The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: librada8 on December 01, 2020, 06:34:25 PM

Title: Experiment proposal
Post by: librada8 on December 01, 2020, 06:34:25 PM
Hi

I follow the Flat Earth community since a few years, now.
At first, I was looking at the explainations provided for common questions, such as how to explain distances, movement of the stars.
But quickly, I ended up falling on the same answers again and again, and, at the end always referring to the same century old observations/experiments.

One thing characterizing Science is that it always challenge its status, with new experiments.
Why is that different in the Flat Earth world?
If you want everybody to accept the Flat Earth hypothesis, you must imagine an experiment to prove that the observations match the hypothesis.

For example, your hypothesis being that Earth is flat, a LASER's light emitted horizontally should always stay parallel to the ground.
The critical point is that, in Science, you don't try to prove your hypothesis is right, but you try to prove it false, until you cannot find a way to do so.
Then only, you can say your hypothesis is strong enough to become a theory.
Maybe one day, someone will design a better experiment and break the theory and we are back to find a better hypothesis.

So, let's design an experiment for the stated hypothesis.
Find a big flat area, for example one of those:
https://www.redbull.com/ca-en/mysterious-places-part-5

(one without obstacle, a dry lake is a good candidate)

Buy a good quality LASER, a screen, a ruler (more than 2m), and a few solid supports.
Fix the LASER on one support, let's say 1.50m high.
On the other support, fix the screen and the ruller on the side.
Test your installation facing the 2 parts, separated by a few meters and lighting the LASER. You should see a light dot on the screen, at 1.50m.

Now, go to the area you selected earlier and do the same, increasing the distance between the supports.
According to the hypothesis, the light observed on the screen should stay at the same height, whatever the distance between both supports.

To make an honest experiment, you should mesure for a dustance big enough that the hypothesis should have a significative difference with the Round Earth hypothesis.
According to the latter, from less than 2km, you should see a result signficatively bigger than the margin of error due to the experiment itself.
http://earthcurvature.com/

Do the experiment and analyze the result, then draw your conclusion.
Additionally, if you documented your protocol properly, you can consider to publish your work, so that other people can replicate your experiment and consolidate/contradict your conclusions.

You'll say you need money to buy the equipment and travel to the selected area.
And I'd say ask the Flat Earth community to finance it. After all, it will help their cause.
And we are not speaking about millions. It's only a matter of a few thousands dollars.

Among all the Flat Earther, there should be a few motivated people to do such an experiment, no?

Good luck
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: librada8 on December 03, 2020, 11:47:32 PM
So, nobody 's interested?
I know it's easier to investigaet on Youtube, but if you want to spread your ideas, you need to convince people.

Anyway, it just confirms my vision. Good luck.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 04, 2020, 01:16:48 AM
Laser experiments have been done.

Pier2Pier Dr. John D - 9.5 mi two-way laser test - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ3TLdcVNfA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ3TLdcVNfA)

DMarble 10 Mile Laser Test - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj1GYfCRE3U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj1GYfCRE3U)

9.5-mile Laser Test Flat Earth Perth Australia - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FkTaS7g4gE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FkTaS7g4gE)
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: librada8 on December 05, 2020, 12:41:18 PM
Thanks for the links, Tom.
Those experiments are effectively interesting.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Regicide on January 22, 2021, 02:18:38 PM
Ahem... LIGO

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts

Especially notable is the part where they mention having to account for the curvature of the earth.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 22, 2021, 03:27:34 PM
Ahem... LIGO

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts

Especially notable is the part where they mention having to account for the curvature of the earth.

https://wiki.tfes.org/LIGO_Curvature_Compensation
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Regicide on January 22, 2021, 05:55:08 PM
Thanks for that wiki link. So, let's look at this analytically. The builders say that they had to account for the curvature of the earth, right? So, rather than elevate both ends, they elevated one end. However, there is a difference between how this would occur on a flat earth vs round earth. Although a laser raised at one end would indeed work on a flat earth, the distance from the middle to a ground is different on a flat earth vs a round earth. In precision construction, EVERY part is measured to high tolerances, and I have no doubt that the builders would certainly have noticed deviation from their plans. So, what do you think: is Caltech in on "the conspiracy", or is there no conspiracy at all?

Edit: Oh, and EA can't account for this one: straightness is one of the primary parts of precison, you can bet that that tube is dead precise.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 22, 2021, 06:24:21 PM
Looks like the tube diameter of those arms is more than a few feet in diameter to me.

(https://i.imgur.com/sbfBdhn.jpg)
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Regicide on January 22, 2021, 06:40:56 PM
...yup. Sure is. Could you perhaps elaborate on your point, because I'm not exactly sure to what you are alluding.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 22, 2021, 08:19:17 PM
If the beam starts off low in the tube and ends up high in the tube at the other end it would be the same result if they angled the beam slightly upwards at the receiver on a flat earth or the earth curved downwards on a round one.

Alternatively, if the center of the tube was gradually elevating in altitude as if on a ramp for a few feet, then there would also be a path on a FE if the beam was slightly angled upwards to reach the receiver.

The components had to be aligned at some point to get it to work. The point is that on an FE there is no physical obstruction preventing a path regarding how they accounted for 'earth curvature'.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: JSS on January 22, 2021, 08:21:36 PM
If the beam starts off low in the tube and ends up high in the tube at the other end it would be the same result if they angled the beam slightly upwards at the receiver on a flat earth or the earth curved downwards on a round one.

The tube is perfectly straight, there is no need to angle the beam inside regardless of the shape of the Earth outside of it. The point of the tube isn't to have it follow the curve/plane of the ground, it's to have the tube straight so the beam can travel from one end to the other without being blocked. If they had built it perfectly flat along the ground, the Earth's curve would have blocked the beam in the middle as the tube would also be curved. Once built the curve is no longer a consideration.

The time when the curve of the Earth mattered was during construction, where each end had to be raised over a meter so the entire tube would be straight. Once it was built then you just set your equipment up at the ends and point them at each other.  The curvature calculations was not simply lifting one end of the tube, it was constantly adjusting along the entire length to account for the curve. Otherwise you would have a curved tube, which is not at all what they wanted.

If the Earth doesn't curve, why did they take the curve into consideration during construction? As Regicide pointed out, are they lying, or mistaken? What is the evidence for either?

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts

Curvature of the Earth: LIGO’s arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth was a factor in their construction. Over the 4 km length of each arm, the Earth curves away by nearly a meter! Precision concrete pouring of the path upon which the beam-tube is installed was required to counteract this curvature.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 22, 2021, 08:25:16 PM
If the beam starts off low in the tube and ends up high in the tube at the other end it would be the same result if they angled the beam slightly upwards at the receiver on a flat earth or the earth curved downwards on a round one.

The tube is perfectly straight, there is no need to angle the beam inside regardless of the shape of the Earth outside of it. The point of the tube isn't to have it follow the curve/plane of the ground, it's to have the tube straight so the beam can travel from one end to the other without being blocked. If they had built it perfectly flat along the ground, the Earth's curve would have blocked the beam in the middle as the tube would also be curved. Once built the curve is no longer a consideration.

The time when the curve of the Earth mattered was during construction, where each end had to be raised over a meter so the entire tube would be straight. Once it was built then you just set your equipment up at the ends and point them at each other.  The curvature calculations was not simply lifting one end of the tube, it was constantly adjusting along the entire length to account for the curve. Otherwise you would have a curved tube, which is not at all what they wanted.

If the Earth doesn't curve, why did they take the curve into consideration during construction? As Regicide pointed out, are they lying, or mistaken? What is the evidence for either?

