.

Now, I'd love to recreate this experiment but John was rather lacking on some of the more important details.  I believe this oversight was intentional as to avoid getting any of us out in the field reproducing his work.  It is entirely possible that I am completely wrong and this was all a simple misunderstanding.

To be clear, I am 100% willing and able to perform this experiment.  I will document as much as possible, with photographs whenever able, and report those findings here.  All I ask is answers from Mr. John Davis, regarding the following so that I can recreate his experiment:

- What brand, ply, and fiber of twine did you use?
- What length, type, and diameter of pole or stick did you use?
- How did you account for any topographical rise or fall in the area selected?

I will gladly post my findings once these three simple questions are answered.
With all the woes facing our planet do we need a flat earth to add to them...

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2019, 10:01:59 PM »
The point was to try it yourself. Not a one of you did. Not a one of you valued empiricism over what you 'believed.'  Except me. Go on. Try the shipping crate. Or the candle. You might be surprised.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2019, 10:15:40 PM »
The point was to try it yourself. Not a one of you did. Not a one of you valued empiricism over what you 'believed.'  Except me. Go on. Try the shipping crate. Or the candle. You might be surprised.

John, I'm going to be as fair and honest as I can with you; a quarter mile of 3 ply jute twine cannot be stretched taut to a point where its level with the ground.  The twine will break well before you draw the slack out.  5 ply jute twine will end the same.  Double braided nylon will still sag in the middle.  John, small gauge steel cable will sag in the middle at that length.  I'm telling you this because I've worked with those materials at lengths equal to and exceeding what you've offered here.  A quarter mile of steel cable is well beyond the price range of most and would be dangerous to pull taut at that length.  We haven't even touched on what sort of methods you'd need to secure each end. 

The point of peer review is that we attempt to recreate your experiment using the tools and methods you used.  We verify the experiment or discover its shortcomings.  If shortcomings are found, we improve on the process and add that to the documentation.  In the end we have a working experiment that others can attempt and improve upon if needed. 

So, are you going to participate or are you going to keep dodging?  I'm as close as you're going to get to a 100% willing guinea pig here John.  I'll buy the stuff and try to put this together.  I just need those questions answered.
With all the woes facing our planet do we need a flat earth to add to them...

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2019, 10:20:51 PM »
I have no doubt you are being honest, but there is little fairness to "knowledge." I think if you looked into peer review you might find how deficit it is. But let us continue. Give me a second to bring up the joys of peer review and method. You will soon see, modern science is closer to nazi science or catholicism than it is what you might have been taught in school.

I am a bit drunk so give me this - a point. One point that you will stand upon - a line in the sand that will be a marc betweeen nonsense and 'science'. How can you define the logical, the reasonable, the scientific - from the popularity of the time.

Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2019, 10:22:38 PM »
Well, to be pointed - the popularity of our time.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2019, 10:28:17 PM »
I have no doubt you are being honest, but there is little fairness to "knowledge." I think if you looked into peer review you might find how deficit it is. But let us continue. Give me a second to bring up the joys of peer review and method. You will soon see, modern science is closer to nazi science or catholicism than it is what you might have been taught in school.

I am a bit drunk so give me this - a point. One point that you will stand upon - a line in the sand that will be a marc betweeen nonsense and 'science'. How can you define the logical, the reasonable, the scientific - from the popularity of the time.

Logic is always logic.  And/Or/If/Then/Not/Nor/Xor, truth tables.  What is necessary and what necessarily follows.  Deductive and inductive, strength, soundness.  I will concede that popularity, the mob, the rule of the mob often wins out over reason and logic.  The current political mess in the US (and to a degree, the world) are proof that rational thinking does not always rule the day. 

However, to me, there is always logic.  I define it as it is = a method of finding the truth.  The truth isn't always popular; I'm sure Galileo would comment on that.

I'll leave it at that.  John, I don't drink but I hope you enjoy your day/evening/whatever time it is in your neck of the woods.
With all the woes facing our planet do we need a flat earth to add to them...

*

Plat Terra

  • 1121
  • I am a Neutral Flat Earther
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2019, 10:33:20 PM »

- How did you account for any topographical rise or fall in the area selected?



Why would there be any level or sunken areas on a globe if Gravity has the power to crush mass into spheres?

If you say a sphere earth has some level and sunken areas, then gravity has not done it's job in those areas (Not including mountians) and you lose because you cant have it both ways. It either makes the surface a sphere or it doesn't.

