The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: stevo021 on February 24, 2019, 07:35:45 AM

Title: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: stevo021 on February 24, 2019, 07:35:45 AM
I just watched the documentary on Netflix called "Behind The Curve". There are two experiments they perform that prove Earth is round and I'm wondering what the flat earthers have to say about it.

I really wanted to see what flat earthers have to say about sunsets in that documentary but that wasn't actually discussed. If the earth is flat, how are timezones explained? If you call a friend on the other side of the world when it's night time for you, how can it be daytime for them? A huge argument for flat earth in that video is the ability to see really far away, so how can something super high in the sky drop below the horizon if there isn't a horizon? Wouldn't the sun be crashing into the flat earth then?

The two experiments I'm referring to are a gyroscope that affirmed a 15 degree rotation of the earth, and the other experiment was a laser over water that clearly showed the water level was not flat but had a curvature.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Max_Almond on February 24, 2019, 10:41:46 AM
If you search on YouTube you can find out what the flat earthers in question say about it. Bob Knodel and Jeran Campanella are two of the world's leading flat earthers and, despite what they found and their responses to it, good for them for at least doing some well thought out experiments.

Also: beware presenting good evidence on this site and asking for a flat earth explanation of it. Certain people will lead you on a right old merry goose chase with a whole string of nonsense. And before you know it, the original point is lost.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 24, 2019, 03:39:42 PM
The two experiments I'm referring to are a gyroscope that affirmed a 15 degree rotation of the earth, and the other experiment was a laser over water that clearly showed the water level was not flat but had a curvature.

1. The Ring Laser Gyroscopes double purpose as a type of seismometer and the earth rotation claims resort to detection of microseismic patterns in the background: https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope

2. The water convexity experiments are variable because, depending on conditions, light can often bend up and down throughout the day: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_By_Refraction
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: TomFoolery on February 24, 2019, 04:54:06 PM
1. The Ring Laser Gyroscopes double purpose as a type of seismometer and the earth rotation claims resort to detection of microseismic patterns in the background: https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope
Very interesting. Had a read on the wiki link above.

The wiki says:
“The effect of seismic events is to induce frequency-modulated side bands, in the 0.2-1 Hz region, around the 'Earth line', which indicate the presence of rotational components associated with seismic events.”
(Emph. mine.)

If I'm understanding that correctly, the laser ring gyro does not detect the linear acceleration component of seismic events, but only the rotational component.
Think of yourself on a ship, gently rocking back and forth on the waves. A gyro, of any sort, would definitely pick up the rotational component of those waves.
I picture a laser ring gyro working the same way - picking up the rolling action (i.e. rotational component) from the seismic waves.

The problem is, just like on the ship, seismic waves are cyclic - the rotational component goes back and forth and back and forth but never all the way around. Unless the seas are really rough.
The roughest seas I've been on was leaning the boat up about 30 degrees each way side to side. It was a hoot, Captain and I would jump from the high side of the wheel house all the way to the low side in a single jump, then when the boat tipped back, we'd jump back to the other side. But I digress.

Anyway, I fail to understand how a cyclic non-constant seismic activity could cause a constant non-stop single-direction never-reversing reading of 15 degrees per hour.

Also the wiki says:
"It should be noted that the 'Sidreal Day' happens to be the general time it takes for the stars to return to their spots above the earth. It is the Solar Day, that is in regards to the sun, which is supposedly the true rotation of the earth."

However, I believe the glober's theory is that the sidereal day is how long it takes the earth to rotate compared to stars millions of light years away. The theory is that because earth goes around the sun every 365.25 days, that the length of a solar day is off by 1/365th of a day compared to a sidereal day, which is compared to stars much much farther than the sun.

So they are claiming that the laser ring gyro is actually showing earth's rotation comped to the distant stars and ignoring the angular rate of the sun.

A lot of hogwash obviously but that's what globers believe. The better we understand them the better we can show them the error in their ways.

Quote
2. The water convexity experiments are variable because, depending on conditions, light can often bend up and down throughout the day: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_By_Refraction

This one really interests me. Would the sinking ship effect be the same for mountains?
In other words, could I use a theodolite or water level to measure a mountain at 50 miles away, then at 75 miles away then at 100 miles away, and then derive a 3 point curve for the sinking ship effect?
Do we know if it's linear -- or does it increase with the square of the distance?

It would be great if we had a simple accurate formula that modeled this effect.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 24, 2019, 08:28:43 PM
1. The Ring Laser Gyroscopes double purpose as a type of seismometer and the earth rotation claims resort to detection of microseismic patterns in the background: https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope
Very interesting. Had a read on the wiki link above.

The wiki says:
“The effect of seismic events is to induce frequency-modulated side bands, in the 0.2-1 Hz region, around the 'Earth line', which indicate the presence of rotational components associated with seismic events.”
(Emph. mine.)

If I'm understanding that correctly, the laser ring gyro does not detect the linear acceleration component of seismic events, but only the rotational component.

Actually it says that they are concluding that the seismic events near the earth line are rotational components because they appear near the earth line that they assume is a signal that comes from the earth's rotation.

Quote
Anyway, I fail to understand how a cyclic non-constant seismic activity could cause a constant non-stop single-direction never-reversing reading of 15 degrees per hour.

The researchers are not claiming that there is an observed 15 degree rotation per hour beneath the device. That is your claim.

The researchers say that the device sees microseismic noises they don't know what the feature is, that it is assumed to be due to earth rotation, and it could very well be traced back to some oscillation in the medium.

At the top of p.153 of the Ring Laser Dynamics paper referenced in the Wiki we find a depiction of the Earth line on something like a seismic chart. The Earth line occurs at a specific frequency as a large peak. Around that peak are smaller peaks from a variety of noise sources -- traffic, micro-seismic, etc. It is admitted that the peaks represent noise.

(https://i.imgur.com/ezQffF4.png)

Tell us how this peak in the noise equates earth rotation. Where do you see rotation in the above image?

As shown in the Wiki, the author states that they apply a period of 86164 seconds, the sidrael day, to this feature of the background noise to come up with a "rotation rate".
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: stack on February 24, 2019, 08:51:03 PM
Maybe you haven't seen the clip, attached below. Regardless of what the tfes wiki says, Globebusters got rotation results, consistently, that suspiciously match what is to be expected in the RE model. Pretty much as simple as that. It's not seismic, among other reasons, due to the consistency of the findings, 15 degree rotation per hour. So what's an alternative explanation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9p2Yrbp3xA&t=2s
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 24, 2019, 08:58:17 PM
The author of the paper states that they apply a period of 86164 seconds, the sidrael day, to this feature of the background noise to come up with a "rotation rate". This is how the device is stated to work.

You have done nothing, and have shown no sources, to say otherwise.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: JCM on February 24, 2019, 09:04:37 PM
The flat Earth content makers in that video also unequivocally state southern flights east west across the southern ocean are fake or nonexistent.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1OqMSAPHUOM
Sydney to Johannesburg, time lapsed from 13 plus hour flight, paired with satellite images and gps data analyzation confirming the planes location.
I would wager the person on the flight would even share his entire 13 plus hour video with you if asked nicely.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: JCM on February 24, 2019, 09:16:14 PM
The author of the paper states that they apply a period of 86164 seconds, the sidrael day, to this feature of the background noise to come up with a "rotation rate". This is how the device is stated to work.

You have done nothing, and have shown no sources, to say otherwise.

So, why do commercial airplanes have these expensive gyros in them if they aren’t measuring what they claim to measure.  What possible purpose would they serve?  Notice how Mr. Knodel says  he won’t accept the 15 degree rotation per hour despite its consistency.  He not so subtley asserts the gyro is measuring distance and speed of the heavens energies then says it would pick up the orbit of the Earth around the Sun and even pick up the movement of the entire galaxy therefore it is useless.  How utterly obnoxious.  Notice he has not come out with any more experiments.  As a self proclaimed engineer you would think he would use that gyro hundreds of times in different places with different controls and then release those experiments.  If the device is so incredibly accurate, surely it would be the nail in the coffin for globular spinning earth.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 24, 2019, 09:19:57 PM
From the Strapdown Inertial Navigation Technology paper:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope#The_Earth_Line

Quote
The effect of seismic events is to induce frequency-modulated side bands, in the 0.2-1 Hz region, around the 'Earth line'

Then from the Wikipedia page on Seismic Noise:

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

Quote
Causes

Research on the origin of seismic noise[1] indicates that the low frequency part of the spectrum (below 1 Hz) is due to natural causes, chiefly ocean waves. In particular the peak between 0.1 and 0.3 Hz is clearly associated with the interaction of water waves of nearly equal frequencies but opposite directions.[2][3][4][5] At high frequency (above 1 Hz), seismic noise is mainly produced by human activities such as road traffic and industrial work; but there are also natural sources, like rivers. Around 1 Hz, wind and other atmospheric phenomena are also a major source of ground vibrations.[6]

This page seems to say that the peak in seismometers between 0.1 and 0.3 Hz is caused by the ocean.