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts

Curvature of the Earth: LIGO’s arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth was a factor in their construction. Over the 4 km length of each arm, the Earth curves away by nearly a meter! Precision concrete pouring of the path upon which the beam-tube is installed was required to counteract this curvature.

https://wiki.tfes.org/LIGO_Curvature_Compensation
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: JSS on January 22, 2021, 08:29:09 PM
If the beam starts off low in the tube and ends up high in the tube at the other end it would be the same result if they angled the beam slightly upwards at the receiver on a flat earth or the earth curved downwards on a round one.

The tube is perfectly straight, there is no need to angle the beam inside regardless of the shape of the Earth outside of it. The point of the tube isn't to have it follow the curve/plane of the ground, it's to have the tube straight so the beam can travel from one end to the other without being blocked. If they had built it perfectly flat along the ground, the Earth's curve would have blocked the beam in the middle as the tube would also be curved. Once built the curve is no longer a consideration.

The time when the curve of the Earth mattered was during construction, where each end had to be raised over a meter so the entire tube would be straight. Once it was built then you just set your equipment up at the ends and point them at each other.  The curvature calculations was not simply lifting one end of the tube, it was constantly adjusting along the entire length to account for the curve. Otherwise you would have a curved tube, which is not at all what they wanted.

If the Earth doesn't curve, why did they take the curve into consideration during construction? As Regicide pointed out, are they lying, or mistaken? What is the evidence for either?

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts

Curvature of the Earth: LIGO’s arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth was a factor in their construction. Over the 4 km length of each arm, the Earth curves away by nearly a meter! Precision concrete pouring of the path upon which the beam-tube is installed was required to counteract this curvature.

https://wiki.tfes.org/LIGO_Curvature_Compensation

I did read the wiki page, what part of it are you referring to in response to my statement and question?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Longtitube on January 22, 2021, 08:33:39 PM
If the beam starts off low in the tube and ends up high in the tube at the other end it would be the same result if they angled the beam slightly upwards at the receiver on a flat earth or the earth curved downwards on a round one.
..........
The components had to be aligned at some point to get it to work. The point is that on an FE there is no physical obstruction preventing a path regarding how they accounted for 'earth curvature'.

The beams actually bounce back and forth a lot in each arm before the measurement, each travelling 1120km before final merge and detection, so the necessary precision is a lot higher than you seem to think. Aligned “at some point” indeed!

 https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LA/page/ligo-technology (https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LA/page/ligo-technology)
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 22, 2021, 08:55:17 PM
I did read the wiki page, what part of it are you referring to in response to my statement and question?

Quote the wiki and let us know what part you find incorrect about the explanation.

The beams actually bounce back and forth a lot in each arm before the measurement, each travelling 1120km before final merge and detection, so the necessary precision is a lot higher than you seem to think. Aligned “at some point” indeed!

 https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LA/page/ligo-technology (https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LA/page/ligo-technology)

Why can't it bounce back?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: RonJ on January 22, 2021, 09:02:39 PM
According to the reference, the beam tubes are 1.2 meters in diameter.
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/vacuum

The designers also feel that the the curvature of the earth needs to be taken into account as well.
Perhaps the designers of this multi-million dollar project were incorrect and they didn't have to correct for the earth's curvature, but if they did that and the earth was flat then the laser & the mirrors would be terribly out of alignment when they fired it up the first time.  It would be a very embarrassing design error.  Do you really think that happened?
 
 
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 22, 2021, 09:06:49 PM
As discussed, there isn't a physical barrier if the earth is flat and the receiving end is elevated a few feet in altitude.

You are assuming that it is possible to align everything perfectly level on the first try, perfectly, to hit something dead on 4km away. They clearly had to run tests and align the components to get it to work, not wing it.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: JSS on January 22, 2021, 09:13:49 PM
I did read the wiki page, what part of it are you referring to in response to my statement and question?

Quote the wiki and let us know what part you find incorrect about the explanation.

My post didn't mention or refer to the wiki, and neither did the post of yours I replied to so I am puzzled why I would need to do that.

One of my comments was asking why the LIGO scientists would lie about needing to take the curve of the Earth into consideration, which the wiki does not address. Do you have an explanation?

I also mentioned that the alignment happens after the construction and has nothing to do with the curve or plane of the Earth. The construction needed to take the curve into account, aligning it is done after the tubes have been built and finished in a perfectly straight line. At that point it no longer matters what the shape of the earth below or around the tube is. 
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 22, 2021, 09:15:48 PM
The answer is in the wiki. I also summarized it:

As discussed, there isn't a physical barrier if the earth is flat and the receiving end is elevated a few feet in altitude.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: JSS on January 22, 2021, 09:29:09 PM
The answer is in the wiki. I also summarized it:

As discussed, there isn't a physical barrier if the earth is flat and the receiving end is elevated a few feet in altitude.

That does not answer what I asked, which is why would the LIGO team would elevate one end for no reason and then lie about doing it to compensate for the curve of the Earth. What reason would they have to do this, and what is the evidence supporting it?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 22, 2021, 09:35:18 PM
Why would they need to lie about it if there is no physical barrier preventing this from working on a FE?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: RonJ on January 22, 2021, 09:37:25 PM
If the construction engineers were working with plans having the earth's curvature factored in and the earth was really flat, there would have been alarm bells going off all over the place during construction.  The beam tubes are thin material that has to stand up to a high vacuum.  The stresses are significant.  Most likely the structural engineers had a test jig with a laser on it and put it onto the end of the tube from time to time during construction to see if everything was going according to plan while they were building the tube.  That way little was left to chance.  I would have put stress gauges on the outside of the tube as additional level indicators.  If there's some abnormal bending stress indicated, something is going wrong. That would happen if the foundation was constructed assuming a curved earth and the earth was really flat. 
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 22, 2021, 09:40:41 PM
How would the stress be different if the earth were flat and you were building a tube on a ramping foundation, versus if the earth were round and you were building a tube on a ramping foundation?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: stack on January 22, 2021, 09:41:05 PM
Why would they need to lie about it if there is no physical barrier preventing this from working on a FE?

Now I'm totally confused. The question is, why would the LIGO engineers take earth's curvature into account when designing it and make mention of that fact when constructing it if the earth is in fact flat and there would be no need to take earth's curvature into account when designing it and no need to make mention of that fact when constructing it?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 22, 2021, 09:41:47 PM
Why would they need to lie about it if there is no physical barrier preventing this from working on a FE?

Now I'm totally confused. The question is, why would the LIGO engineers take earth's curvature into account when designing it and make mention of that fact when constructing it if the earth is in fact flat and there would be no need to take earth's curvature into account when designing it and no need to make mention of that fact when constructing it?

Because they think that the earth is round. It's not.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: stack on January 22, 2021, 09:53:59 PM
Why would they need to lie about it if there is no physical barrier preventing this from working on a FE?

Now I'm totally confused. The question is, why would the LIGO engineers take earth's curvature into account when designing it and make mention of that fact when constructing it if the earth is in fact flat and there would be no need to take earth's curvature into account when designing it and no need to make mention of that fact when constructing it?

Because they think that the earth is round. It's not.

Oh, I see. So they are just misinformed and did some unnecessary engineering. But here's where I'm confused. The wiki has this quote:

“The ends of each arm are actually situated several feet higher off the ground than their starting point at the center station. That’s to compensate for the Earth’s curvature.”

So are you saying that the engineers didn't really need to raise the starting and end points like they did as there is no real obstacle at the center station?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: JSS on January 22, 2021, 09:56:02 PM
Why would they need to lie about it if there is no physical barrier preventing this from working on a FE?

Now I'm totally confused. The question is, why would the LIGO engineers take earth's curvature into account when designing it and make mention of that fact when constructing it if the earth is in fact flat and there would be no need to take earth's curvature into account when designing it and no need to make mention of that fact when constructing it?