If some areas are flat and sunken, then things should weight less in those areas.  Prove to us a 10 pound ball weighs less over the salt flats of the world than any where elese.

You are so screwed!
« Last Edit: November 08, 2019, 10:41:19 PM by Plat Terra »
The Globe community is incapable of verifying Earth has the curvature calculated through experiment or claimed by anyone. They can measure a band of helium but they can’t actually measure and verify the dictated curvature of any landmass or canal. Why not?

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2019, 10:39:19 PM »
We must disagree then. There is never logic beyond convention.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2019, 10:39:48 PM »
Have a good night too. The best I can wish you.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2019, 10:41:35 PM »
Last thing to say here - pay attention to how how logic or reason or even religon might define your space. There are more variables than I think you might be considering.

Best,
John
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

rabinoz

  • 24888
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #10 on: November 09, 2019, 01:25:18 AM »

- How did you account for any topographical rise or fall in the area selected?


Why would there be any level or sunken areas on a globe if Gravity has the power to crush mass into spheres?

Simply because gravity isn't infinitely strong.
It can only level hills or mountains if it causes stresses greater than the strength of the rock or whatever the hill or mountain is made of.

So on earth the maximum height of mountains above the surrounding land is very roughly 10 km (and not 3 km or 30 km) .
Mt Everest is 8,848 m above sea-level.
Mauna Kea, on the island of Hawaii, stands 4,207 m above sea level but it rises an 10,203 m above the nearby Pacific Ocean floor.  Hence Mauna Kea also fits the above limit of roughly 10 km.

So gravity has the power to crush mass into approximate spheres with the deviation dependent on the surface gravity and the composition of that body.

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2019, 01:26:06 AM »
The point was to try it yourself. Not a one of you did. Not a one of you valued empiricism over what you 'believed.'
Instead we showed what you were claiming was nonsense, even if Earth was flat.
The slack in the string, even if using a nylon line at breaking point, will still produce a drop larger than the bulge due to the curvature of Earth.

Except me. Go on. Try the shipping crate. Or the candle. You might be surprised.
The shipping crate experiment has effectively been done countless of times at a much larger scale.
It has been firmly established that the higher you are, the earlier sunrise is and the later sunset is.
We can observe a sunrise illuminating the tops of mountains first and casting shadows upwards from the mountain.

I find the candle experiment quite impractical, especially given just how significant the sag in the string will be.

Why would there be any level or sunken areas on a globe if Gravity has the power to crush mass into spheres?
The exact same argument would apply to a flat Earth.
Whatever magical down making / density sorting force would have levelled everything as well.

Gravity isn't some magical force that will magically turn things into a sphere.

Do you know how gravity forms objects into spheres?
The gravitational attraction will generate a pressure gradient.

As an example, if you had a column of water 10 m high, it will have a pressure of roughly 2 atm at the bottom and 1 atm at the top.
If there was nothing around it to hold it there, that 2 atm of pressure at the bottom will be much greater than the 1 atm of pressure of air at the bottom. This will result in it being pushed outwards and thus spreading out and levelling out.
But that is for a liquid.
If this was a solid instead, with a yield stress above 1 atm then it would still hold together.

The pressure gradient is given by rho*g*h. If this is above the yield stress, the material will fail and spread. If it isn't, then

An approximation for the density and yield stress of rock is 1600 kg/m^3 and 150 MPa (they vary dramatically depending upon the rock.)
This means we can get a height of roughly 10 km. That means we shouldn't expect mountains any higher than 10 km unless they are very light or very strong.

So there is no problem for the RE here.

Gravity will form large masses into roughly spherical objects. Not perfect spheres.


Prove to us
That would be shifting the burden of proof yet again.

Not having 1 particular piece of evidence for a RE doesn't mean RE is wrong or that we are screwed.

Try calculating what that variation should be and then proving that it doesn't exist.

Also note that it isn't as simple as less mass thus gravity is less. By being closer to the centre of mass of Earth, gravity from that would increase. So which factor wins?

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2019, 01:28:39 AM »
Mauna Kea, on the island of Hawaii, stands 4,207 m above sea level but it rises an 10,203 m above the nearby Pacific Ocean floor.  Hence Mauna Kea also fits the above limit of roughly 10 km.
If my thinking is correct, putting it under water significantly increases the height. Using the same value of 1600 kg/m^3 and 150 MPa, if it is in water it can go to ~25 km. That is because of the pressure gradient of the water is no longer insignificant like the atmosphere is.