This seismometer also shows a peak around that area:

http://physics.mercer.edu/hpage/compound/compound.html

(http://physics.mercer.edu/hpage/compound/convection.gif)

(http://physics.mercer.edu/hpage/compound/data1.gif)

The author seems to be calling the noise in the background the earth hum:

" Shown in Fig. 5 is a record that was collected for an interval approaching 24 h. The spectrum has been scaled relative to the maximum component observed during this time (microseisms), and plotted on a linear rather than logarithmic scale. The linear scale shows more clearly the mHz structure associated with the pendulum's response to persistent eigenmode oscillations (earth hum). Based on data collected with other of the author's different instruments during hurricanes, the spectrum below 10 mHz is expected to become distinctly different and highly variable during powerful storms. "

Quote from: stack
So, why do commercial airplanes have these expensive gyros in them if they aren’t measuring what they claim to measure.  What possible purpose would they serve?

Not all of the gyros claim to be able to observe the earth rotation. The ones in the paper are talking about the bigger research ones that are underground.

What makes you think that all of these devices can see this feature?
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: JCM on February 24, 2019, 10:06:28 PM
Why don’t you address the gyro Mr. Knodel used in the video, then proceeded to ignore the results as they were inconceivable, instead of some other gyro not in the discussion.  The gyros in question are used in airplanes to adjust specifically for the Earths rotation,  not seismic acitivity or the movement of the galaxy or the orbit around the Sun.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 24, 2019, 10:13:00 PM
Why don’t you address the gyro Mr. Knodel used in the video, then proceeded to ignore the results as they were inconceivable, instead of some other gyro not in the discussion.  The gyros in question are used in airplanes to adjust specifically for the Earths rotation,  not seismic acitivity or the movement of the galaxy or the orbit around the Sun.

I will suggest you research some more on the topic. A search for "Ring Laser Gyroscope" and "seismic" brings up many papers showing that the RLG is used to study seismology.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22ring+laser+gyroscope%22+%22seismic%22

Do some searches for "ring laser gyroscope" + "earth rotation". Show us where the device is measuring 15 degrees per hour beneath it and is not talking about the earth's rotation as seismic signals.

Demonstrate rather than say or assume. So far you have demonstrated nothing.

"The gyros in question are used in airplanes..." I would like to see a source for this. Please demonstrate that the gyro in question is used in airplanes, and that all airplane gyroscopes and all RLGs of all types and resolutions can see this feature.

These are all things that you heard, not things that you have demonstrated. Demonstrate you claims, right here, rather than stating them.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: JCM on February 24, 2019, 11:04:44 PM
Why don’t you address the gyro Mr. Knodel used in the video, then proceeded to ignore the results as they were inconceivable, instead of some other gyro not in the discussion.  The gyros in question are used in airplanes to adjust specifically for the Earths rotation,  not seismic acitivity or the movement of the galaxy or the orbit around the Sun.

I will suggest you research some more. A search for "Ring Laser Gyroscope" and "seismic" brings up many papers showing that the RLG is used to study seismology.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22ring+laser+gyroscope%22+%22seismic%22

Do some searches for "ring laser gyroscope" + "earth rotation". Show us where the device is measuring 15 degrees per hour beneath it and is not talking about the earth's rotation as seismic signals.

Demonstrate rather than say or assume. So far you have demonstrated nothing.

"The gyros in question are used in airplanes..." I would like to see a source for this. Please demonstrate that the gyro in question is used in airplanes, and that all airplane gyroscopes and all RLGs of all types and resolutions can see this feature.

These are all things that you heard, not things that you have demonstrated. Demonstrate you claims, right here, rather than stating them.

Really?  An explanation of ring laser gyroscope usage in commercial aircraft.  These took  seconds to find.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4iHkIoBomm8

http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/ringlaser/about_us.shtml
Taken from the front page... “The goal of this research group is the development of world-leading active ring laser gyroscopes for measuring subtle variations in the rotation rate of the earth. This is important for research in geophysics, geodesy, general relativity and other areas of fundamental physics.”

Modern navigation from early gyros to ring laser gyros ...
http://www.imar-navigation.de/downloads/papers/inertial_navigation_introduction.pdf


Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 24, 2019, 11:11:30 PM
Provide proper evidence. Quote from your sources rather than mindlessly linking to videos and papers. Provide direct quotes which back up what you are attempting to say.

The first source, a video, provided generic information about RLGs in navigation.

The second source, a paper, linked to the research RLGs previously discussed.

The third paper gives some generic information about RLGs.

You have provided NO evidence to back up the claims you have made. None. Quote your sources. Learn what evidence is and how to provide it. Show us.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: JCM on February 24, 2019, 11:40:53 PM
Provide proper evidence. Quote from your sources rather than mindlessly linking to videos and papers. Provide direct quotes which back up what you are attempting to say.

The first source, a video, provided generic information about RLGs in navigation.

The second source, a paper, linked to the research RLGs previously discussed.

The third paper gives some generic information about RLGs.

You have provided NO evidence to back up the claims you have made. None. Quote your sources. Learn what evidence is and how to provide it. Show us.

So, aviation training manual showing RLG are used for navigation isn’t evidence they are used in planes? 

https://archive.org/details/arxiv-physics0406156
Paper on RLG to detect rotation of the Earth...  Is that direct enough? They are specifically sensitive enough to measure changes in the rotation of the Earth...
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 25, 2019, 12:02:11 AM
Provide proper evidence. Quote from your sources rather than mindlessly linking to videos and papers. Provide direct quotes which back up what you are attempting to say.

The first source, a video, provided generic information about RLGs in navigation.

The second source, a paper, linked to the research RLGs previously discussed.

The third paper gives some generic information about RLGs.

You have provided NO evidence to back up the claims you have made. None. Quote your sources. Learn what evidence is and how to provide it. Show us.

So, aviation training manual showing RLG are used for navigation isn’t evidence they are used in planes? 

https://archive.org/details/arxiv-physics0406156
Paper on RLG to detect rotation of the Earth...  Is that direct enough? They are specifically sensitive enough to measure changes in the rotation of the Earth...

Here it is again slowly:

You need to show that the RLGs used in planes can see the background noise feature assumed to be caused by the earth's rotation like the research gyroscopes claim to do.

You have not done this.

In fact, you just linked to another paper about research gyroscopes.

You also need to show that those research gyroscopes are actually detecting rotation beneath them rather than the background noise that RLG research papers suggest and say, that have been quoted and linked in the Wiki.

Linking to random papers and videos does not mean that you win. You need to quote your sources and demonstrate the matter.

If, you cannot demonstrate your position, then you should stop posting and never return to this thread.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: markjo on February 25, 2019, 12:17:01 AM
Here it is again slowly:

You need to show that the RLGs used in planes can see the background noise feature assumed to be caused by the earth's rotation like the research gyroscopes claim to do.
Who claimed that RLGs used in planes can see the earth rotation?  Who claimed that research gyros measuring the earth's rotation are mounted in airplanes?

I've seen claims that RLGs are used in airplane navigation and I've seen claims that RLGs can measure the earth's rotation.  I just don't recall seeing any claims that RLGs in airplanes are used to measure the earth's rotation.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: TomFoolery on February 25, 2019, 01:05:11 AM
These are all things that you heard, not things that you have demonstrated. Demonstrate you claims, right here, rather than stating them.
Thank you my friend, that's the spirit! I needed to hear that!
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: TomFoolery on February 25, 2019, 02:07:58 AM
Actually it says that they are concluding that the seismic events near the earth line are rotational components because they appear near the earth line that they assume is a signal that comes from the earth's rotation.
Just curious, do you understand what the earth line is?
Quote
The researchers are not claiming that there is an observed 15 degree rotation per hour beneath the device. That is your claim.
Actually, they are claiming that their laser ring gyro has a perimeter of 14.0044 meters, a laser light wavelength of 633nm, and a speed of light of 299,792,458m/s, and they claim they are getting a beat frequency of close to 287.75hz which they claim their formula equates to a rotational rate of 360 degrees relative to the distant stars in 86164 seconds, which is 15.04108444361914488649 degrees per hour, relative to the distant stars.

So they didn't say 15 degrees per hour, but they said 360 degrees relative to the distant stars in 86164 seconds, which is pretty close to 15 degrees per day.

Now I'm not saying they actually measured anything close to 15 degrees, but that is what they claimed. More specifically, 15.04108444361914488649 degrees per hour.
Quote
The researchers say that the device sees microseismic noises they don't know what the feature is, that it is assumed to be due to earth rotation, and it could very well be traced back to some oscillation in the medium.