Because they think that the earth is round. It's not.

Do you have any evidence of this mistake? Where in their calculations and plans for the LIGO construction did they make this error?

To claim that thousands of scientists and engineers spending years of time and billions of dollars would make such a fundamental mistake there must be in-controversial evidence of their error.

They used high precision GPS measurements to build the flat concrete path for the tunnel to be built flat on top of. These measurements were adjusted for the curve of the Earth, so if there was no curve the tunnel would not be straight. It's not as simple as lifting one end of the tunnel.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 22, 2021, 11:44:04 PM
Quote
To claim that thousands of scientists and engineers spending years of time and billions of dollars would make such a fundamental mistake

(https://i.imgur.com/sHk7K1L.png)
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: JSS on January 22, 2021, 11:44:08 PM
To claim that thousands of scientists and engineers spending years of time and billions of dollars would make such a fundamental mistake

(https://i.imgur.com/sHk7K1L.png)

I'm aware of this effect. It is however not an answer to my question.

What evidence do you have that the construction of LIGO was incorrect in taking the Earths curvature into account?  Where in their plans did they make an error that you have spotted to determine they are wrong?  They claim they took the curvature of the Earth into account, you claim they are wrong, and I would like to see what evidence the LIGO project provided you with that you base your conclusions on.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 22, 2021, 11:49:45 PM
To claim that thousands of scientists and engineers spending years of time and billions of dollars would make such a fundamental mistake

(https://i.imgur.com/sHk7K1L.png)

I'm aware of this effect. It is however not an answer to my question.

What evidence do you have that the construction of LIGO was incorrect in taking the Earths curvature into account?  Where in their plans did they make an error that you have spotted to determine they are wrong?  They claim they took the curvature of the Earth into account, you claim they are wrong, and I would like to see what evidence the LIGO project provided you with that you base your conclusions on.

I determined that they may have been wrong when you guys provided a scenario which you guys have now agreed is possible on an FE.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: JSS on January 23, 2021, 12:13:41 AM
To claim that thousands of scientists and engineers spending years of time and billions of dollars would make such a fundamental mistake

(https://i.imgur.com/sHk7K1L.png)

I'm aware of this effect. It is however not an answer to my question.

What evidence do you have that the construction of LIGO was incorrect in taking the Earths curvature into account?  Where in their plans did they make an error that you have spotted to determine they are wrong?  They claim they took the curvature of the Earth into account, you claim they are wrong, and I would like to see what evidence the LIGO project provided you with that you base your conclusions on.

I determined that they may have been wrong when you guys provided a scenario which you guys have now agreed is possible on an FE.

The wiki was written well before this conversation so the evidence for it couldn't have come from today's discussion and I do not agree. I must assume then from your response that you do not in fact have any evidence from LIGO to suggest the scientists and engineers are wrong? You can not point out to where they made any mistakes in the design or construction of their facility?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 23, 2021, 12:58:05 AM
Quote
I do not agree

Then tell us why it is physically impossible on FE and stop trying to change the subject away from that or ask others to prove that someone is incorrect about something. Sounds like someone who can't defend their position that the earth needs to be round for this to work.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: stack on January 23, 2021, 01:01:43 AM
Quote
I do not agree

Then tell us why it is physically impossible on FE and stop trying to change the subject away from that or ask others to prove the shape of the earth. Sounds like someone who can't defend their position that the earth needs to be round for this to work.

Who said it was impossible on a flat earth? The point is that the LIGO engineers determined and designed LIGO taking into consideration earth's curvature. They wouldn't have needed to if the earth were flat. The question is why did they bother to raise both ends to get over an obstruction at mid-station, design, build it that way? And your claim, I guess, is that there is no obstruction there and designing and building LIGO in such a way that they did was unnecessary. So how did you determine that it was unnecessary?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: JSS on January 23, 2021, 01:04:35 AM
Quote
I do not agree

Then tell us why it is physically impossible on FE and stop trying to change the subject away from that or ask others to prove the shape of the earth. Sounds like someone who can't defend their position that the earth needs to be round for this to work.

If you are going to selectively quote me, please at least use full sentences and not just fragments without context. Thanks.

I do not agree with your conclusion because you have not provided any evidence that the LIGO engineers and scientists were wrong, or made any mistakes in their construction due to any errors. They have claimed they needed to compensate for the curvature of the Earth, and I simply ask how you determined they are wrong. The facility is well documented.

I have asked for you to provide the evidence you used to conclude they made an error, and you have not done so or indicated any mistake on their part. The facility indeed seems to function, and the tunnels and tubes are straight as they sit on a foundation that is curved, not just angled at one end.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 23, 2021, 01:08:46 AM
Who said it was impossible on a flat earth?

It was implied when it was brought up to disprove FE. If you think it's possible on a FE then there is no physical impossibility and we're done here.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: RonJ on January 23, 2021, 03:32:21 AM
The LIGO experiment would work fine on a flat earth, in fact the construction of the beam tube foundations would be easier.  However, it was stated in the Caltech website that it was necessary to take the earth's curvature into account during construction because of the length of the beam tubes.  So either FES is correct and the earth is flat or the scientists & engineers at Caltech are.  Maybe they knew the earth was flat and lied on their website about the tube construction problems.  If that's true, then there's a conspiracy.  I think that if the FES wants to proclaim that the earth is flat and Caltech is mistaken then they need to come up with some evidence and demonstrate it to the world.   
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: stack on January 23, 2021, 08:14:54 AM
Who said it was impossible on a flat earth?

It was implied when it was brought up to disprove FE. If you think it's possible on a FE then there is no physical impossibility and we're done here.

Yes, it was brought up to disprove flat earth (as many things are and vice versa to disprove a globe earth - That's kinda what is done around these parts, no?), but it wasn't brought up to say it couldn't work on a flat earth. That's where I think you're all flummoxed. And I don't understand what your conundrum is.

The question is: How did you determine that it was unnecessary for the LIGO engineers to take curvature of the earth into account when designing and constructing the site?

Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 23, 2021, 02:57:24 PM
However, it was stated in the Caltech website that it was necessary to take the earth's curvature into account during construction because of the length of the beam tubes.  So either FES is correct and the earth is flat or the scientists & engineers at Caltech are.
Or they built a tube that follows FE+EA perfectly, while incorrectly assuming that they were accounting for the Earth's curvature - the most obvious conclusion.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: RonJ on January 23, 2021, 03:14:55 PM
However, it was stated in the Caltech website that it was necessary to take the earth's curvature into account during construction because of the length of the beam tubes.  So either FES is correct and the earth is flat or the scientists & engineers at Caltech are.
Or they built a tube that follows FE+EA perfectly, while incorrectly assuming that they were accounting for the Earth's curvature - the most obvious conclusion.
How could they build a beam tube using FE+EA when no one knows the value of the Bishop constant?  It's hard to do a design without all the facts.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 23, 2021, 04:09:28 PM
How could they build a beam tube using FE+EA when no one knows the value of the Bishop constant?
We've already been through this - they built their tube to work for the experiment. This would be accomplished without any knowledge of RE vs FE.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: JSS on January 23, 2021, 04:29:07 PM
How could they build a beam tube using FE+EA when no one knows the value of the Bishop constant?
We've already been through this - they built their tube to work for the experiment. This would be accomplished without any knowledge of RE vs FE.