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2019, 02:22:00 AM »

- How did you account for any topographical rise or fall in the area selected?



Why would there be any level or sunken areas on a globe if Gravity has the power to crush mass into spheres?

If you say a sphere earth has some level and sunken areas, then gravity has not done it's job in those areas (Not including mountians) and you lose because you cant have it both ways. It either makes the surface a sphere or it doesn't.

If some areas are flat and sunken, then things should weight less in those areas.  Prove to us a 10 pound ball weighs less over the salt flats of the world than any where elese.

You are so screwed!

Plat, I'm speaking strictly about topographical variations in elevation at any given location.  Trying to find a spot that has zero elevation change can be difficult depending on where you live.  I'm near some mountains so finding a spot that has no elevation change isn't easy.  I was curious as to how John solved that issue when he did the experiment.  So, to point, what I'm discussing has nothing to do with whatever it is you're on about.  Further, Rab and Jack have pointed out that whatever your on about is, as always, hilariously wrong.
With all the woes facing our planet do we need a flat earth to add to them...

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2019, 02:29:38 AM »
The simplest (i.e. low tech) solution to get a level surface is to use water.

As a good one for a level all the way along, I might recommend building a tank along the 400 m stretch.
Have clear walls, at least where you are placing anything where the height is important.
Then put some water in and seal it up.

That should be a quite good level to use as a reference.

The main problem is the amount of water needed. (I estimate roughly 100 000 l for one 0.5 m wide and 0.5 m high.

If you only need the level at a few points, then set up smaller tanks there (still enclosed) with hoses connecting the bottom of all the tanks (which need to remain full of water) and hoses connecting the tops of all the tanks (which needs to remain full of air, i.e. no water in the top hoses).
That should then provide a reference level for those 3 (or however many you need) locations.

*

rabinoz

  • 24888
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2019, 03:50:32 AM »
Mauna Kea, on the island of Hawaii, stands 4,207 m above sea level but it rises an 10,203 m above the nearby Pacific Ocean floor.  Hence Mauna Kea also fits the above limit of roughly 10 km.
If my thinking is correct, putting it under water significantly increases the height. Using the same value of 1600 kg/m^3 and 150 MPa, if it is in water it can go to ~25 km. That is because of the pressure gradient of the water is no longer insignificant like the atmosphere is.
Yes if it were all under water. The value would also depend on the density of the undersea rock. The oceanic floor averages about 2900 kg/m3 but I don't know what the density of the main part of the base of Mauna Kea might be.

But in any case the maximum mountain height is only a rough approximation.
By the way Mars has a surface gravity of 3.71 m/s2 and Olympus Mons is  21,287 m above the datum and  about 26 km above the local relief.

*

Crutchwater

  • 2148
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #16 on: November 09, 2019, 05:56:36 AM »
The simplest (i.e. low tech) solution to get a level surface is to use water.

As a good one for a level all the way along, I might recommend building a tank along the 400 m stretch.
Have clear walls, at least where you are placing anything where the height is important.
Then put some water in and seal it up.

That should be a quite good level to use as a reference.

The main problem is the amount of water needed. (I estimate roughly 100 000 l for one 0.5 m wide and 0.5 m high.

If you only need the level at a few points, then set up smaller tanks there (still enclosed) with hoses connecting the bottom of all the tanks (which need to remain full of water) and hoses connecting the tops of all the tanks (which needs to remain full of air, i.e. no water in the top hoses).
That should then provide a reference level for those 3 (or however many you need) locations.

How about a shitload of PVC pipe, with clear risers every 100' or so, filled with colored water?

Essentially a giant version of the handheld horizon dip-angle viewer seen in other experiments.
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #17 on: November 09, 2019, 07:24:47 AM »
The point was to try it yourself. Not a one of you did. Not a one of you valued empiricism over what you 'believed.'  Except me. Go on. Try the shipping crate. Or the candle. You might be surprised.

Empiricism is only as good as the quality of the data.  What’s the point of trying a fatally flawed experiment? 

Three huge issues were identified with your proposed set up.

1.  As mentioned above, no regular string or cable can be pulled that taught over such a distance.  Or if such a thing does exist, it’s highly specialised which means you need to specify it.  You ignored all requests to state what you used when you claim you did the experiment.