At the top of p.153 of the Ring Laser Dynamics paper referenced in the Wiki we find a depiction of the Earth line on something like a seismic chart.
Seriously, batman? Something like a seismic chart?
A spectrum chart is absolutely nothing like a seismic chart.
Do you not know the difference between a dataset plotted against time and one plotted against frequency?
They are in two different domains!
The earth line refers to a spectrum analysis showing all the different frequencies generated by the LRG over a time period, with one of them towering far above all the background noise.
Totally different than a seismic chart!
By the way, since you probably don't realize the significance of the db scale I should mention that too.
The graph shows the signal 40dBm above the noise. That  means the signal is 10,000 times greater than the noise floor. That is seriously significant.
Quote
The Earth line occurs at a specific frequency as a large peak. Around that peak are smaller peaks from a variety of noise sources -- traffic, micro-seismic, etc. It is admitted that the peaks represent noise.
(https://i.imgur.com/ezQffF4.png)

Tell us how this peak in the noise equates earth rotation. Where do you see rotation in the above image?
Are you aware that a laser ring gyro generates a beat frequency that is proportional to the lasers wavelength, the light path length, and the rotation rate? The faster you turn it, the higher frequency it makes. No turn, no frequency.
According to their formula, a frequency of about 287.75  equates to about 15 degrees per hour and 287.75 is about where that spike shows up on the plot, s o that's where I see the rotation in the above image.
That doesn't mean they are being honest but that is what the chart says if the chart is true.
(And it might be, if Knodel had the same problem.)

Quote
As shown in the Wiki, the author states that they apply a period of 86164 seconds, the sidrael day, to this feature of the background noise to come up with a "rotation rate".

That "feature" is the beat frequency. You might check into how beat frequencies work. Understanding that is key to understanding the LRG.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 25, 2019, 07:36:39 AM
Beat frequency is the number of beats per second. A beat frequency of 287.75 Hz is meaningless. Hz already means instances per second.

"According to their formula"? Are you kidding. You need to prove that formula.

Appealing to something that was made after the fact, after device was created, and the results were analyzed, is invalid, and stupid. Especially something that requires the input of the number of seconds in a day.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: inquisitive on February 25, 2019, 08:09:26 AM
Beat frequency is the number of beats per second. A beat frequency of 287.75 Hz is meaningless. Hz already means instances per second.

"According to their formula"? Are you kidding. You need to prove that formula.

Appealing to something that was made after the fact, after device was created, and the results were analyzed, is invalid, and stupid. Especially something that requires the input of the number of seconds in a day.
Do you ever contact the authors of research you disagree with?   More productive than discussions with random people here.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: BillO on February 25, 2019, 01:46:12 PM
I will suggest you research some more on the topic. A search for "Ring Laser Gyroscope" and "seismic" brings up many papers showing that the RLG is used to study seismology.
All this does is help with your confirmation bias.  I did a search on "coping saw" and "duck" now I'm more convinced than ever that coping saws are just for making flat wooden ducks.  Your logic is flawed and leads you to flawed research.

Also, all your posts in this topic have only indicated that RLGs can be used to record seismic events.  Nothing more.  So what?  That tells me they are very sensitive and can be applied in numerous interesting ways.  However, you have not explained why/how an RLG would necessarily display a precise 15 degree per hour drift because of detecting random seismic activity.

On the other hand, a 15 degree per hour drift is exactly what you would expect from a sensitive enough gyroscope of any kind while stationary on the rotating earth (mechanical, MEMS or RLG).

Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: BillO on February 25, 2019, 02:48:50 PM
Beat frequency is the number of beats per second. A beat frequency of 287.75 Hz is meaningless. Hz already means instances per second.

"According to their formula"? Are you kidding. You need to prove that formula.

Appealing to something that was made after the fact, after device was created, and the results were analyzed, is invalid, and stupid. Especially something that requires the input of the number of seconds in a day.
You don't know how RLGs work, do you Tom?  I think you need to do a little more research.

I found tons of information on how they work.  Here is a quote from Honeywell for a simple little blurb even you might be able to understand:

"The principle of operation of a RLG is two counter-propagating laser beams have different frequencies with the difference dependent on rotation rate."

Found it here:  https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/products/navigation-and-sensors/gg1320an-digital-ring-laser-gyroscope (https://aerospace.honeywell.com/en/products/navigation-and-sensors/gg1320an-digital-ring-laser-gyroscope)

So that beat frequency relates to a particular rotation rate.   Obviously the rotation rate would depend on the geometry of the particular device being tested.  The ancient monstrosities of decrepit old devices used in that prehistoric paper you have in your wiki is not a good example of a modern aviation RLG.  Sorry, but it's only use is in showing what kinds of issues they were having back in the infancy of RLG development.  However, in section 6 he does detail how the big dinosaur did produce a beat frequency nearly exactly as predicted by the model and formula for the G0 device (page 152, section 6) for the rotation of the earth.  This is clearly shown in figure 6.7 on Page 153.  In the preceding text on Page 152 he states "However, it is assumed that the signal is indeed the Earth induced rate mostly because of the excellent agreement between the measured output frequency and the expected frequency.".  The caption to figure 6.7 also says "The Earth induced Sagnac signal is well above the noise floor."

I find it very interesting that the Earth's rotation should be mentioned so prominently in a paper that was never intended to research that.  The effect was just so obvious it kind of jumped up and smacked them in the face.

I also found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope#Example_applications

A list of things RLGs are used in.  Seems the author of that wiki found some in airplanes, eh?

Here: https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1978/1978%20-%203255.PDF (https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1978/1978%20-%203255.PDF)  is an excerpt from FLIGHT International magazine dating back to 1978 that mentions the intended use of Honeywell RLGs in Boeing's new (at the time) 757/767 jets.

It goes on and on.  If you just search for Laser Ring Gyroscope you will get millions of hits, the vast majority being related to use in aircraft - not in seismology.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: TomFoolery on February 25, 2019, 04:56:45 PM
Beat frequency is the number of beats per second. A beat frequency of 287.75 Hz is meaningless. Hz already means instances per second.
Seriously batman? A beat frequency is much more than the frequency of the beat!
The beat frequency is  the frequency with which TWO other frequencies go in and out of phase.. A beat frequency is what you get when you mix two frequencies together.
I guess you didn't know, but if you mix a 10,000,000hz signal with a 10,000,999hz signal, you get a beat frequency of 999hz. That is the beat frequency.

The whole point of the laser ring gyro is that the helium-neon laser has a wavelength of 633nm, which translates to a frequency of the light wave of around 474 terahertz.
The light goes in two directions around the ring, and it mixes with itself, and if the laser ring gyro is rotating, the light going past the mixer in one direction is going faster than the light going the other direction. This difference in frequencies makes a beat frequency.

Basically the laser light forms a standing wave which in an ideal world would be perfectly stationary and perfectly independent of apparatus rotation. The photodiodes simply count the standing waves as they go by, when the gyro housing is rotated around the light. I'm simplifying it a little bit for you but that's essentially it.

Thus the beat frequency is exactly proportional to the rate that the apparatus is rotating around the light path.

Quote
"According to their formula"? Are you kidding. You need to prove that formula.
What do you mean prove their formula? Do you mean I need to prove that the formula they give does in fact apply to a laser ring gyro?
I really don't see why I need to prove anything of the sort. But if you're unable to work their little formula I can give it a go if you want to make sure they did their math correctly.

But probably you mean you don't think that their formula really models a laser ring gyro.

I'm just telling you what they are claiming. I never said I believed their claims.
Quote
Appealing to something that was made after the fact, after device was created, and the results were analyzed, is invalid, and stupid.
I'm not sure I follow you on that one. Are you saying basically that laser ring gyros don't work according to the formula they provide?

I also am not sure what you're complaining about regarding  "after the fact."

If I determine experimentally that it takes a pound of kerosene to raise a gallon of water 15 degrees C, then after the fact I derive a formula to that effect, what's the problem? Maybe I'm missing your point.

Oh, are you saying they got a beat frequency of 287.75hz and then put in fudge factors into their formula to give the desired 15.04108444361914488649 degrees per hour?

Quote
Especially something that requires the input of the number of seconds in a day.

Well, if they are saying they are measuring a certain angular measurement in a certain number of seconds, then I don't know why they shouldn't pick a sidereal day as the number of seconds to do their measurement, since, within their ideology that equates to a single rotation of the earth.

Saying "360 degrees in 86164 seconds" is just the same as saying "15.04108444361914488649 degrees per hour."

It's just a rate or ratio. It's like saying 1/2, or 2/4, or 10/20, yeah they are all the same, but 1/2 is nice and easy to recognize.
And saying "360 degrees in one sidereal day" is also very recognizable to those following NASA's lies.

I really don't know what your point is or why you're so confused.

I simply said they were claiming a rotation of around 15 degrees per hour with their gyro.
You said they weren't claiming that.
I pointed out that they are in fact claiming it, just in different units.
I never said I believed their claims.

Could you elaborate more?
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: sandokhan on March 07, 2019, 11:08:51 AM
Please read:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13863.msg185742#msg185742
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: totallackey on March 07, 2019, 12:27:49 PM
The flat Earth content makers in that video also unequivocally state southern flights east west across the southern ocean are fake or nonexistent.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1OqMSAPHUOM
Sydney to Johannesburg, time lapsed from 13 plus hour flight, paired with satellite images and gps data analyzation confirming the planes location.
I would wager the person on the flight would even share his entire 13 plus hour video with you if asked nicely.
"...paired with satellite images and gps..."