This directly contradicts statements and papers from LIGO itself that they did in fact use knowledge of the Earths shape to build the tubes. They have said they used Earth curvature calculations and explained why they did it.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 23, 2021, 06:52:34 PM
This directly contradicts statements and papers from LIGO itself that they did in fact use knowledge of the Earths shape to build the tubes. They have said they used Earth curvature calculations and explained why they did it.
Indeed - a misunderstanding of FET would lead one to assume that they're working under RET. Where, pray tell, is the contradiction?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: JSS on January 23, 2021, 07:22:41 PM
This directly contradicts statements and papers from LIGO itself that they did in fact use knowledge of the Earths shape to build the tubes. They have said they used Earth curvature calculations and explained why they did it.
Indeed - a misunderstanding of FET would lead one to assume that they're working under RET. Where, pray tell, is the contradiction?

It is here: "We've already been through this - they built their tube to work for the experiment. This would be accomplished without any knowledge of RE vs FE."

The contradiction is when you said they accomplished building the tube without any knowledge of RE vs FE. They say they did take knowledge of RE vs FE into account.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Jay Seneca on January 23, 2021, 07:49:18 PM
This directly contradicts statements and papers from LIGO itself that they did in fact use knowledge of the Earths shape to build the tubes. They have said they used Earth curvature calculations and explained why they did it.
Indeed - a misunderstanding of FET would lead one to assume that they're working under RET. Where, pray tell, is the contradiction?

It is here: "We've already been through this - they built their tube to work for the experiment. This would be accomplished without any knowledge of RE vs FE."

The contradiction is when you said they accomplished building the tube without any knowledge of RE vs FE. They say they did take knowledge of RE vs FE into account.

Did LIGO first attempt to do the experiment with it not raised at all and it hit the surface of Earth?
Or did they assume the Earth was round so they built it raised on one end from the beginning?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 23, 2021, 08:00:06 PM
They say they did take knowledge of RE vs FE into account.
No, they didn't. By your own admission, they worked on the assumption on RE, and make no statements regarding RE vs. FE.

I'm very grateful for you endorsing this hypothesis (knowingly or not), but perhaps you should stop wasting our time with word games?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: JSS on January 23, 2021, 08:06:35 PM
This directly contradicts statements and papers from LIGO itself that they did in fact use knowledge of the Earths shape to build the tubes. They have said they used Earth curvature calculations and explained why they did it.
Indeed - a misunderstanding of FET would lead one to assume that they're working under RET. Where, pray tell, is the contradiction?

It is here: "We've already been through this - they built their tube to work for the experiment. This would be accomplished without any knowledge of RE vs FE."

The contradiction is when you said they accomplished building the tube without any knowledge of RE vs FE. They say they did take knowledge of RE vs FE into account.

Did LIGO first attempt to do the experiment with it not raised at all and it hit the surface of Earth?
Or did they assume the Earth was round so they built it raised on one end from the beginning?

They built it from the beginning assuming the Earth was round, it would have been expensive and embarrassing to have to tear it down and do it over!  They did not "raise one end" either, both ends are at the same height, it's the middle of the tube that is about 1 meter difference. What they did was adjust the height of both (three if counting the two arms) ends to compensate for the hump of the Earth's curve. 

What is more interesting than the pouring of the concrete, which could be done in many ways, is that a 4km perfectly straight slab of concrete will be exactly level only at the middle, and at each end will be tilting outward 0.036 degrees. This actually presents a problem, since the optics are suspended on pendulum systems and therefore don't actually line up, so they had to compensate for the deviation with extra equipment. So that's a second place where they had to take the curve of the Earth into account. If the Earth was flat, the two pendulums would be exactly lined up, but they are not, and differ exactly the amount predicted by the Earth's known curve.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 23, 2021, 11:18:01 PM
Who said it was impossible on a flat earth?

It was implied when it was brought up to disprove FE. If you think it's possible on a FE then there is no physical impossibility and we're done here.

Yes, it was brought up to disprove flat earth (as many things are and vice versa to disprove a globe earth - That's kinda what is done around these parts, no?), but it wasn't brought up to say it couldn't work on a flat earth.

Why would someone suggest that something disproves FE if they thought it could work on an FE?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Regicide on January 24, 2021, 12:03:40 AM
There seems to be a communication barrier here regarding the workings of precision equipment, so let me clarify. EVERYTHING is first modeled to allow for precision construction. EVERYTHING is precut to allow for maximum precision. And finally: a ramp raised on one end works DIFFERENTLY on a flat earth and a round earth.  While the ends may be the same height, the slope of the one on a round earth relative to the ground is curved, while the slope of the ramp on a flat earth is flat. It is impossible to construct an instrument of that precision on a world that differs by as much as 300 cm at one point. They say that they designed it to account for a round earth, and while it is certainly possible to construct a functioning 4 km long laser tunnel on a flat earth, it is impossible to do so while under the impression that it is being constructed on a flat earth.


They didn't just pour the concrete for the base, they curved it away from the ground along the path. That's necessary on a round earth and would ruin any chance of having a functioning system on flat earth. So, once again. Either Caltech is in on the conspiracy, or there is none.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 24, 2021, 12:16:40 AM
That's necessary on a round earth and would ruin any chance of having a functioning system on flat earth.
This continues to be incorrect, even now that you've said it again. In case you were wondering: saying it once again won't make it more true, either.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: stack on January 24, 2021, 01:33:47 AM
Who said it was impossible on a flat earth?

It was implied when it was brought up to disprove FE. If you think it's possible on a FE then there is no physical impossibility and we're done here.

Yes, it was brought up to disprove flat earth (as many things are and vice versa to disprove a globe earth - That's kinda what is done around these parts, no?), but it wasn't brought up to say it couldn't work on a flat earth.

Why would someone suggest that something disproves FE if they thought it could work on an FE?

I don't think you're looking at it in the same way I am. It would work just fine on a flat earth. No compensation would be needed. No need to engineer a raised height of the laser at either end to compensate for a curved earth. Yet the LIGO engineers did compensate for a curved earth, designed, and constructed LIGO to compensate for a curved earth and mentioned that they did so. And what your argument is, I guess, is that they were mistaken to do so. They went out of their way to compensate for a curved earth when they didn't need to. Is that your argument - They were wrong to bother in engineering and constructing LIGO to take into consideration a curved earth that doesn't exist? Secondarily, if so, why did they bother? Thirdly, what evidence do you have that they incorrectly bothered to do so?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 24, 2021, 01:54:18 AM
Who said it was impossible on a flat earth?

It was implied when it was brought up to disprove FE. If you think it's possible on a FE then there is no physical impossibility and we're done here.

Yes, it was brought up to disprove flat earth (as many things are and vice versa to disprove a globe earth - That's kinda what is done around these parts, no?), but it wasn't brought up to say it couldn't work on a flat earth.

Why would someone suggest that something disproves FE if they thought it could work on an FE?

I don't think you're looking at it in the same way I am. It would work just fine on a flat earth. No compensation would be needed. No need to engineer a raised height of the laser at either end to compensate for a curved earth. Yet the LIGO engineers did compensate for a curved earth, designed, and constructed LIGO to compensate for a curved earth and mentioned that they did so. And what your argument is, I guess, is that they were mistaken to do so. They went out of their way to compensate for a curved earth when they didn't need to. Is that your argument - They were wrong to bother in engineering and constructing LIGO to take into consideration a curved earth that doesn't exist? Secondarily, if so, why did they bother? Thirdly, what evidence do you have that they incorrectly bothered to do so?

So you think that the laser could reach the opposite end on a FE whether they made this adjustment for the 'curve of the earth' or not.

Next you are asking "why did they make that adjustment?" and the answer for that is clear: Because they think that the earth is round.

