*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13680
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #60 on: January 24, 2021, 06:50:00 PM »
The LIGO website states that they took into consideration a spherical earth during the construction of the beam tubes.
Ron, we know this. We've already discussed this. Please stop restating the RE position over and over and start addressing the gaps we've highlighted. Alternatively, let your colleagues do this for you, but don't waste our time.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Regicide

  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • ·_·
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #61 on: January 25, 2021, 01:47:43 PM »
The existence of EA would actually stop LIGO from working: if it does indeed correct the light beam over one single traversal of the tunnel (and there would, of course, be many other obstacles to the functioning of LIGO on a flat earth), then we can assume that there is a bending of light upward to an order of about 300 mm per 4 km. However, on the return it would have to travel downward by an equal amount to arrive at the predicted location. And of course, it doesn't just reflect once. The laser reflects hundreds of times in the laser holding arms, and even 100 reflections equals 30 meters of displacement, so what's the deal? Does EA periodically switch directions in certain locations based on what is most convenient for the FE model? Oh wait. The laser is continuous, so part of the beam is always traveling one way while another part is traveling the other way.  Guess that wouldn't work either. I'll finish with the same question I've always finished with: is Caltech in on the conspiracy, or is there no conspiracy at all?

Oh, and just checking, what's the policy on images in signatures? Because this is absolute gold.
Please do not make arguments about things you don't understand.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1864
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #62 on: January 25, 2021, 04:27:58 PM »
The LIGO equipment as setup would work under FET + EA, maybe.  I say maybe because there’s no known value of the Bishop constant.  If that constant was zero, then the LIGO experiment, as constructed, would NOT work if placed on a flat earth.  You have the ‘unknowing’ scientists do a design based upon a round earth placing the actual structure on a flat earth and due to EA see a perfectly operating system. Understood.  The physical tube has a slight skywards bend to exactly compensate for the EA effect as outlined in the Wiki equation and all is good with the world.  I do have a ‘gap’ of my own here.  If you go to another part of the FET wiki you will see the outline of the Bedford Level Experiment.  The nice diagrams illustrate the FET desired outcome of a perfectly level body of water for 6 miles and a level sight lines as well.  In fact, one of the photographers made the statement: This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should be more than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."
So now the conundrum: In ENAG Rowbotham maintained that the earth was flat.  The Bedford Level Experiment required NO electromagnetic acceleration.  In other words, flat earth + flat water surface + light rays that are perfectly straight = a valid proof of a flat earth.  QED.  Today with LIGO you have the upwards curving beam tube + curving rays of light (EA) = indications that the earth is flat and the LIGO experiment works as expected.  So the collaborating CalTech & MIT scientists were totally fooled into thinking that they were compensating for a round earth when they were really compensating for EA.  The bottom line is that either EA is correct and Rowbotham was wrong, or visa-vera.  Who gets thrown under the bus?
« Last Edit: January 25, 2021, 04:29:39 PM by RonJ »
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

*

Offline Regicide

  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • ·_·
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #63 on: January 25, 2021, 10:21:33 PM »
The LIGO equipment as setup would work under FET + EA, maybe.  I say maybe because there’s no known value of the Bishop constant.  If that constant was zero, then the LIGO experiment, as constructed, would NOT work if placed on a flat earth.  You have the ‘unknowing’ scientists do a design based upon a round earth placing the actual structure on a flat earth and due to EA see a perfectly operating system. Understood.

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

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

So is Caltech in on the conspiracy, or is there no conspiracy at all?
Please do not make arguments about things you don't understand.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13680
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #64 on: January 26, 2021, 09:26:03 AM »
It wouldn't really work under EA, like I said. Repeated reflection would cause EA to curve it upwards way more than needed.
Not if the experiment was calibrated for reflections to be parallel, which it necessarily was.