Wow, just wow...

That's funny...

MH370 anyone?

Everyone knows the stuff you post in support of this supposed long distance flight does not really exist.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: AATW on March 07, 2019, 12:40:02 PM
Lackey, do you actually have any evidence to back up your opinions.
Just denying or declaring fake everything which doesn't conform with your world view is not a sensible way to think or debate.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Balls Dingo on March 08, 2019, 12:24:01 AM
Everyone knows the stuff you post in support of this supposed long distance flight does not really exist.

This route is flown 312 times a year. In fact, people are boarding at gate 57 right now.

Could you please tell me how you think this works? Do they have an empty gate in a busy international airport for an hour every day and no-one notices, not even the private company (Sydney Airport Holdings) that owns the airport? Or maybe tens of thousands of actors file through the gate every year and are whisked away in buses, and an empty plane takes off? Or they actually fly but the flight is mysteriously 15 hours late every day, despite all other information - flight radar, Johannesburg Airport website (http://www.johannesburg-airport.com/arrivals.html), etc - saying it arrives around 4:35pm local time? No-one at that end notices that the plane doesn't arrive or no passengers disembark?

I'm really struggling with this one.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 12:19:42 PM
Lackey, do you actually have any evidence to back up your opinions.
Just denying or declaring fake everything which doesn't conform with your world view is not a sensible way to think or debate.
Oh, you fail to consider MH370 as evidence?
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 12:23:21 PM
Everyone knows the stuff you post in support of this supposed long distance flight does not really exist.

This route is flown 312 times a year. In fact, people are boarding at gate 57 right now.

Could you please tell me how you think this works? Do they have an empty gate in a busy international airport for an hour every day and no-one notices, not even the private company (Sydney Airport Holdings) that owns the airport? Or maybe tens of thousands of actors file through the gate every year and are whisked away in buses, and an empty plane takes off? Or they actually fly but the flight is mysteriously 15 hours late every day, despite all other information - flight radar, Johannesburg Airport website (http://www.johannesburg-airport.com/arrivals.html), etc - saying it arrives around 4:35pm local time? No-one at that end notices that the plane doesn't arrive or no passengers disembark?

I'm really struggling with this one.
Yeah, I'm struggling with the claim you make there are 312 such flights a year.

No way, no how, there are that many people interested in making a trip from South Africa to Australia in a year, let alone virtually every day.

No justification for the flight to even exist.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: AATW on March 08, 2019, 12:30:35 PM
Lackey, do you actually have any evidence to back up your opinions.
Just denying or declaring fake everything which doesn't conform with your world view is not a sensible way to think or debate.
Oh, you fail to consider MH370 as evidence?
What do you think it's evidence of?
The most likely story is it crashed into the ocean and was never found. As the black box was never recovered it's impossible to be sure what occurred.
But the flight path it took indicates something went very wrong, whether deliberately (captain suicide, like that dude who calmly flew into a mountain, or hijacking)
I'm not clear what you think this is a smoking gun of and how it in any way refutes the fact that flights between, say, Santiago and Australian cities exist and are used by hundreds of people a week. You'd think if those flights were advertised and took twice as long as advertised you'd have heard about it.
MH370 was going from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, both in the northern hemisphere, so what do you think it shows?

I see you have now made another post baselessly claiming that the flights don't exist because there wouldn't be enough demand.
What is your basis for that claim?
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: totallackey on March 08, 2019, 01:09:04 PM
Lackey, do you actually have any evidence to back up your opinions.
Just denying or declaring fake everything which doesn't conform with your world view is not a sensible way to think or debate.
Oh, you fail to consider MH370 as evidence?
What do you think it's evidence of?
The most likely story is it crashed into the ocean and was never found. As the black box was never recovered it's impossible to be sure what occurred.
But the flight path it took indicates something went very wrong, whether deliberately (captain suicide, like that dude who calmly flew into a mountain, or hijacking)
I'm not clear what you think this is a smoking gun of and how it in any way refutes the fact that flights between, say, Santiago and Australian cities exist and are used by hundreds of people a week. You'd think if those flights were advertised and took twice as long as advertised you'd have heard about it.
MH370 was going from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, both in the northern hemisphere, so what do you think it shows?

I see you have now made another post baselessly claiming that the flights don't exist because there wouldn't be enough demand.
What is your basis for that claim?
As usual, you fail to understand that GPS and flight tracking for flights close to or in the so-called Southern Hemisphere do not exist. MH370 is pretty solid evidence for this reality.

Again, any joe blow can claim hundreds of people use these flights.

Fact is, they don't.

If they even do fly between Australia and South Africa, more than likely most of these non-stop flights are cancelled at the last minute and persons are diverted to one-stop or two-stop layovers.

Recent outlandish flight speeds have been posted for long distance flights, proving planes can also fly faster than advertised.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: AATW on March 08, 2019, 02:09:29 PM
As usual, you fail to understand that GPS and flight tracking for flights close to or in the so-called Southern Hemisphere do not exist.
Yes they do. Just claiming they don't is meaningless. Are you asserting that GPS doesn't work in Australia?
Quote
MH370 is pretty solid evidence for this reality.
Well, it isn't, for several reasons.
1) It was a northern hemisphere flight
2) Most of the plane's route is known
3) The pilot turned the transponder off.

If I turn my GPS off that doesn't mean GPS doesn't work.

Quote
Again, any joe blow can claim hundreds of people use these flights.
Fact is, they don't.
That isn't a fact, it's an assertion, one that "any joe blow" can make and for which you have no basis for making.

Quote
If they even do fly between Australia and South Africa, more than likely most of these non-stop flights are cancelled at the last minute and persons are diverted to one-stop or two-stop layovers.

Where's your evidence for that?

Quote
Recent outlandish flight speeds have been posted for long distance flights, proving planes can also fly faster than advertised.

Examples?
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: inquisitive on March 08, 2019, 10:13:36 PM
Lackey, do you actually have any evidence to back up your opinions.
Just denying or declaring fake everything which doesn't conform with your world view is not a sensible way to think or debate.
Oh, you fail to consider MH370 as evidence?
What do you think it's evidence of?
The most likely story is it crashed into the ocean and was never found. As the black box was never recovered it's impossible to be sure what occurred.
But the flight path it took indicates something went very wrong, whether deliberately (captain suicide, like that dude who calmly flew into a mountain, or hijacking)
I'm not clear what you think this is a smoking gun of and how it in any way refutes the fact that flights between, say, Santiago and Australian cities exist and are used by hundreds of people a week. You'd think if those flights were advertised and took twice as long as advertised you'd have heard about it.
MH370 was going from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, both in the northern hemisphere, so what do you think it shows?

I see you have now made another post baselessly claiming that the flights don't exist because there wouldn't be enough demand.
What is your basis for that claim?
As usual, you fail to understand that GPS and flight tracking for flights close to or in the so-called Southern Hemisphere do not exist. MH370 is pretty solid evidence for this reality.

Again, any joe blow can claim hundreds of people use these flights.

Fact is, they don't.

If they even do fly between Australia and South Africa, more than likely most of these non-stop flights are cancelled at the last minute and persons are diverted to one-stop or two-stop layovers.

Recent outlandish flight speeds have been posted for long distance flights, proving planes can also fly faster than advertised.
flightradar24 shows flights across Australia.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Balls Dingo on March 09, 2019, 12:42:37 AM
Yeah, I'm struggling with the claim you make there are 312 such flights a year.

No way, no how, there are that many people interested in making a trip from South Africa to Australia in a year, let alone virtually every day.

No justification for the flight to even exist.

Have you ever visited here (Australia)? How do you know how many people want to go to South Africa?

Do you realise that our national sporting teams (cricket and rugby in particular) play in South Africa all the time, and theirs here? There are reporters at both Sydney and Johannesburg airports that watch them leave and arrive. And I'm still not sure about how you think the airport gates work. There's a gate allocated at both airports 6 days a week for people boarding and arriving on QF63/64. Does this just sit empty and no-one notices? And you know that a lot of people use Flight Radar, Flight Aware, the airport's website, etc, to see when to arrive at the airport to pick people up? Do they just turn up at the airport and the passengers aren't there? And this happens 312 times a year and no-one notices? Because all of these sites have the flight landing around 13-15 hours after it left.

It's really, really bizarre that you think these flights don't exist and I'm not sure why you'd even think that.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: SpaceCadet on March 10, 2019, 08:04:27 PM
Everyone knows the stuff you post in support of this supposed long distance flight does not really exist.

This route is flown 312 times a year. In fact, people are boarding at gate 57 right now.