Finally, you are moving the goal posts to demand proof that they are incorrect about the shape of the earth, which really shows the weakness of the original argument which was supposed to be a disproof of FE.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: RonJ on January 24, 2021, 03:10:50 AM
The constructors of LIGO built a mechanical flat level plane for the beam tube assuming a spherical earth. The center of the tube was at a fixed reference level and a plumb bob would hang perfectly straight. The mechanical surface would form a tangent to the edge of the earth’s sphere.  That means the other ends 2 km distant would have to be elevated about 31 cm on each end.  The ends wouldn’t be perfectly level relative to a plumb bob.  They would form an angle that wasn’t quite 90 degrees.  If the construction was done according to the CalTech website and the earth was flat, then the tube would effectively be bowed upwards and the laser beam wouldn’t make it to the other end.  Since the beam was working as designed it can be assumed that the earth is spherical and of the advertised size.  The laser beam was operating in a nearly perfect vacuum so no refraction could be expected.  This is effectively a better designed and better controlled Bedford level experiment and shows a round earth.  QED. 
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Iceman on January 24, 2021, 03:29:45 AM
I believe the argument is that the designers may have thought they were accounting for earth's curve, but really they were accounting for the upward deflection of light rays from horizontal due to EA. You would therefore have to demonstrate why the LIGO design cannot support both possibilities - earth's curvature vs EA - which under typical, isolated readings at a similar scale, are argued to be able to produce equivalent results.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: RonJ on January 24, 2021, 04:18:55 AM
I believe the argument is that the designers may have thought they were accounting for earth's curve, but really they were accounting for the upward deflection of light rays from horizontal due to EA. You would therefore have to demonstrate why the LIGO design cannot support both possibilities - earth's curvature vs EA - which under typical, isolated readings at a similar scale, are argued to be able to produce equivalent results.

According to the FET Wiki: There is an equation stated with an undefined Bishop constant (which makes it useless) that proclaims to show how the underside of clouds could be explained on a flat earth.  It goes on to say: "its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical. Therefore, while it is not valid for short-range experiments, it can give an idea of how much sunlight would bend on its way to the Earth, for instance." The LIGO setup is both short-range AND horizontal so the equation in the Wiki wouldn't apply and any EA arguments would be 'undefined'.  What I did show was the LIGO mechanical structure was stated to be designed as a mechanical level surface mounted on an assumed spherical earth.  If the tube was mechanically straight, as designed, and a light beam went from one end to the other and didn't hit any tube walls and hit the opposite end near the center then it would be a good demonstration of a spherical earth.  Effectively the light beam would be forming a tangent to the earths surface.  If the same mechanical mount was placed on a flat earth then the beam tube would have an upwards curvature and the light beam probably wouldn't quite make it to the other end.  This is a nice 'quasi' Bedford level experiment that shows the earth is round.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Jay Seneca on January 24, 2021, 07:24:59 AM
I believe the argument is that the designers may have thought they were accounting for earth's curve, but really they were accounting for the upward deflection of light rays from horizontal due to EA. You would therefore have to demonstrate why the LIGO design cannot support both possibilities - earth's curvature vs EA - which under typical, isolated readings at a similar scale, are argued to be able to produce equivalent results.

According to the FET Wiki: There is an equation stated with an undefined Bishop constant (which makes it useless) that proclaims to show how the underside of clouds could be explained on a flat earth.  It goes on to say: "its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical. Therefore, while it is not valid for short-range experiments, it can give an idea of how much sunlight would bend on its way to the Earth, for instance." The LIGO setup is both short-range AND horizontal so the equation in the Wiki wouldn't apply and any EA arguments would be 'undefined'.  What I did show was the LIGO mechanical structure was stated to be designed as a mechanical level surface mounted on an assumed spherical earth.  If the tube was mechanically straight, as designed, and a light beam went from one end to the other and didn't hit any tube walls and hit the opposite end near the center then it would be a good demonstration of a spherical earth.  Effectively the light beam would be forming a tangent to the earths surface.  If the same mechanical mount was placed on a flat earth then the beam tube would have an upwards curvature and the light beam probably wouldn't quite make it to the other end.  This is a nice 'quasi' Bedford level experiment that shows the earth is round.

I do know that they use surveyor/optical levels when building railroads and highways and usually anything that’s a long distance. It’s basically line of sight while level.  Railroads and highways never have to factor in the curvature of the Earth while being engineered or built.     The level we have at work is good for up to 3000’ and there’s better ones than that. 
I guess my question is what kind of level did they use to build it? 
Its not very accurate trying to level something that long of a distance with a hand held level.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: stack on January 24, 2021, 07:41:03 AM
I believe the argument is that the designers may have thought they were accounting for earth's curve, but really they were accounting for the upward deflection of light rays from horizontal due to EA. You would therefore have to demonstrate why the LIGO design cannot support both possibilities - earth's curvature vs EA - which under typical, isolated readings at a similar scale, are argued to be able to produce equivalent results.

According to the FET Wiki: There is an equation stated with an undefined Bishop constant (which makes it useless) that proclaims to show how the underside of clouds could be explained on a flat earth.  It goes on to say: "its accuracy will improve the closer the light ray is to vertical. Therefore, while it is not valid for short-range experiments, it can give an idea of how much sunlight would bend on its way to the Earth, for instance." The LIGO setup is both short-range AND horizontal so the equation in the Wiki wouldn't apply and any EA arguments would be 'undefined'.  What I did show was the LIGO mechanical structure was stated to be designed as a mechanical level surface mounted on an assumed spherical earth.  If the tube was mechanically straight, as designed, and a light beam went from one end to the other and didn't hit any tube walls and hit the opposite end near the center then it would be a good demonstration of a spherical earth.  Effectively the light beam would be forming a tangent to the earths surface.  If the same mechanical mount was placed on a flat earth then the beam tube would have an upwards curvature and the light beam probably wouldn't quite make it to the other end.  This is a nice 'quasi' Bedford level experiment that shows the earth is round.

I do know that they use surveyor/optical levels when building railroads and highways and usually anything that’s a long distance. It’s basically line of sight while level.  Railroads and highways never have to factor in the curvature of the Earth while being engineered or built.     The level we have at work is good for up to 3000’ and there’s better ones than that. 
I guess my question is what kind of level did they use to build it? 
Its not very accurate trying to level something that long of a distance with a hand held level.

There are some papers on what exactly they used from an engineering perspective. I'd have to dig them up - It was a while ago the last time I found them. I remember something about using GPS. Oh wait, here's one:

Precision alignment of the LIGO 4 km arms using dual-frequency differential GPS
The alignment of the Laser Interferomter Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) using the Global Positioning System (GPS) is described. The LIGO project is designed to detect gravitational waves from astrophysical sources by laser interferometery. There are two sites separated by 3002 km that will be operated in coincidence. At each, site laser beams propagate in two orthogonal 4 km long evacuated beam lines 1.2 meters in diameter. The subject of this article is the alignment of the 16 km of beam tubes using dual-frequency differential GPS. A maximum deviation from straightness in inertial space of 5 mm rms and an orthogonality between arm pairs of better than 5 microradians is reported.

The earth model WGS-84, is described by an oblate ellipsoid with its semi-minor axis, b= 6356752.314 m, along z ˆ E, semi-major axis with value a = 6378137 m, and eccentricity given by (1 - e 2) = 0.993306. R[f] is the local radius of curvature of the ellipsoid at latitude f:

https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0072/P000006/000/P000006-A.pdf
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 24, 2021, 10:45:47 AM
The LIGO setup is both short-range AND horizontal so the equation in the Wiki wouldn't apply and any EA arguments would be 'undefined'.
Please do not make arguments about things you don't understand.

What I did show was the LIGO mechanical structure was stated to be designed as a mechanical level surface mounted on an assumed spherical earth.
Unfortunately, the assumption of a spherical earth contradicts your guarantee of it being a "mechanical level surface". Therein lies the crux of your failure - in order for your RE proof to be admissible, RE has to be assumed at the onset.