2.  Also mentioned here, how can find a sufficiently level 1/4 mile of land, and how do we confirm that?  You ignored all requests to explain how you managed this.

3.  You fluffed the curve calculation.  The one calculation flat earthers constantly quote, the “8 inch drop per mile squared”.  You used a linear relationship, getting an expected 2 inch drop over a quarter of a mile, when it should be a squared relationship giving an 1/8 inch drop.  Plus, we’re supposed to measure from the middle, so we need to halve that again to 1/16 inch.  So even if we could overcome problems 1 & 2, the difference between a flat earth result and a round result is an astonishing 32x what you claimed it would be.

Why should anyone waste their time on a nonsense experiment?

Come up with a sensible test, and I’m sure someone will give it a go.

*

Macarios

  • 1896
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #18 on: November 09, 2019, 12:50:47 PM »
The point was to try it yourself. Not a one of you did. Not a one of you valued empiricism over what you 'believed.'  Except me. Go on. Try the shipping crate. Or the candle. You might be surprised.

Ok, I also want to try it myself.

For the candle experiment:
What are the specifications of line, poles, and candle?
How tall the poles, how tall the candle, how tall the candle flame?
How much of a sagging is allowed?

For the crate experiment:
How high above the ground the crate has to be to achieve the required horizon dip during sunrise / sunset?
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39106
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #19 on: November 09, 2019, 01:34:19 PM »
The point was to try it yourself. Not a one of you did. Not a one of you valued empiricism over what you 'believed.'  Except me.
Did you, John?  Did you really?  What evidence have you provided that you actually did perform this experiment?
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: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #20 on: November 09, 2019, 01:45:11 PM »
The point was to try it yourself. Not a one of you did. Not a one of you valued empiricism over what you 'believed.'  Except me. Go on. Try the shipping crate. Or the candle. You might be surprised.

Ok, I also want to try it myself.

For the candle experiment:
What are the specifications of line, poles, and candle?
How tall the poles, how tall the candle, how tall the candle flame?
How much of a sagging is allowed?

For the crate experiment:
How high above the ground the crate has to be to achieve the required horizon dip during sunrise / sunset?

This whole thing is a bit odd really. It's like someone saying, "hey, I cooked an amazing meal last night, you should try it" - sure says I, what's the recipe and how did you cook it? "Well you'll need some protein based foodstuffs, some carbs, spices and sauce. And then you just cook it - costs about $15". Care to be a bit more specific? "Nope".

If I genuinely believed I had a killer proof of something, I'd document everything down to the last detail, encourage everyone to try my experiment and be glad to clarify any aspect of it - but that's just me.

*

rabinoz

  • 24888
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #21 on: November 09, 2019, 02:38:25 PM »
The point was to try it yourself. Not a one of you did. Not a one of you valued empiricism over what you 'believed.'  Except me. Go on. Try the shipping crate. Or the candle. You might be surprised.
So please show the results of your "Candle Experiment" and "shipping crate" experiment.

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #22 on: November 09, 2019, 03:03:07 PM »
What was the ship crate supposed to prove?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39106
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #23 on: November 09, 2019, 03:05:19 PM »
What was the ship crate supposed to prove?
Do you mean other than that FE'ers don't know how to design meaningful experiments?
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: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #24 on: November 09, 2019, 04:57:43 PM »
How about a shitload of PVC pipe, with clear risers every 100' or so, filled with colored water?

Essentially a giant version of the handheld horizon dip-angle viewer seen in other experiments.
Yes, that should work as well. But I prefer a system that is enclosed, so also a pipe connecting the top.

I'm not sure if PVC pipe or a hose would be the cheaper/easier option given the amount of water needed for such a long length.

3.  You fluffed the curve calculation.  The one calculation flat earthers constantly quote, the “8 inch drop per mile squared”.  You used a linear relationship, getting an expected 2 inch drop over a quarter of a mile, when it should be a squared relationship giving an 1/8 inch drop.  Plus, we’re supposed to measure from the middle, so we need to halve that again to 1/16 inch.  So even if we could overcome problems 1 & 2, the difference between a flat earth result and a round result is an astonishing 32x what you claimed it would be.
Your numbers are slightly off.
Where you said 1/8 should be 1/2.

Going to the middle means we need 1/4 of that, not 1/2, again because it is a quadratic relationship.