Could you please tell me how you think this works? Do they have an empty gate in a busy international airport for an hour every day and no-one notices, not even the private company (Sydney Airport Holdings) that owns the airport? Or maybe tens of thousands of actors file through the gate every year and are whisked away in buses, and an empty plane takes off? Or they actually fly but the flight is mysteriously 15 hours late every day, despite all other information - flight radar, Johannesburg Airport website (http://www.johannesburg-airport.com/arrivals.html), etc - saying it arrives around 4:35pm local time? No-one at that end notices that the plane doesn't arrive or no passengers disembark?

I'm really struggling with this one.
Yeah, I'm struggling with the claim you make there are 312 such flights a year.

No way, no how, there are that many people interested in making a trip from South Africa to Australia in a year, let alone virtually every day.

No justification for the flight to even exist.

For someone who constantly demands proof from others on what they say, you sure do make a truck load of assertions without any evidence or justification.

I met a large contingent of Australian florists in Nairobi 2 years back seeking to buy flowers from Kenyan farms. Flights from Nairobi to Sydney regularly go via Johannesburg. There's one justification for flights between J'burg and Sydney.

Like someone else mentioned here, Rugby is enjoyed by many in the Southern Hemisphere. The Super Rugby league has teams from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentuna taking part annually. Then there is tourism, education and what not.

I know you Northern Hemispherics seem to think nothing happens south of the equator. But down here be more than monsters strange things.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Matthew7 on March 11, 2019, 12:48:25 AM
I gotta call this out:

...The light goes in two directions around the ring, and it mixes with itself, and if the laser ring gyro is rotating, the light going past the mixer in one direction is going faster than the light going the other direction....


That's a bit of a misunderstanding, and I'm a pedant for definitions and measurements: The speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial (non-accelerating and non-rotating) frames, regardless of their apparent motion - the time for the light to go around the ring in one direction is measured as being out of synch with the time taken for it to go around in the other direction due the Sagnac effect, a counter intuitive effect encountered in rotating frames of reference (but not linearly accelerating ones). There is a passable description of that here: http://www.physicsinsights.org/sagnac_1.html . Wikipaedia does say that the speed of light is quicker in one direction, but that is a major oversimplification, and confusing as at the bottom of the next paragraph it says that a ring laser interferometers rely on the speed of light being invariant for their sensitivity. A ring laser gyroscope uses the Sagnac effect but does not directly measure it: The waves of the beams going around the inside of the RLG interfere with each other and cause a standing wave pattern which moves in response to the rotation induced Sagnac effect, and that translates into a beat pattern when the beams are interfered with each other outside the ring.

I suppose that if I'm calling that out then I need to call this out myself too:

Beat frequency is the number of beats per second. A beat frequency of 287.75 Hz is meaningless. Hz already means instances per second.



Measuring the change with time of something that is already measured with respect to time is entirely valid: Velocity is measured in meters per second, and acceleration is change in velocity per second. Beat is change in intensity, measured at a given point, when two waves are interacting. So it's a change in the amplitude of waves with time, which certainly isn't invalidated by frequencies being measured with respect to time any more than acceleration is invalidated because velocity is already measured with respect to time.

For reference: The ring laser gyroscopes used to measure the Earth's rotation do so directly and are bigger and more sensitive than those used on aeroplanes (I don't know that the ones in aeroplanes couldn't be used to measure the Earth's rotation, but they wouldn't do it nearly as well if they could be). They can also measure periodic variations in the Earth's rotation, down to the scale of meters. Researchers looking to measure Earth's rotation actually go to considerable lengths to screen out any kind of sisemic noise.

A couple of articles on the subject that are a bit more accessible than full papers:
"Large ring laser gyroscopes are attached to the Earth's crust so that a shift in that pattern (seen as an observed beat note in an actively lasing device) is directly proportional to the rotation rate of the Earth"

https://phys.org/news/2013-05-scaling-gyroscopes-earth-rotation.html
"To ensure that only the Earth's rotation influences the laser beams, the four-by-four-meter assembly is anchored in a solid concrete pillar, which extends six meters down into the solid rock of the Earth's crust."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2011-12-earth-rotation.html#jCp

...and a full paper for those looking for more technical details: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/723/1/012061/pdf

The rotation of the Earth doesn't need an RLG to measure it directly though, although RLG's are more sensitive. It can be measured to an acceptable accuracy using a ring interferometer (which also uses the Sagnac effect), which was first done in 1925 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Gale%E2%80%93Pearson_experiment yes I do use wikipaedia, it oversimplifies sometimes but it's a good place to start on a subject)

I'm wondering why you're discussing the guts of RLG's here? The other experiment on the show was far simpler in design, and also showed evidence of curvature. I read the article on the main site which claims that the failiure can be explained by refraction in the atmosphere causing the light rays to curve (I will also point out that the article itself notes how inconsistant atmospsric refraction effects are,  wheras the 'sinking ship/sinking island effect is enourmously consistent,  so I' d be interested to hear someone explain the latter via the former). It also claims that the light only appears when held above the experimenters head the once out of ten tries. I think it fails to make clear that the laser was not seen through the hole in the board (which flat earth proponents predicted it would be) at all, and gives no evidence that there was any unusual refractive effect happening, beyond the laser not being seen when the experimenters wanted it to. I would have thought that was a much more accessible avenue for discussion - is it ongoing elsewhere on the forum? I couldn't see it.

On a different note: I have friends who live in Australia (and Brazil even) and use GPS. I also used to work as a service engineer for acompany that made scientific instruments, and although I was based in Europe I had co workers that flew point to point in the southern hemisphere serveral times a year. It's also worth pointing out that when you're travelling around the South Atlantic, Pacific/Pacific rim, or Australasian regions even a flight plan that does include stops is made of legs that are themselves point to point flights across large distances - and they take exactly the length of time predicted by the shape of the Earth being a globe. Literally millions of people have done this over the years, it's a routine experiance. Happy to look for other evidence on that if you think all my co-workers were lying to me!

Anyway -  a long post I know but this is my first and will only get the chance to come here every couple of days. Hello everyone!
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Balls Dingo on March 11, 2019, 12:49:39 AM
Flights from Nairobi to Sydney regularly go via Johannesburg. There's one justification for flights between J'burg and Sydney.

It's the same with the flights from Australia to South America. They used to go via Buenos Aries until 2012-13. Now they go to Santiago because that airport has better connections to the rest of South America. So those flights to Johannesburg and Santiago are really servicing the whole southern part of Africa and most of the populous countries in South America for Australians, and vice versa for people from those places wanting to come here. It's not really an excessive amount of flights when considered like that.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: TomFoolery on March 11, 2019, 04:55:18 AM
I know you Northern Hemispherics seem to think nothing happens south of the equator. But down here be more than monsters strange things.
There's people over there?
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: sandokhan on March 11, 2019, 05:33:54 AM
That's a bit of a misunderstanding, and I'm a pedant for definitions and measurements: The speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial (non-accelerating and non-rotating) frames, regardless of their apparent motion - the time for the light to go around the ring in one direction is measured as being out of synch with the time taken for it to go around in the other direction due the Sagnac effect, a counter intuitive effect encountered in rotating frames of reference (but not linearly accelerating ones).

You are following the lines of thought expounded long ago by Paul Langevin, who was proven wrong by the experiments carried out by Dufour and Prunier (in France, 1937) and by Herbert Ives in 1938.

(https://image.ibb.co/k5ye17/ky1.jpg)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1978311#msg1978311 (Dufour-Prunier experiment)

A. Dufour and F. Prunier created Sagnac interferometers that were composites of moving and stationary paths, including stationary sources and stationary detectors. This was essentially to test if the relativistic approach could be distinguished from the classical approach.

"In all cases of this experimental test, the Sagnac effect was the same. This overturned Langevin’s analysis, and in 1937, he had to revise his explanation, as pointed out by Kelly: 

“In his final essay on the subject in 1937, Langevin proposed that the results published that year by Dufour and Prunier showed that one had to assume either (a) the light speed varied to c + wr in one direction and c – wr in the other direction, or (b) the time aboard the spinning apparatus had to change by a factor of +/-2wA/c2 in either direction. Indeed, Langevin went as far as to say that assuming (a), “we find, by a very simple and very general reasoning, the formula for the difference of the times of the path of the two light beams in the Sagnac experiment.” .

The proposition (b) though is untenable because if this were true then when the light beam passed back to the moving detector, the local time from each direction would be out of synchronization, meaning that the clocks cannot be counting real time and that the effective time dilation is meaningless. This was also pointed out by Herbert Ives in his 1938 paper criticizing Langevin. Ives says about the absurdity of Langevin’s proposition (b):

” There are of course not merely two clocks, but an infinity of clocks, where we include those that could be transported at finite speeds, and around other paths. As emphasized previously, the idea of “local time” is untenable, what we have are clock readings. Any number of clock readings at the same place are physically possible, depending on the behaviour and history of the  clocks used. More than one “time” at one place is a physical absurdity. “

The only explanation left, is Langevin’s proposition a) that the light speed varies by C+/-wr in one or the other direction around the disk, consistent with Dufour and Prunier’s experimental results."