If the same mechanical mount was placed on a flat earth then the beam tube would have an upwards curvature and the light beam probably wouldn't quite make it to the other end.
This continues not to be the case.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: RonJ on January 24, 2021, 04:07:50 PM
The LIGO setup is both short-range AND horizontal so the equation in the Wiki wouldn't apply and any EA arguments would be 'undefined'.
Please do not make arguments about things you don't understand.
  OK, fair enough.  If you think that I don't understand, please feel free to provide your versions of the 'facts' for our consideration.  There can be no discussions if all you put out is that I'm wrong without putting out your 'facts' for consideration. I did the best I could with the limited information in the Wiki.

What I did show was the LIGO mechanical structure was stated to be designed as a mechanical level surface mounted on an assumed spherical earth.
Unfortunately, the assumption of a spherical earth contradicts your guarantee of it being a "mechanical level surface". Therein lies the crux of your failure - in order for your RE proof to be admissible, RE has to be assumed at the onset.
Your statement was incorrect.
It is possible to hold a straight edge up to a spherical surface and draw a tangent line.  That was the goal of the LIGO constructors, draw a mechanically straight surface TANGENT to the spherical earth.


If the same mechanical mount was placed on a flat earth then the beam tube would have an upwards curvature and the light beam probably wouldn't quite make it to the other end.
This continues not to be the case.
Agreed.  The earth is a sphere so the construction plans that accounted for that worked out as expected.  You have a beam tube that forms a straight tangent line to a sphere and works as expected.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 24, 2021, 05:46:58 PM
Ron, this is the upper fora. Please drop the wacky font sizes.

It is possible to hold a straight edge up to a spherical surface and draw a tangent line.  That was the goal of the LIGO constructors, draw a mechanically straight surface TANGENT to the spherical earth.
In other words - you do not disagree with me at all, you just like to restate my position and act as if saying it again changes things.

The only part you're slipping up on now is whether the intention was actually realised. Given that the two models would be indistinguishable in this case, you will struggle to substantiate your claim.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: RonJ on January 24, 2021, 06:44:24 PM
The LIGO website states that they took into consideration a spherical earth during the construction of the beam tubes.  That would require a level foundation.  I would define such a foundation as one with a surface being an equal distance from the center of the spherical earth in all locations on the foundation path.  Once the foundation was constructed,  beam tube mounts could then be installed.  These mounts would have to be a series of ever longer mounts.  The longest would be at the ends of the beam tube and the shortest ones would be at the center.  This would mean that the points along the beam tube would have different distances to the center of the earth.  Just visualize a circle with a tangent line drawn on it, if you can.  If the earth were flat then the different mount lengths would have to bend the beam tube upwards because the mounts of different lengths with the longest at the ends.  I have no indications that the actual beam tube was constructed as claimed on their website.  Perhaps a trip to the site could confirm that.  I'm assuming that the designers were confident enough that the earth was spherical before starting the design.  I have personally confirmed that the earth is a sphere and I'm confident that many others have done so as well.  Probably the designers of LIGO were plenty confident of their 'assumptions' before finalizing the plans.  The data that is coming from the site seems to imply that the beam tube is working as designed. 

You could make the argument that the upward bending of the beam tube on a flat earth would work fine as well because EA bends the light beam upwards, but by how much?  Your Wiki equation give no indication because of the lack of the quantity of the Bishop constant.  I believe that the value of the Bishop constant should be zero.  Then the observed results would fit the equation. The results of the Bedford Canal experiment would be in conflict here as well.  The flat earth theory needs more work and the Wiki needs to be updated with more information.   
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 24, 2021, 06:50:00 PM
The LIGO website states that they took into consideration a spherical earth during the construction of the beam tubes.
Ron, we know this. We've already discussed this. Please stop restating the RE position over and over and start addressing the gaps we've highlighted. Alternatively, let your colleagues do this for you, but don't waste our time.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Regicide on January 25, 2021, 01:47:43 PM
The existence of EA would actually stop LIGO from working: if it does indeed correct the light beam over one single traversal of the tunnel (and there would, of course, be many other obstacles to the functioning of LIGO on a flat earth), then we can assume that there is a bending of light upward to an order of about 300 mm per 4 km. However, on the return it would have to travel downward by an equal amount to arrive at the predicted location. And of course, it doesn't just reflect once. The laser reflects hundreds of times in the laser holding arms, and even 100 reflections equals 30 meters of displacement, so what's the deal? Does EA periodically switch directions in certain locations based on what is most convenient for the FE model? Oh wait. The laser is continuous, so part of the beam is always traveling one way while another part is traveling the other way.  Guess that wouldn't work either. I'll finish with the same question I've always finished with: is Caltech in on the conspiracy, or is there no conspiracy at all?

Oh, and just checking, what's the policy on images in signatures? Because this is absolute gold.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: RonJ on January 25, 2021, 04:27:58 PM
The LIGO equipment as setup would work under FET + EA, maybe.  I say maybe because there’s no known value of the Bishop constant.  If that constant was zero, then the LIGO experiment, as constructed, would NOT work if placed on a flat earth.  You have the ‘unknowing’ scientists do a design based upon a round earth placing the actual structure on a flat earth and due to EA see a perfectly operating system. Understood.  The physical tube has a slight skywards bend to exactly compensate for the EA effect as outlined in the Wiki equation and all is good with the world.  I do have a ‘gap’ of my own here.  If you go to another part of the FET wiki you will see the outline of the Bedford Level Experiment.  The nice diagrams illustrate the FET desired outcome of a perfectly level body of water for 6 miles and a level sight lines as well.  In fact, one of the photographers made the statement: This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should be more than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."
So now the conundrum: In ENAG Rowbotham maintained that the earth was flat.  The Bedford Level Experiment required NO electromagnetic acceleration.  In other words, flat earth + flat water surface + light rays that are perfectly straight = a valid proof of a flat earth.  QED.  Today with LIGO you have the upwards curving beam tube + curving rays of light (EA) = indications that the earth is flat and the LIGO experiment works as expected.  So the collaborating CalTech & MIT scientists were totally fooled into thinking that they were compensating for a round earth when they were really compensating for EA.  The bottom line is that either EA is correct and Rowbotham was wrong, or visa-vera.  Who gets thrown under the bus?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Regicide on January 25, 2021, 10:21:33 PM
The LIGO equipment as setup would work under FET + EA, maybe.  I say maybe because there’s no known value of the Bishop constant.  If that constant was zero, then the LIGO experiment, as constructed, would NOT work if placed on a flat earth.  You have the ‘unknowing’ scientists do a design based upon a round earth placing the actual structure on a flat earth and due to EA see a perfectly operating system. Understood.

It wouldn't really work under EA, like I said. Repeated reflection would cause EA to curve it upwards way more than needed.

That aside, the tube can't really curve up either. The parts of the tube were precision machined and bolted together to insane levels of accuracy. When you are constructing precision equipment like that (I've said it before and nobody listened) you just absolutely have to know what is going on. If there is an expected drop of 1 meter over the 4 kilometer length, then that's a deviation of 250 millimeters per kilometer= 0.25 millimeters per meter. That SUCKS. It doesn't sound like much, but here's some 10 mm rods for $8.99 that are straighter. https://www.amazon.com/Linear-Diameter-Surface-Hardened-Treatment/dp/B08GQXTC12?th=1 (https://www.amazon.com/Linear-Diameter-Surface-Hardened-Treatment/dp/B08GQXTC12?th=1). That's the low end of precision, and it only goes up from there. Some applicatons (although LIGO is likely not this perfect) call for micron per meter straightness. So, could Caltech feasibly have constructed a curved tube on a flat earth rather than a straight tube on a round earth? No. They couldn't have.

