62. The Bedford Levels experiment proved things did not disappear over the horizon as they would on a spherical Earth

“Samuel Rowbotham’s experiments at the Old Bedford Level proved conclusively the canal’s water to be completely flat over a 6 mile stretch. First he stood in the canal with his telescope held 8 inches above the surface of the water, then his friend in a boat with a 5 foot tall flag sailed the 6 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the 6 mile stretch of water should have comprised an arc exactly 6 feet high in the middle, so the entire boat and flag should have ultimately disappeared, when in fact the entire boat and flag remained visible at the same height for the entire journey.”


The results of this experiment by Samuel Rowbotham in 1838 did indeed suggest a flat Earth, however Dubay fails to mention that subsequent experiments showed that the original experiment was flawed and that the Earth was in fact curved and that objects did disappear over the horizon.

The reason that the flag could be seen well beyond the horizon was because of refraction.  Flat earthers don't like it when refraction is mentioned, but it is a well documented phenomenon.  However since very few people take atmospheric pressure readings when making observations usually accurate predictions of the effects of refraction are not usually possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction


However what is certain is that when the air nearer the ground is colder and hence more dense than the air above a certain amount of refraction will take place making object visible even when they are below the horizon.


What was needed was an experiment that gave a definitive result regardless of the effects of defraction.  Following a wager with a flat earther names Hampton, Alfred Russel Wallace's solution was to place a pole halfway between.  If the Earth was curved, then the middle pole would be seen to be higher than the furthest pole, and if the Earth was flat the top of the poles would be perfectly in line.


The result does not depend on whether refraction is taking place or not.
The result showed that the centre pole was indeed higher, and that the earth is in fact not flat.

Interestingly, Hampden subsequently published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for threatening to kill Wallace and for libel.

So this matter has been settled in an English court of law.  Not surprisingly flat earthers continue accuse Wallace of cheating.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment


< Prev  61-70 Next >

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

127. Straight reflections of sunlight and moonlight are impossible on a spherical Earth

Image
"The fact that the Sun and Moon’s reflections on water always form a straight line path from the horizon to the observer proves the Earth is not a ball. If Earth’s surface was curved it would be impossible for the reflected light to curve over the ball from horizon to observer." This is a flawed argument because Dubay does not understand how reflections operate Although he doesn't describe it very well, I presume that Dubay is referring to the angle of reflection from a curved surface.  I.e. the curve of the Earth would mean that the angle of reflection off the surface would result in nearly all the light  not reaching the observer's eyes. The fact that, if this was how reflections worked, that the same would be true on a flat Earth seems to have escaped Dubay's notice. This type of reflection is called specular reflection, and takes place with mirror like surfaces.  Generally the surface of the water is not perfectly flat so the reflection of the light...
Read more

Debunking Eric Dubay's 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball

Image
Conspiracy Baloney aims to provide resources to counter to the influence of the crazy anti-science conspiracy theories that are out there. This blog is specifically to debunk Eric Dubay's " 200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball", that I have found flat earthers often cite. There are quite a few resources out there that comprehensively debunk this book, but I think that one more voice can only help.  I have tried to keep the rebuttals as non technical as possible. Eric Dubay’s proofs are laughably simplistic and demonstrate an almost complete lack of understanding of maths and anything scientific or technical. A list of "proofs" that show Dubay is an idiot He also likes to give historical quotes as proofs.  Typical are quotes from the 1800’s but he even has one from before 1600!.  Not only are these opinions not proof of anything, but the fact that he can’t provide quotes from more up to date sources destroys their credibility. Worse, ...
Read more

9. Engineer W Winckler was published in the Earth Review in 1893 arguing that no engineer took the curvature of the earth into account

Image
“Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth  Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating,   “As an engineer of many years standing , I saw that this  absurd allowance is only permitted in school books.  No  engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind.  I  have projected many miles of railways and many more of  canals and the allowance has not even been thought of  much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means  this - that it is 8 ” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing  at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a  small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will  have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600  feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not  being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We  no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of  railway or canal, than of ...
Read more