(but not linearly accelerating ones)

(https://image.ibb.co/gFef8n/wa1.jpg)


https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf (first experiment conducted by R. Wang)

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf (second experiment carried out by R. Wang)

The experiment was repeated with 24 different
arrangements of conveyor speeds, fiber lengths, and the
three different FOC configurations shown in Fig.1.
The conveyor speeds were between 3 and 9 cm/s. The
loops had perimeters of 2.5, 4.0, 8.0, and 16.0 m; in
each case there were three turns of the fiber wound on
the loop.

As shown in Fig. 3, the phase shift or the traveltime
difference between two counter-propagating light
beams in the moving optic fiber was clearly observed
in all different configurations of FOCs. The phase shift
Δφ, and therefore, the travel-time difference Δt are
proportional to both the total length and the speed of
the moving fiber whether the motion is circular or
uniform. Other tests using smaller end wheels for the
FOC and fiber loops with additional curves also
confirmed the same finding.

Professor Wang's seminal paper did prove that the Sagnac applied to linear motion.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: TomFoolery on March 11, 2019, 05:49:01 AM
I gotta call this out:
...The light goes in two directions around the ring, and it mixes with itself, and if the laser ring gyro is rotating, the light going past the mixer in one direction is going faster than the light going the other direction....
Yeah, yeah, but you also gotta keep in mind the intended audience.
Quote
The rotation of the Earth doesn't need an RLG to measure it directly though, although RLG's are more sensitive. It can be measured to an acceptable accuracy using a ring interferometer
Interesting, I'll have to mess around with that. I did set up a ring interferometer with a laser diode, a beam splitter, and 3 mirrors. But it was small and didn't seem to detect rotation.

I'll have to try a bigger configuration which I can tilt up to match my latitude. Have you ever done this experiment?
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Max_Almond on March 11, 2019, 05:14:08 PM
The two guys who made the "balls ups" in the Behind The Curve documentary - Bob Knodel and Jeran Campanella - took down their YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXIovaBdnA4UHdd-TZ-MqRg/videos) the other day.

I suppose that's a kind of flat earth response to those experiments - though it may be unrelated, and perhaps has more to do with a different Youtube flat earther being caught with some compromising links among his bookmarks.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on March 11, 2019, 10:16:33 PM
They most likely took their content down because the FE community ostracized them for being in the documentary and probably are calling them shills for the RE.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: TomFoolery on March 12, 2019, 07:44:59 PM
The two guys who made the "balls ups" in the Behind The Curve documentary - Bob Knodel and Jeran Campanella - took down their YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXIovaBdnA4UHdd-TZ-MqRg/videos) the other day.

I suppose that's a kind of flat earth response to those experiments - though it may be unrelated, and perhaps has more to do with a different Youtube flat earther being caught with some compromising links among his bookmarks.

It looks like Jeran is back up and posting stuff, but the globe busters still shows no videos.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: stack on March 12, 2019, 08:08:48 PM
According to Jeran here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xUl2AWfYVM

I paraphrase:
- Bob was contacted regarding a copyright infringement claim made by someone as to how 'Globebusters' is too close to 'Ghostbusters'.
- They decided to take down all the videos on the channel(s) and redo the intro's so as not to infringe.
- Something about demonetizing the videos/channel too, didn't quite follow that bit.

Edit: This just popped up for Globebusters, pretty much what was mentioned above:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ihZY_KNVDg
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Matthew7 on March 14, 2019, 02:01:08 AM
So, first of all I'll repeat what I finished my last post with: I don't see any discussion on this thread of the lights-and-boards experiment. I'm a little confused as to why not?

I've read the account linked to by the flat earth main page, of someone who claims to have been there (it's here: https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/7sc4w5/about_the_cringiest_thing_youll_see_today/dt5gzyr/ ). I’ll note that this account is, as far I know, uncorroborated – but it describes ten attempts made where the experimenters were unable to find the light either through the hole in the centre of the board at the 3 mile point or over the top of it, and only one attempt where the light was seen - when held above the board , the position indicating a positive result for curvature.  The producers of behind the curve didn’t show this (allegedly), and I don’t dismiss that this might be so without more evidence, having had dealings with the media myself.
The article on the flat Earth society front page claims that this must be due to 'curved rays' – atmospheric refraction unless I misunderstand that. The only atmospheric refraction effect I’m aware of that could account for this on a perfectly flat surface is an inferior mirage, which makes a higher object appear lower in the observers field of vision. But it would need a much steeper than normal temperature gradient over the surface: You need at least a 2.5 degree celcius/meter drop in temperature from the surface upwards, and more like a 4.0 degree change to get a clear mirage image - perfectly possible over asphalt on a sunny morning, much more unlikely at night. What’s more, inferior mirages usually produce a doubling effect, so the light would be visible at two heights at once - this would have been visible to the guys at the middle board and has not been reported. Inferior mirages are also (contrary to what the article on the main page says) inherently unstable, short lived, and produce other distortions as they fall apart - nothing like which was reported about the lights used, either those visible from the first board’s position or the second board’s position(a description of inferior mirages here: http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/infmrge.htm). Inferior mirages also usually happen within a meter of the ground and the experiments light path seemed to be safely above this.

It also seems like it would have been very bad luck for the area to be hit by that mirage just then, and anyway  this explanation isn't needed: The experimenters suspected themselves that there was a problem with the alignment, and given that they were aiming torch beams through 6 inch holes over a distance of kilometres (and the laser they'd wanted to use had failed, and the experiment as-performed was ad-hoc) I think that a problem with the alignment is the simplest explanation for the ten or so attempts where no light could be seen.
I bet there are FE guys already looking to do a repeat? I'd be interested to see evidence of what they find -  I hope it will be reported, and some non-FE guys will be asked along to observe and corroborate.


…..I'll have to try a bigger configuration which I can tilt up to match my latitude. Have you ever done this experiment?

I've worked on a university undergraduate project to build a ring laser interferometer, as well as spectrometers, lasers, and other optical instruments in industry and research. The interferometer was over ten years ago (our supervisor was the only man in the Manchester hoping for an earthquake), but from what I (somewhat dimly) recall you will need a longish beam path - of tens of meters or more -  to detect the Earth's rotation with an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio, using an interferometer (as mentioned before, ring laser gyros are more sensitive but more complex). IIRC sensitivity is proportional to the area enclosed by the ring. Apologies, I don’t know exactly how long off the top of my head. That's no disrespect meant btw, I admire your empiricism, just that I have built a few summer projects myself and I know one guy on a hobby budget faces practical limitations. Don't let me put you off though, it's a fascinating technical project and I totally see why it's one of the most interesting aspects of this for you. I'd be very interested to see an image of your set up? For what it's worth a few thoughts off the top of my head, based on twelve years working on optical instruments and scientific instrumentation generally, are:

- How far away is the nearest road? I spent most of my undergraduate project trying to find ways of screening out vibrations from the nearby A-road. Floating the base in a water or oil bath is an option, but carries its own difficulties.

- How stiff is the base? From working on spectrometers I know that it's possible to put a thumb heavily on one corner of the base and, without causing any visible misalignment, totally throw the alignment off.

- How good is the mirror stability? I'd recommend, if you can, glueing it into a metal mount and bolting the mount down hard.

-Have you got all the mirrors silvered sides facing the beam? I know that doing that seems silly obvious, but I've mucked that up on a mirror and spent days looking for more serious errors to explain the weird results, so I know it's easily missed.

-I suggest setting it up and calibrating it in a basement, on a hard floor with no airspace underneath.

- How well can you control the temperature, pressure, and humidity? If you cant you should be able to at least monitor them while working.

-Bear in mind that all the electronics heats up, so I'd switch everything on and wait ten to fifteen minute to make sure it's warmed up whatever it's going to warm up and any thermal changes of dimensions are levelled off. Once you've got it set up don't use it until it's had a warm up period.

Of course I might be being a bit of pedant -  I'm assuming you want to go for max sensitivity, and these were just points that were impressed on me when working with optical instruments for that.

WRT Sandokhan:

So I take from those quotes you're a skeptic of special relativity? I'm not an expert, but I’ve studied it and still have notes and the resources of the internet to work with, and I’m more than happy to discuss it with you.  I will point out that the Sagnac effect is a first a classical effect, experimentally verified to hell and back (both in existence and degree) out with the context of SR, so getting into detail might mean we leave the topic of the thread quite a bit. I can't promise prompt replies on this topic, but I promise I will reply and to the best of my ability.


That's a bit of a misunderstanding, and I'm a pedant for definitions and measurements: The speed of light is the same for all observers in inertial (non-accelerating and non-rotating) frames, regardless of their apparent motion - the time for the light to go around the ring in one direction is measured as being out of synch with the time taken for it to go around in the other direction due the Sagnac effect, a counter intuitive effect encountered in rotating frames of reference (but not linearly accelerating ones).

You are following the lines of thought expounded long ago by Paul Langevin, who was proven wrong by the experiments carried out by Dufour and Prunier (in France, 1937) and by Herbert Ives in 1938.