So is Caltech in on the conspiracy, or is there no conspiracy at all?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 26, 2021, 09:26:03 AM
It wouldn't really work under EA, like I said. Repeated reflection would cause EA to curve it upwards way more than needed.
Not if the experiment was calibrated for reflections to be parallel, which it necessarily was.

Regicide, you really need to learn that saying something twice doesn't make it more true. Even RonJ (partially) corrected you on your error. Just saying it again won't fix it.

The rest of your post is an argument from personal incredulity. What you think is or isn't likely doesn't really matter.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Regicide on January 26, 2021, 02:22:14 PM
I will concede the EA point, as It seems impossible for consensus to be reached: EA can account for the curvature. However, you seem to have ignored my second argument, which is that the potential curvature introduced by the world being round is significantly greater than even a low grade of precision could account for. Hardly an argument from "personal incredulity". I think it's not likely because it isn't likely. Once again, 0.25 millimeters per meter is measurable and noticeable: not to the naked eye, but certainly to anyone doing work like this and using basic alignment techniques. Caltech says
Quote
The 1.2 m diameter beam tubes were created in 20-meter segments.
(Source: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/vacuum)
If each segment is 20 meters long and remains straight, then there would be 5 mm of separation at each join, or half a centimeter. And that measurement is visible to the naked eye. I'm trying to communicate that what you think happened cannot happen. You cannot construct a curved tube over a flat plane while trying to construct a flat tube over a curved plane, and you most certainly cannot do that and then draw a 1^-9 torr vacuum on said tube. That's not my opinion, that's just fact.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 26, 2021, 02:53:10 PM
Yes, to anyone ignoring EA it would appear that way. Unfortunately, EA is a thing, and it makes this scenario indistinguishable between the two models. Therein lies the problem. Every time you try to argue there's a discernible difference, you already ignored the argument that's actually being had.

Your "basic alignment techniques" rely on optics. You cannot assume RET optics when making an argument about an alternative system. Every time you do, you fail from the get-go.

Furthermore, you have now provided a random quote as something that "Caltech says", leaving it completely unattributable, and completely useless. Who is saying it? The campus? The Gates-Thomas building? I doubt Caltech itself actually said anything to anyone.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Regicide on January 26, 2021, 03:12:02 PM
You actually did not read my post. Unbelievable. I clearly said that I conceded the EA point at the top of my post. The alignment was referring to the actual tube, the tube which they actually constructed to account for an expected curvature. So, I'll try to break this down, and I'll bold this so that I perhaps actually have my post read this time: I am referring not to the laser, but rather to the logistical issues of constructing a 4 mile long tube that has 300 mm of unexpected curvature.

Precision starts with straightness, which is achieved through non-optical means. Because we have ways of creating a perfectly straight tube, and they made the LIGO tube as straight as possible to avoid stresses, we can conclude that gradual curvature is not possible without introducing significant stress into the system. Thus, the curvature would have to come at the joins, which were also joined straight. If there isn't a curve in the tube, and there isn't a curve at the join, there's really nowhere else for the curve to be but the ground.

Hopefully you at least read through this time, instead of
 
Ignoring the argument that's actually being had.

As for the quote, I'll go back and edit that, I was trying out WYSIWYG and forgot to preview before posting.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 28, 2021, 11:11:20 PM
You actually did not read my post.
These sort of accusations do not belong here. If you didn't understand my response (or identical responses of others before me), ask for clarification. Do not make ungenerous assumptions, lest they turn against you.

Precision starts with straightness, which is achieved through non-optical means.
I only just finished contesting this idea. If you could respond, instead of endlessly repeating your opinion while ignoring the argument that's been presented to you, that would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Regicide on January 29, 2021, 02:07:30 PM
You actually did not read my post.
These sort of accusations do not belong here. If you didn't understand my response (or identical responses of others before me), ask for clarification. Do not make ungenerous assumptions, lest they turn against you.
My apologies, it seems I was the one who failed to read yours fully. Your argument, however, falls apart when considering your key statement, that EA makes the two situations indistinguishable. My answer: not quite. This has been argued over and over again, with neither side making progress, so I'll try to explain why EA doesn't affect precision assembly.

Straightness is derived from non-optical means at its base. 3 flat plates are rubbed against each other: A against B, A against C, B against C. The only surface shared by 3 surfaces is a flat plane, so this creates a gradually flatter surface on all 3. Once flatness is achieved, this can be used as a reference for easily creating other flat objects. If a measurement unit is decided on, a straight edge can be turned into a ruler, and from there we can use math to get angles, circles, everything. Everything comes from the flat plane. We of course use other methods two, and we are able to verify flatness with electron microscopes (at extremes of precision.)

So, we are capable of creating a round tube with a high degree of straightness, and with square ends. Importantly, we are able to do this without using optical means: no laser levels, etc. Can we assemble it without using optics, and more importantly would we? Because optical straightness verification isn't really used in machining: it's too imprecise, and most is done by referencing a straight plane. It's highly likely that optical straightness verification wasn't used in the creation process for the tube sections of LIGO. Even, therefore, if a laser level was used to assemble them, they still would have shown the gap.
Try it for yourself: get a couple of long things with square edges like Legos or blocks, really anything, so long as it has a slender form factor and square edges. (Square meaning perpendicular to the other edes, not square as in the shape). Then, put them in the straightest line you can. It should be fairly easy, because the square edges act as a guide for assembling them.  Now, try and make a curve with them without altering the individual blocks or leaving any gaps between the edges. Difficult, huh? That's the problem facing the FE interpretation of LIGO.

You've seen how easy it is to make a straight line with straight blocks with square edges, and that it's impossible to make a curve without leaving gaps. So, let's look at LIGO construction, then. 

On a flat earth: the concrete curves upward. This is because Caltech is trying to account for curvature that isn't there. They put in the first tube, and all is well. They put in the second tube, square it with the first, and weld it on. All is well, except for a slight dip towards the concrete. Fastforward, and the tube is all perfectly straight, but it's also notably lower than at one end than the other. So, let's say they mount each tube parallel to the concrete, which wouldn't be the smartest thing: concrete is by nature a less precise surface than steel, especially poured concrete. But let's say they do do that: each tube has a gap. A small gap, but a noticeable gap certainly (I calculated earlier that it would be half a centimeter. That's a conundrum: if they construct the tube referencing itself, it isn't square to the ground. If they construct it referencing the ground, it isn't square to itself. That's going to take some explaining to management.

On a round earth: the concrete counters the curvature of the earth and is flat. This is because Caltech is accounting for the curvature. They put in the first tube and all is well. They put in the second tube, square it with the first, and weld it on. All is well. Fastforward, and the tube is all perfectly straight and not lower to the concrete on either end. The scientists have a party!

Do you see? The round earth model just works, with no complications, while the flat earth model is going to take considerable explaining. Use the zetetic method, look at the two models, and find which one is truly more likely.

I eagerly await your replies.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 29, 2021, 03:49:27 PM
Under your assumptions, RE would indeed be theoretically (but by not conclusively by any means) simpler to explain (though your remarks about the Zetetic Method are extremely far off the mark - a single piece of evidence does not automatically overturn the preponderance).

However, the key point remains - you assert that "straightness" is established through non-optical means, which is usually false - nobody is slapping multiple surfaces together and then rotating them to ensure straightness; that would create endless trouble with convex/concave tubes fitting together perfectly. CMMs are sometimes used to ensure "straightness" insofar that the final product isn't dented somewhere along the line, but optical means are the predominant means of establishing "straightness" and parallelism.