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

The rest of your post is an argument from personal incredulity. What you think is or isn't likely doesn't really matter.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2021, 09:27:54 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Regicide

  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • ·_·
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #65 on: January 26, 2021, 02:22:14 PM »
I will concede the EA point, as It seems impossible for consensus to be reached: EA can account for the curvature. However, you seem to have ignored my second argument, which is that the potential curvature introduced by the world being round is significantly greater than even a low grade of precision could account for. Hardly an argument from "personal incredulity". I think it's not likely because it isn't likely. Once again, 0.25 millimeters per meter is measurable and noticeable: not to the naked eye, but certainly to anyone doing work like this and using basic alignment techniques. Caltech says
Quote
The 1.2 m diameter beam tubes were created in 20-meter segments.
(Source: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/vacuum)
If each segment is 20 meters long and remains straight, then there would be 5 mm of separation at each join, or half a centimeter. And that measurement is visible to the naked eye. I'm trying to communicate that what you think happened cannot happen. You cannot construct a curved tube over a flat plane while trying to construct a flat tube over a curved plane, and you most certainly cannot do that and then draw a 1^-9 torr vacuum on said tube. That's not my opinion, that's just fact.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2021, 03:13:03 PM by Regicide »
Please do not make arguments about things you don't understand.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13680
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #66 on: January 26, 2021, 02:53:10 PM »
Yes, to anyone ignoring EA it would appear that way. Unfortunately, EA is a thing, and it makes this scenario indistinguishable between the two models. Therein lies the problem. Every time you try to argue there's a discernible difference, you already ignored the argument that's actually being had.

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

Furthermore, you have now provided a random quote as something that "Caltech says", leaving it completely unattributable, and completely useless. Who is saying it? The campus? The Gates-Thomas building? I doubt Caltech itself actually said anything to anyone.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2021, 02:56:26 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Regicide

  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • ·_·
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #67 on: January 26, 2021, 03:12:02 PM »
You actually did not read my post. Unbelievable. I clearly said that I conceded the EA point at the top of my post. The alignment was referring to the actual tube, the tube which they actually constructed to account for an expected curvature. So, I'll try to break this down, and I'll bold this so that I perhaps actually have my post read this time: I am referring not to the laser, but rather to the logistical issues of constructing a 4 mile long tube that has 300 mm of unexpected curvature.

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

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

As for the quote, I'll go back and edit that, I was trying out WYSIWYG and forgot to preview before posting.
Please do not make arguments about things you don't understand.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13680
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #68 on: January 28, 2021, 11:11:20 PM »
You actually did not read my post.
These sort of accusations do not belong here. If you didn't understand my response (or identical responses of others before me), ask for clarification. Do not make ungenerous assumptions, lest they turn against you.

Precision starts with straightness, which is achieved through non-optical means.
I only just finished contesting this idea. If you could respond, instead of endlessly repeating your opinion while ignoring the argument that's been presented to you, that would be appreciated.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Regicide

  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • ·_·
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #69 on: January 29, 2021, 02:07:30 PM »
You actually did not read my post.
These sort of accusations do not belong here. If you didn't understand my response (or identical responses of others before me), ask for clarification. Do not make ungenerous assumptions, lest they turn against you.
My apologies, it seems I was the one who failed to read yours fully. Your argument, however, falls apart when considering your key statement, that EA makes the two situations indistinguishable. My answer: not quite. This has been argued over and over again, with neither side making progress, so I'll try to explain why EA doesn't affect precision assembly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I eagerly await your replies.
Please do not make arguments about things you don't understand.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13680
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #70 on: January 29, 2021, 03:49:27 PM »
Under your assumptions, RE would indeed be theoretically (but by not conclusively by any means) simpler to explain (though your remarks about the Zetetic Method are extremely far off the mark - a single piece of evidence does not automatically overturn the preponderance).

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

Indeed, the LIGO precision alignment documentation explains what the goals of the alignment process was, which directly contradicts your assertions - the methods of alignment were optical and electromagnetic in nature, not mechanical, because the specified goals were optical, and not mechanical. Some excerpts for your convenience:

The beam tubes needed to be aligned along the propagation direction of light in vacuum and not along the direction perpendicular to local gravity on the surface of the Earth.