Or the simpler option, the bulge for 1/4 mile is the drop for 1/8 mile, which is 1/8 th of an inch.

So overall, the drop expected is 1/8th of an inch, 1/16th of what was claimed.

While the sag, even for nylon at breaking point, is greater than that.

What was the ship crate supposed to prove?
The shipping crate is a tiny scale version of the top of a mountain being illuminated first.

If RE is true, then at sunrise, the tops of objects should be illuminated first, with the bottom only being illuminated after some time.

If FE is true, then it depends upon what brand of nonsense you use for the explanation for sunrise.
With magic bendy light, the same is expected.
With a spotlight sun, the bottom should be illuminated first as the top is out of the cone of the spotlight.
With the atmosphere magically obscuring the view, then the top should be illuminated first as it is closer.

The big issue is the tiny scale.
Assuming a 4 m tall container, with the person at the equator on the equinox (for simpler math), and a 24 hour day with an Earth of radius 6378 km (to match the equator) and completely ignoring refraction, then the top of the container will be illuminated roughly 12 seconds before the bottom.
But this is during the course of sunrise, which takes roughly 2 minutes for the sun to come from below the horizon to be entirely above it.  (feel free to double check my math).

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #25 on: November 10, 2019, 10:55:34 AM »
Still at a loss what this shipper is supoosed to do.
Maybe johnD can post some photos of himself in one of these.
Showing what is seen vs what is expected.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2019, 07:03:03 PM by Themightykabool »

Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #26 on: November 10, 2019, 12:45:01 PM »
I did the experiment and verified that the earth is indeed round. To be fair and not confuse the minds of others who would do the experiment, I will not post my findings and pictures and what tools I used etc.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #27 on: November 10, 2019, 01:17:44 PM »

- How did you account for any topographical rise or fall in the area selected?



Why would there be any level or sunken areas on a globe if Gravity has the power to crush mass into spheres?

If you say a sphere earth has some level and sunken areas, then gravity has not done it's job in those areas (Not including mountians) and you lose because you cant have it both ways. It either makes the surface a sphere or it doesn't.

If some areas are flat and sunken, then things should weight less in those areas.  Prove to us a 10 pound ball weighs less over the salt flats of the world than any where elese.

You are so screwed!

If you are genuinely interested start a thread on it, if not stay on topic
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

mak3m

  • 737
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #28 on: November 10, 2019, 01:40:16 PM »
Experiment falls apart with the gentlest of questions.

JD doesnt answer questions put too him, so it's a waste of time  ???
You have to learn to reply without quoting a long previous answer.

*

rabinoz

  • 24888
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
« Reply #29 on: November 10, 2019, 03:10:50 PM »
I did the experiment and verified that the earth is indeed round. To be fair and not confuse the minds of others who would do the experiment, I will not post my findings and pictures and what tools I used etc.
In 2017 Dutchy tried to claim something similar to the Candle Experiment would settle the matter but did not do anything about it - I wonder why?
Here is one reply, Keep up the good work « Reply #15 on: April 24, 2017, 12:35:53 PM »
Back then Dyneema fibre (an Ultra High Density PolyEthylene) had the best strength to weight ratio of any available fibre.

Dutchy's "experiment" was to be over 3 km but over that distance, the least sag (going to twice the recommended stress ::)) was about 4.3 metres!
And over that 3 km the earth's curvature would only have the centre about  0.18 meters (6.95 inches) above either end!

John Davis's original "Candle Experiment
The disproofs of a round earth are so plentiful and readily available that we can show its absurdity with ease at the beck and call of any globularist - just don't expect such a man (or woman!) to accept their defeat but instead you will be privy to the greatest show of mental acrobatics this side of the plane. I am sure we will see some such acrobats visit this very thread.

Procure the following items, and keep them securely in a map-case should the need arise to dumbfound those whose ideas are founded in dumbness. The rational man will have to reject any round earth slumgullion immediately upon seeing the results.
  • A candle.
  • A ball of twine, 1320 feet. This should cost approximately 61 dollars.
  • Two good sized, sturdy sticks approximately half a meter in length.
  • A box of matches
His 1320 feet in only 402 metres and for that distance, the curve of the earth would only have the ends about 3 mm below the centre.
And if my data is correct the sag in that cable loaded to about yield strength would be about 33 mm (13 inches) ::).

If John believed that his Candle Experiment was reliable he might think he proved that the Earth was a Globe with a far smaller radius than it really has!