Indeed, the LIGO precision alignment documentation (https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0072/P000006/000/P000006-A.pdf) explains what the goals of the alignment process was, which directly contradicts your assertions - the methods of alignment were optical and electromagnetic in nature, not mechanical, because the specified goals were optical, and not mechanical. Some excerpts for your convenience:

Quote from: https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0072/P000006/000/P000006-A.pdf
The beam tubes needed to be aligned along the propagation direction of light in vacuum and not along the direction perpendicular to local gravity on the surface of the Earth.

Quote from: https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0072/P000006/000/P000006-A.pdf
The beam tubes are fabricated from 3 mm thick, spirally welded 304L stainless steel and have a nominal aperture diameter of 1.24 meters. 9 cm high optical baffles installed in the beam tube and fabrication and installation tolerances reduce the actual clear aperture to 1 m. These details are listed in Table 1 below. Construction of the beam tubes was undertaken in 2 km sections, called beam tube modules.

Quote from: https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0072/P000006/000/P000006-A.pdf
A. Feasibility studies and design
LIGO had identified in its 1989 conceptual design the use of a high precision dual-frequency, differential Global Positioning System survey (GPS or DGPS) as a technique to set reference monuments that could be used as millimeter-level optical benchmarks. However, at the time of the proposal, GPS equipment and procedures to achieve this precision were not yet widely available to industry.

The introduction of commercially available, real time DGPS systems in 1993 permitted the use of GPS to be reconsidered by the time construction of the beam tube was to begin. Trimble Navigation's Site Surveyor Real Time Kinematic (RTK) system was identified as an off-the-shelf system with millimeter-level accuracy that could perform in real time as needed in the field.

Do you see? The problem with your logic is that you assumed that:

but sadly, reality doesn't care what you think must be the case. The LIGO tubes were aligned using means which would work equally well in either model. Your opinion is not fact, and it contradicts fact. You do not need to explain your opinion over and over again - you need to make it square up with what actually happened.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Regicide on January 29, 2021, 04:45:34 PM
Quote
A second special consideration, dictated by the nature of the construction
project, was that GPS alignment needed to be carried out concurrently with the
construction with no significant opportunity for check by standard optical techniques
until the construction was completed.

They clearly said in the article that they didn't check using optical techniques until construction was complete: they used GPS for the alignment.

My challenge still stands: try making a curve out of objects with square edges without leaving gaps. The curve has to happen somewhere!
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 29, 2021, 04:48:02 PM
they used GPS for the alignment.
Pray tell, what does GPS rely on?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Regicide on January 29, 2021, 05:20:35 PM
Oh, you didn't know? I'm sorry, I shouldn't assume a knowledge base. GPS relies on synchronized timing for triangulation, and is based on travel times for signals. GPS satellites have extremely accurate atomic clocks, and when a GPS device is finding location, it sends a request for location information. This request is received by satellites, which respond with their local time. Since they are synchronized, the GPS device can then use triangulation based on the delay between the satellites to get it's location. This is beneficial because it doesn't rely on the timekeeping of the GPS device: just the satellites. This is for a round earth, and it would be significantly different for a flat earth. But that's a discussion for another thread.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Iceman on January 29, 2021, 05:29:05 PM
Oh, you didn't know? I'm sorry, I shouldn't assume a knowledge base. GPS relies on synchronized timing for triangulation, and is based on travel times for signals. GPS satellites have extremely accurate atomic clocks, and when a GPS device is finding location, it sends a request for location information. This request is received by satellites, which respond with their local time. Since they are synchronized, the GPS device can then use triangulation based on the delay between the satellites to get it's location. This is beneficial because it doesn't rely on the timekeeping of the GPS device: just the satellites. This is for a round earth, and it would be significantly different for a flat earth. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Should clarify as well that in precision settings, it's not just a single GPS receiver that's used. Generally a combination of RTK (real-time kinetic) units, which receive live corrections via cell towers in order to achieve real-time, sub 2-cm precision, or total station set-ups, which use a fixed (often surveyed) base station and a mobile rover are employed.

Youve probably seen these units in action, too. The antennas you see on bulldozer or grade blades in road construction projects are using these, as do large farming equipment to facilitate precision seeding, and in some cases, fertilization and irrigation.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Regicide on January 29, 2021, 05:35:08 PM
Do those use the same system of atomic clocks?
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Iceman on January 29, 2021, 06:09:01 PM
Do those use the same system of atomic clocks?

Yes. They're still based off the satellite constellation. They are just able to eliminate errors from atmospheric effects
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 29, 2021, 08:10:22 PM
Oh, you didn't know?
I did. I'm asking you why you think that GPS is something else than "optical or electromagnetic means". Because it isn't, and you just asserted otherwise.

Specifically, focus on this part of your statement:

it sends a request for location information

and riddle me this: how does it do so without relying on electromagnetism?

You need to drop the terrible assumptions. You cocked up rather spectacularly and I'm trying to help you figure it out. Give me something to work with, something better than "wow you didn't read my message/don't even understand gps!!!!". I hope that you will soon be able to answer the actual argument. You know, the one you're desperately avoiding right now.

Generally a combination of RTK (real-time kinetic) units, which receive live corrections via cell towers in order to achieve real-time, sub 2-cm precision, or total station set-ups, which use a fixed (often surveyed) base station and a mobile rover are employed.
In this case, RTK was indeed the be-all-end-all, as indicated in the quotes I provided, and the document as a whole. I didn't pay much attention to the distinction, since it doesn't actually change the argument all that much. The crucial point here is that nobody slapped surfaces together to ensure that they're straight. That claim was completely unsubstantiated, so it's not surprising that it was also nonsense.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Peter Winfield on February 24, 2021, 08:46:19 AM
The rest of your post is an argument from personal incredulity. What you think is or isn't likely doesn't really matter.

Thank you, it is good to have that stated so clearly.

It would be great if both sides stopped using arguments based on incredulity.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: scomato on February 24, 2021, 07:22:11 PM
There seems to be some severe misunderstanding of how GPS works in this thread.

This video explains it much better than I can, in a way that should be comprehensible to schoolchildren.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU_pY2sTwTA
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 24, 2021, 07:23:33 PM
There seems to be some severe misunderstanding of how GPS works in this thread.
You are mistaken.

If you have an argument to make, make it. There is absolutely no need to post basic videos with no explanation as to why you're posting them.
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: scomato on February 24, 2021, 07:33:09 PM
There seems to be some severe misunderstanding of how GPS works in this thread.
You are mistaken.

If you have an argument to make, make it. There is absolutely no need to post basic videos with no explanation as to why you're posting them.

I just arrived in this thread but I would argue strongly that GPS are not fake, or hoaxed using radio towers. They sit in low earth orbit and use electromagnetic waves to continuously cast information about its current position and time of signal sent to the surface of the Earth. Receivers sensitive to 1575.42 Mhz and 1227.60 MHz (the EM frequencies used by GPS) can read this information, and use trilateration and math to deduce the coordinates of a user.

If people are claiming that our phones send out a signal and communicate with the GPS satellites, that is false. GPS devices can only read and compute. 
Title: Re: Experiment proposal
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 24, 2021, 07:35:13 PM
I just arrived in this thread but I would argue strongly that GPS are not fake, or hoaxed using radio towers.
Nobody is proposing that, nor is anyone discussing any properties of GPS (or, more accurately, RTK) other than the fact that it relies on electromagnetism, rather than mechanics. Perhaps it would help for you to read the thread prior to posting in it?

If people are claiming that our phones send out a signal and communicate with the GPS satellites
That's not even remotely what this thread is about. Regicide may have misspoken slightly, but it's absolutely not worth putting any time into which device signals which, and when - the nature of the signal is what matters.