(https://image.ibb.co/k5ye17/ky1.jpg)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1978311#msg1978311 (Dufour-Prunier experiment)

A. Dufour and F. Prunier created Sagnac interferometers that were composites of moving and stationary paths, including stationary sources and stationary detectors. This was essentially to test if the relativistic approach could be distinguished from the classical approach.

"In all cases of this experimental test, the Sagnac effect was the same. This overturned Langevin’s analysis, and in 1937, he had to revise his explanation, as pointed out by Kelly: 

“In his final essay on the subject in 1937, Langevin proposed that the results published that year by Dufour and Prunier showed that one had to assume either (a) the light speed varied to c + wr in one direction and c – wr in the other direction, or (b) the time aboard the spinning apparatus had to change by a factor of +/-2wA/c2 in either direction. Indeed, Langevin went as far as to say that assuming (a), “we find, by a very simple and very general reasoning, the formula for the difference of the times of the path of the two light beams in the Sagnac experiment.” .

The proposition (b) though is untenable because if this were true then when the light beam passed back to the moving detector, the local time from each direction would be out of synchronization, meaning that the clocks cannot be counting real time and that the effective time dilation is meaningless. This was also pointed out by Herbert Ives in his 1938 paper criticizing Langevin. Ives says about the absurdity of Langevin’s proposition (b):

” There are of course not merely two clocks, but an infinity of clocks, where we include those that could be transported at finite speeds, and around other paths. As emphasized previously, the idea of “local time” is untenable, what we have are clock readings. Any number of clock readings at the same place are physically possible, depending on the behaviour and history of the  clocks used. More than one “time” at one place is a physical absurdity. “

The only explanation left, is Langevin’s proposition a) that the light speed varies by C+/-wr in one or the other direction around the disk, consistent with Dufour and Prunier’s experimental results."

(but not linearly accelerating ones)

(https://image.ibb.co/gFef8n/wa1.jpg)


https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609222.pdf (first experiment conducted by R. Wang)

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0609/0609202.pdf (second experiment carried out by R. Wang)
.....


So – you are quite correct, the Sagnac effect has been shown and derived for a general case (That was little after I'd studied the subject.), which includes a straight line acceleration....From a starting point in general relativity, just as the circular sagnac effect can be derived from special relativity. But as for the rest of it....

if I understand aright, you're saying (or rather your image-quote is) that you've proved the hammer doesn't work because you cannot cut logs with it: Maybe this is more for other readers but...Special Relativity is, in the first instance, a theory that deals with inertial frames of reference: Frames, or Cartesian co-ordinate systems, that move in a straight line at a constant speed. In any one such frame every observer agrees on the current passage of time, even if they came from a different frame and have a different passage of time in their history.
It can be ‘fudged’ to analyse some non-inertial frames up to a point - linearly accelerating frames - by treating them as a series of instantaneous snapshots which can be treated as inertial frames – i.e. the accelerating frame is being considered over such a tiny time increment that the acceleration can be treated as zero. that works as longas the acceleration is not too large. It is not really meant for the analysis of rotating frames – in rotating frames, where every observer has a different acceleration, each observer observes a different passage of time, and analysing things with SR gets impossible.
That’s ok – SR is supposed to be a limited theory (the special means ‘special case’ relativity, literally).
So it’s not at all clear to me that the work of Dufour et all deals any blow to special relativity – there's no invalidation of the theory, which has correctly predicted a lot of otherwise very mystifying phenomena, from what they found: The rotating frame of the interferometer isn’t part of SR’s domain, so while its inability to resolve the apparent paradox without violating it's postulates might be disappointing, it hardly disproves the theory – you can’t prove a hammer doesn’t work by failing to cut logs with it! And there's no suggestion that there should be diffrence between the SR case and the classical case: Any special relativistic effects the Sagnac interferometer feels would apply equally along both directions of the beam, and so cancel.

Langevin succeeded in deriving the Sagnac effect from general relativity - general relativity predicts it, as can SR and classical mechanics. Again, there's maybe a mystery but no disproof there - at most you could say that maybe GR needs extending or modifying. More recent, successful, analysis of the Sagnac effect involve treating the rotating frame as having non-orthogonal co-ordinates and/or a  non-Euclidian geometry – an idea that started with the Ehrenfest paradox - something that is much more part of general relativity (the ‘general case’ relativity which is more complete, but still with some acknowledged limits), in which such co-ordinate systems have been used to tackle rotating systems within the frame work of relativity a lot (they have also been used to solve problems in quantum mechanics and string theory too). These derivations usually show that, contrary to intuition, even in the rotating frame the two beams follwo paths through spacetime of different lengths - and the more recent ones are general case derivations (so includingthe linearly accelerating case). 

And, yes, there are researchers who think that the Sagnac effect is better explained by the speed of light following a loop being non-invariant (like this one https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1022548914291) but even these don’t claim to have disproved SR – they treat the non-inertial frame case as one which a modified but related version of relativity should be applied to. In fact they rely on SR being valid for inertial frames. They found a bit of prominence when the OPERA experiment though they’d found evidence of neutrinos travelling faster than light.

So, let's say that the researchers who want to modify general relativity to make a rotating frame a special case where C can be varied are correct, which I'm definitely not qualified to judge. Would that disprove special relativity? No, no more than SR 'disproved' Newtonian mechanics or Galilean relativity. Just as those things were a special case (but valid within their limits) of Einstien's theories so SR is already known and acknowledged to be a special case of general relativity. If it were shown true that general relativity needed modifying to include variable C under some circumstances, via the sagnac effect or an freaking FTL alien starship appearing over New York one day, it simply shows that both general and special relativity are part of some larger theory - which, since neither are claimed to be a theroy of everything, we already know must be true.

Interesting things to read on the subject

Ehrenfest paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfest_paradox (yes, wikipaedia, it's agood place to start)

An introduction to / examination of relativistic rotating frames: https://www.amherst.edu/media/view/10267/original/reden05.pdf

A comparison of theories of relativistic rotation: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0604118.pdf

UCR relativity and rotating frames: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rotatingCoordinates.html

An intro to the use of non-orthogonal co-ordinate systems in relativity: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0105071.pdf

An Intro to the Sagnac effect: https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

An intro to Langevins first derivation of the Sagnac effect from general relativity: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070517300907

Derivation of the General Case SagnacExperimental Result from the Rotating Frame: http://cds.cern.ch/record/559222/files/0206033.pdf

Sagnac Effect, Ring Lasers and Terrestrial Tests of Gravity: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4434/3/2/84/htm#B48-galaxies-03-00084

The Sagnac Phase Shift Suggested by the Aharonov-Bohm Effect for Relativistic Matter Beams: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1026053828421

Rotation in relativity and the propagation of light: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0765.pdf

Non-time-orthogonal reference frames in the theory of relativity: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0005121.pdf

P.S:

One general point, more for other readers:  “More than one “time” at one place is a physical absurdity “ …that’s been proven to be untrue since Ives etc  by experiments investigating the predicted effects of SR: ‘Clocks’ whose ticks are fundamental to the nature of waves and matter (the vibrations of atoms, or periodic signals emitted by subatomic particles for example) have been sent on different paths (typically one high speed and one not)  and measured the predicted differences in the passage of local time. When these clocks are brought back together in the same place, and velocity, they both show the length of time that has passed for one is not the same as that which has passed for the other -  they have followed different paths through space time, experienced different inertial frames, and though they are eventually back in the same place and inertial frame each has gone through a different value of time to get there. So we legitimately have two different times in one place. That these ticks are so fundamental means that there is little doubt that macroscopic systems experience the same time dilation, by any meaningful measure – hence an absolute, ‘real time’, is consigned to being at most a philosophical concept. Time, basically, is the clock measuring it and has been shown to be so, even when it seems absurd to us – the universe is under no obligation to match our common sense, intuition, or instincts. The might not apply directly to the Sagnac effect – but it isn’t a theoretical concept, it is a well tested, actual effect in line with SR - one of relativity's innumerable successes.

EDIT: Sorry, a couple of other points that i feel like I should mention for discussions sake:
1: General relativity only requires that the speed of light be preserved locally - so in GR you can see light rays travelling faster than C, as long as nothing in their vicinity can overtake them. That brings us onto...

2: A rotating system in GR doesn't just allow for things to apparently travel FTL without breaking any fundamental postulates (as long as they are still slower than the light in their vicinity) it insists on it! Imagine being on a merrygo round, and measuring the apparent tangental velocity of an object a very large distance away: It only has to get so far away before it's tangental velocty exceeds C. That's fine within GR as long as the light flying past that distant object is still the fastest thing in the vicinity.

3: A rotating system in GR has a preffered/special frame: Only the frame of the axis of rotation (IIRC -  I will check) is inertial, so I would assume that it's only in that frame the C must be an absolute limit for all observers, and SR's postulates left intact. it's the only frame in which an observer wouldn't feel coriolosis force. In the case of the Sagnac interferomenter that would mean that only in the frame of the lab must C be constant.