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

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

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

Do you see? The problem with your logic is that you assumed that:
  • The Earth must be round
  • The Earth must therefore not be flat
  • The alignment methods selected must be such that they will work on RET and not on FET (otherwise you'd be wasting your time on this argument, as we warned you time and time again - so this must hold!)
  • Therefore, the methods must not be rooted in optics

but sadly, reality doesn't care what you think must be the case. The LIGO tubes were aligned using means which would work equally well in either model. Your opinion is not fact, and it contradicts fact. You do not need to explain your opinion over and over again - you need to make it square up with what actually happened.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2021, 03:57:15 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Regicide

  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • ·_·
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #71 on: January 29, 2021, 04:45:34 PM »
Quote
A second special consideration, dictated by the nature of the construction
project, was that GPS alignment needed to be carried out concurrently with the
construction with no significant opportunity for check by standard optical techniques
until the construction was completed.

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

My challenge still stands: try making a curve out of objects with square edges without leaving gaps. The curve has to happen somewhere!
Please do not make arguments about things you don't understand.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13680
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #72 on: January 29, 2021, 04:48:02 PM »
they used GPS for the alignment.
Pray tell, what does GPS rely on?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Regicide

  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • ·_·
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #73 on: January 29, 2021, 05:20:35 PM »
Oh, you didn't know? I'm sorry, I shouldn't assume a knowledge base. GPS relies on synchronized timing for triangulation, and is based on travel times for signals. GPS satellites have extremely accurate atomic clocks, and when a GPS device is finding location, it sends a request for location information. This request is received by satellites, which respond with their local time. Since they are synchronized, the GPS device can then use triangulation based on the delay between the satellites to get it's location. This is beneficial because it doesn't rely on the timekeeping of the GPS device: just the satellites. This is for a round earth, and it would be significantly different for a flat earth. But that's a discussion for another thread.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2021, 05:33:07 PM by Regicide »
Please do not make arguments about things you don't understand.

*

Online Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1356
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #74 on: January 29, 2021, 05:29:05 PM »
Oh, you didn't know? I'm sorry, I shouldn't assume a knowledge base. GPS relies on synchronized timing for triangulation, and is based on travel times for signals. GPS satellites have extremely accurate atomic clocks, and when a GPS device is finding location, it sends a request for location information. This request is received by satellites, which respond with their local time. Since they are synchronized, the GPS device can then use triangulation based on the delay between the satellites to get it's location. This is beneficial because it doesn't rely on the timekeeping of the GPS device: just the satellites. This is for a round earth, and it would be significantly different for a flat earth. But that's a discussion for another thread.

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

Youve probably seen these units in action, too. The antennas you see on bulldozer or grade blades in road construction projects are using these, as do large farming equipment to facilitate precision seeding, and in some cases, fertilization and irrigation.

*

Offline Regicide

  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • ·_·
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #75 on: January 29, 2021, 05:35:08 PM »
Do those use the same system of atomic clocks?
Please do not make arguments about things you don't understand.

*

Online Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1356
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #76 on: January 29, 2021, 06:09:01 PM »
Do those use the same system of atomic clocks?

Yes. They're still based off the satellite constellation. They are just able to eliminate errors from atmospheric effects

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13680
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #77 on: January 29, 2021, 08:10:22 PM »
Oh, you didn't know?
I did. I'm asking you why you think that GPS is something else than "optical or electromagnetic means". Because it isn't, and you just asserted otherwise.

Specifically, focus on this part of your statement:

it sends a request for location information

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

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

Generally a combination of RTK (real-time kinetic) units, which receive live corrections via cell towers in order to achieve real-time, sub 2-cm precision, or total station set-ups, which use a fixed (often surveyed) base station and a mobile rover are employed.
In this case, RTK was indeed the be-all-end-all, as indicated in the quotes I provided, and the document as a whole. I didn't pay much attention to the distinction, since it doesn't actually change the argument all that much. The crucial point here is that nobody slapped surfaces together to ensure that they're straight. That claim was completely unsubstantiated, so it's not surprising that it was also nonsense.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2021, 08:22:22 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Peter Winfield

Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #78 on: February 24, 2021, 08:46:19 AM »
The rest of your post is an argument from personal incredulity. What you think is or isn't likely doesn't really matter.

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

It would be great if both sides stopped using arguments based on incredulity.

Offline scomato

  • *
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment proposal
« Reply #79 on: February 24, 2021, 07:22:11 PM »
There seems to be some severe misunderstanding of how GPS works in this thread.

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