1. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    So this is happening this weekend...

    In a nutshell: flat earthers of the UK - including Dave Murphy - are off to the Bedford Levels to recreate Rowbotham's famous experiment. Will be interesting to see what they come up with.
  2. Henk001

    Henk001 Active Member

    Wonder if they are going to make the same mistakes (not including the atmospheric refraction) or if they will recreate Wallace's experiment as well -- clearly showing earth's curvature.
  3. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    Can't imagine the after-party'll be great if they clearly show the earth's curvature. ;)
  4. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    Well, the flat earthers went to the Bedford Levels and...didn't do very much, really.

    Video shows them talking, being happy, someone paddling down the canal in a canoe...and then sort of giving up because of the weather or something (conclusion: the earth is flat).

    Also, Rob Skiba just went to Lake Michigan to see the Chicago skyline for himself.

    Video shows Rob and some other guys taking a boat across the lake towards Chicago, filming everything, observing the skyline, observing it being increasingly revealed the closer they get, and...concluding that the lake and the earth, therefore, are flat, which they're pretty happy about.

    Well, they've got me convinced: convinced that there's absolutely nothing one can do to get through.
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 4, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. Z.W. Wolf

    Z.W. Wolf Senior Member

    About this:

    Some background on the Rowbotham experiment:

    Here's the comment I made on this video - (which was apparently deleted.)

    Rowbotham did use a boat moving away from him, so they did recreate this part of the experiment.

    The author of the video put this caption at the end of the video:

    What this really means is open to interpretation.

    But at 6:17 the video shows the viewfinder of another camera. We see the kayak just short of a bridge, which is the Ely-Peterborough line railway bridge 2.6 miles distant. This bridge did not exist in the 19th century when the famous experiments were done. This is the most distant view of the kayak this video presents.

    Two other YT channels promised coverage of this event but so far they haven't delivered.
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2016
  6. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    No, it can be worked backwards accounting for the height of eye.
  7. Z.W. Wolf

    Z.W. Wolf Senior Member

    I was just thinking about that today. Give me an example.
  8. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    In the video you linked to the height of eye of the camera is at about 14 feet (as is obvious at 3:56). Or 168 inches. At the 8 inches•statute miles^2 rule, that comes out to the horizon being sqrt(168/8) = 4.58 statute miles from the camera.
    • Informative Informative x 2
  9. Z.W. Wolf

    Z.W. Wolf Senior Member

    Here's the comprehensive coverage. I don't think much commentary is necessary. This speaks for itself.

    Just one thing. Starting at 7:27:

    He then goes into a math tutorial, coming up with a new formula.

    Apparently the earth is now no bigger than an asteroid.
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2016
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    Jeranism's new formula is to divide the distance to the object by pi. Or as he states it, "multiply by 0.318". Because "the total curvature" is equal to the diameter of the Earth divided by the circumference.

    So the size of the Earth now depends on how far away the object in question is.
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'm not entirely convinced that someone isn't trolling there. But his most fundamental error is assuming that you can add together the "curvature" distances of multiple arcs to get the "curvature" of a larger arc. Now the actual mathematical curvature is constant, as it's simply a circle of radius r. But by "curvature" he actually means the "bulge" or "drop" distance (which isn't really a useful distance, as you need the "obscured" distance, but anyway).

    That can be trivially disproved. Consider a circle centered on A, with radius r:

    A 180° arc from B to D has a drop ("curvature") of r

    Half of that arc is the 90° arc from B to C

    If the drop of BC was half that of BD then the distance from E to F would be r/2, and so F would be in the midpoint of AE

    It's not, it's less, so the sum of the "drops" of parts of an arc is less than the "drop" of the total arc.
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Bfahome

    Bfahome Member

    "only good up to a quarter of the globe"? How far away do they think the kayak is?
  13. Z.W. Wolf

    Z.W. Wolf Senior Member

    As I understand it, this isn't even measuring the same thing as Rowbotham's formula was intended to do.

    I'm lifting David Ridlen's illustration from the Earth curvature refraction experiments thread - page 3


    Rowbotham's formula is D, and Jernanism's new formula is (attempting) A? But what should be calculated is B.

    Last edited: Jul 17, 2016
  14. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    Jeranism's new formula is a line that descends at a constant angle of 17.7°. Regardless of the distance.
  15. Z.W. Wolf

    Z.W. Wolf Senior Member

    A slope?
  16. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

  17. Rory

    Rory Senior Member

    The math in that Jeranism video is probably the worst I've ever seen.

    More disturbing than that, though, is that some have instantly bought it.
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2016
    • Like Like x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. Chew

    Chew Senior Member

    This calculator will calculate the radius of a circle given arc length and height (sagitta). The arc length will be double the distance of the kayak (5.5 miles) and the height will be the drop claimed by the FRer in the video (1.7 miles)

    The Earth is now 17 miles in diameter. I wonder how many times the participants drove around the world to get to the bridge?


    • Funny Funny x 3
  19. DarkStar

    DarkStar Active Member

    Well, you know, GOOD ON THEM for trying. I wish they would listen to reason before they waste their time.

    My comment was

    (PS I'm aware of https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ but it doesn't allow you to factor in refraction )
    • Like Like x 3