4: The rotational Sagnac effect cannot be putting the propogation of light onto a simple ballistic C + emitter speed basis. Look at the experiment: The pro-rotational beam, which would be the faster if a simple ballisitc explanation could apply, is the one that takes longer to complete the loop. That is one of the things it originally proved infact.

Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: retlaw on March 14, 2019, 02:32:16 AM
How come they didn't have the microwave experiment in that show?
People can do this one. Microwaves travel in straight lines.

 https://www.bitchute.com/video/0Yl2DBO7k3Qh/

The best experiment has to be the debunking of Einstein. Also not brought up on the show.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/Vt2nS4h0cLgD/

Einstein was fake news.

Behind the curve looked like a smear job.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: stack on March 14, 2019, 03:19:29 AM
How come they didn't have the microwave experiment in that show?
People can do this one. Microwaves travel in straight lines.

 https://www.bitchute.com/video/0Yl2DBO7k3Qh/

Having looked at only this (I'll look at the other), the microwave claim from from Exalt Wireless regarding their line-of-sight microwave product called ExploreAir, there is something in the FE video proclamations that is erroneous. Specifically, "..."but this LINE-OF-SIGHT connection is mounted at less than fifty feet on both ends." There is literally no mention of the height of the towers in the Exalt Wireless press releases or anywhere else referring to this "50 feet". And there are plenty of locations to set down a transmitter and receiver 900m up right on the coast of Cypress and Lebanon.

As to why Behind the Curve producers didn't look into the above claim. For obvious reasons: It would look just as bad as some of the other things they did show.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: TomFoolery on March 14, 2019, 03:33:48 AM

…..I'll have to try a bigger configuration which I can tilt up to match my latitude. Have you ever done this experiment?

I've worked on a university undergraduate project to build a ring laser interferometer, as well as spectrometers, lasers, and other optical instruments in industry and research.

but from what I (somewhat dimly) recall you will need a longish beam path - of tens of meters or more -  to detect the Earth's rotation with an acceptable signal-to-noise ratio, using an interferometer
Thank you for all the info! Always love to hear more hands-on reports of real experiments being performed!
Quote
I'd be very interested to see an image of your set up? For what it's worth a few thoughts off the top of my head, based on twelve years working on optical instruments and scientific instrumentation generally, are:
Here's a video that shows my setup with just the  Michelson–Morley configuration with two mirrors. But I have 3 such mirrors and I set it up the same way except with the light path taking two counter directed square paths and recombining.
Following that is a Michelson-Morley type setup except with the second mirror attached to a pendulum - goal was to count the interference bands to measure small sideways deflection of the hanging weight to measure side-force gravitational pull from a nearby lead weight. But the vibrations wouldn't ever settle down.
https://youtu.be/IxAv3dcd1_8
https://youtu.be/N7-rvzSb3F4
Quote
- How far away is the nearest road? I spent most of my undergraduate project trying to find ways of screening out vibrations from the nearby A-road. Floating the base in a water or oil bath is an option, but carries its own difficulties.
Yeah, the nearest road is 100 ft away.
Quote
- How stiff is the base? From working on spectrometers I know that it's possible to put a thumb heavily on one corner of the base and, without causing any visible misalignment, totally throw the alignment off.
Not stiff at all.
Quote
- How good is the mirror stability? I'd recommend, if you can, glueing it into a metal mount and bolting the mount down hard.
Mirrors were reasonably stable as long as the table wasn't bumped and nobody stamps their feet, otherwise they slide around, since they just sit there.
Hey, it was a budget operation.
Quote
-Have you got all the mirrors silvered sides facing the beam? I know that doing that seems silly obvious, but I've mucked that up on a mirror and spent days looking for more serious errors to explain the weird results, so I know it's easily missed.
Yes, all silver side out.
Quote
-I suggest setting it up and calibrating it in a basement, on a hard floor with no airspace underneath.
great idea.
Quote
- How well can you control the temperature, pressure, and humidity? If you cant you should be able to at least monitor them while working.
Can't control most of those very well.
Quote
-Bear in mind that all the electronics heats up, so I'd switch everything on and wait ten to fifteen minute to make sure it's warmed up whatever it's going to warm up and any thermal changes of dimensions are levelled off. Once you've got it set up don't use it until it's had a warm up period.

Of course I might be being a bit of pedant -  I'm assuming you want to go for max sensitivity, and these were just points that were impressed on me when working with optical instruments for that.

Thank you very much for any and all pointers!

We need more practical suggestions here. It's a hard life for an intellectually poor farmer like myself to make sense of the contrast of Sandokahn's walls of formula and Dr. Bishop's "I looked and it looked flat so it is flat."
I kind of needed to hear from someone a little bit between those two levels of information.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Matthew7 on March 14, 2019, 05:04:45 PM
Hope I didn't come across as pompous -  will be a few days until I can get back with a proper reply but will definately have a look at the video at let you know any thoughts I have.
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Tumeni on March 17, 2019, 09:54:23 AM
Extending the principle of Jeran's "Interesting" moment in Behind the Curve, there's a whole series of observations on YouTube, under channel "Miles Davis".

With observer on one side of a river valley, at a known height, the observer looks at the tower of a suspension bridge in the middle of the valley, the top of which is at the same height as the observer. There are hills on the other side of the valley which are double the height of both the observer, and the bridge tower.

If the Earth is generally flat, with the river level defining the base height upon which the height of the tower and surrounding hills are measured, then the sightline from the observer at 210m high, through the top of the tower, also at 210m, should meet the hills beyond, which are over 400m high, at the 210m level.

(https://i.imgur.com/IcW7wpT.jpg)

But the sightline does not meet the hills. It passes clear over the hills.

(https://i.imgur.com/Iwcxnsv.jpg)



Conducted at 210m elevation, so well removed from any claim of surface refraction over water. The river forms a small part of the valley, with most of the observation over land. Perspective and angular size are not an issue, as all we're concerned with is the sightline through three points on the objects, not the objects themselves.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a slam-dunk in favour of Globe Earth, and a total repudiation of Flat.

Tom Bishop insists on experimental data, here it is. 

There's two or three Flat Earth YouTubers who are within easy reach of the location where the videos were taken, and they've been repeatedly invited to go there and repeat the observations which they disbelieve, or confirm the height of the camera, which they also disbelieve, or the height of the hill, which was the subject of malicious Wikipedia alteration to muddy the waters, but not one - not a single one - has opted to go there. 

Start here, and work through the videos from there to present day;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYuzPuwlq_w
Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: Balls Dingo on March 18, 2019, 11:02:21 AM
How come they didn't have the microwave experiment in that show?
People can do this one. Microwaves travel in straight lines.

 https://www.bitchute.com/video/0Yl2DBO7k3Qh/

The only evidence that they didn't place the towers on two elevated areas, which of course you'd naturally do, is a YouTube comment from someone called "Joe Mama". Sounds pretty conclusive.

Maybe you'd like to read some pages of the manufacturer's archived website? Like this quote:

Quote
An impressive and popular range claim is 124 miles. The reader will discover that no assumptions are provided to support such claims. Such a range truly would be impressive if it did not require the use of two 2000 foot (600 meter) towers in order to clear the Earth’s curvature. Assuming that small hurdle could be overcome – if the radios were operating in space, for example – then many microwave radios, including Exalt radios, could communicate at this distance, assuming adequately sized antennas and no requirements for throughput or throughput availability.

That page has a nice diagram with "Earth curvature" too. But what would the manufacturer know about the operation of their own product?

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20090604180300/http://www.exaltcom.com/How-Far-Will-It-Go.aspx

Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: mikeyjames on March 22, 2019, 10:09:52 PM
The two experiments I'm referring to are a gyroscope that affirmed a 15 degree rotation of the earth, and the other experiment was a laser over water that clearly showed the water level was not flat but had a curvature.

1. The Ring Laser Gyroscopes double purpose as a type of seismometer and the earth rotation claims resort to detection of microseismic patterns in the background: https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope


Yes, I read the word salad of a Wiki regarding the Ring Laser Gyroscopes (RLG).

Should be very simple to prove your assertion. Just suspend the RLG from an apparatus that dampens the magic 15-degree per hour microseismic patterns - essentially suspending it in the air - and it should show zero rotation.

Cheers
Mick


Title: Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]
Post by: BillO on March 23, 2019, 01:12:02 PM
Don't you think it's really cute that Tom thinks that RLG's are measuring some never before recorded or mentioned in scientific texts seismic activity that the brilliant designers of these mutli-kilo-dollar devices totally missed and did no allow for?  I do.  On so many levels.  Here is the king of the village idiots society convincing himself that he can just lay waste to the dozens of man-years and bizillions of dollars of research done by physicists and engineers to develop these wickedly accurate machines just by pulling a totally undetected and unproven whack-a-doodle out of the depths of the FE intellectual abyss.

The sheer hubris of it!  Good golly miss molly, I think I'll laugh myself into a trip to the ER!!!

Give the little dork a pat n the head.