The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Theguru on January 24, 2016, 04:09:02 AM
-
I would like to offer a suggestion as to a realtively simple experiment which would definitively prove the flat earth theory.
It involves sending a laser beam signal along the length of the Pontchartrain Causeway and measuring the height of the beam above the water line at various intervals.
The laser would have to be very powerful with a highly concentrated beam such that it would only have very minimal dispersion at large distances, such as a medical grade laser.
The laser would be set at a known height above the road surface, with the beam exactly parallel with the water below. There are numerous self levelling devices or electronic spirit levels that can achieve this with a high degree of accuracy.
At various intervals along the Causeway the height of the beam is measured above the water level.
With a convex water surface, this height should progressively rise the further along the Causeway that the beam is measured.
In order to account for tidal variation there would need to be a series of teams along the Causeway at various intervals, say 1 mile, 5 miles and 10 miles.
At the beginning of the experiment all groups would simultaneously measure the height of the road surface above the water line. This would account for variations in the height of the Causeway at that point and/or tidal variations.
The laser is then beamed down the Causeway and the height above the road surface is measured at various intervals. The height above the water level therefore becomes: height of road surface above water level plus height of beam above the road.
If this value is constant at all intervals then the water surface below the laser is dead flat.
The experiment would be a logistical challenge involving numerous people and would probably include closing at least one lane of the Causeway.
In addition, a high grade laser would need to be sourced and mounted on a very stable self levelling device.
However, this experiment would provide very accurate and compelling data, and possibly definitely prove the flat earth theory.
-
You don't especially need a laser, you just need a good theodolite. Ask your local surveyor.
-
Thanks Rayzor, I agree.
I think a definitive experiment would involve a laser and theodolite side by side.
What do you think about the design of the experiment? Any flaws?
-
Thanks Rayzor, I agree.
I think a definitive experiment would involve a laser and theodolite side by side.
What do you think about the design of the experiment? Any flaws?
I think it sounds pretty good, the only thing I'd perhaps change would be to set the measurement points at a fixed height above the water rather than referencing the road surface. The aim of the experiment is to measure if the surface of the water is curved or flat. If it's flat and all the points are the same height above the water, then looking through the theodolite, they will all lie along a straight line. If it's curved then the ones in the intermediate locations will be higher.
Getting the laser focussed to produce a small enough dot at the end point might be tricky, depends on the laser being used I guess?
-
Using two different colour lasers should allow refraction effects to be detected?
-
The laser will be affected by the same refractive/mirage effects that are already seen.
Several small 'towers' 20-30 feet high, mounted on floats, and positioned at intervals along a length of water would be better. The tops will align if Earth is flat. There will be a 'hump' however along the tops if Earth is round.
-
You are correct Rayzor, the height of the laser above the water line is the key determinant.
I tried to make this point in the original post but perhaps was not that clear.
I suggested to perform a control measurement of distance from road to water surface in order to make the subsequent measurement of laser to water surface less cumbersome.
Given that the laser is likely to be pointed down the middle of the road, direct measurement from laser beam to water surface will be difficult.
However, if distance from water surface to road is known then simply the additional height of the beam above the road can be added then you have total height of laser beam above the water surface.
In terms of equipment and measurement errors, the aim will be to minimise them and factor them in to the margin for a statistically significant result.
A 1000mw laser available over the internet disperses approximately 12 inches over 6 miles. See this video from jeranism at 23.30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uersWDp-3c.
Top of the range self levelling devices are reported to be accurate to 30cm per 10000m (sorry about the metric).
So therefore over about 6 miles the error will be +/- 18 inches.
However, over 6 miles, the expected height difference in water surface to laser (if the earth is curved) should be at least a few yards depending on what number you use for the radius of the earth.
In essence, if the height of the beam above the water line is +/_ 12 inches over 6 miles then the water and beam are parallel.
In terms of optical interference, the Causeway looks 5 or 6 yards above sea level, which is approximately the 20-30 feet you talk about model 29. Therefore, refraction from heat and or mirage effects should be minimal.
In terms of the theodolite, I think it is an excellent idea to have this in parallel with the laser in order to confirm that there has been no refraction of the laser beam.
I still think the laser is a good idea given that this is a visible point that can be seen by all observers. In the presence of some very sceptical people this will show that the results are real, as opposed to a viewer looking through a single theodolite, which may be subject to criticism of observer bias.
Food for thought…any and all criticisms very, very welcome.
There some very intelligent people on here better versed at physics than me so if there are some flaws in my experiment I would love to hear them.
If not, and the principles are robust, then maybe the FES can perform the experiment and give the world some concrete proof once and for all
-
Anyone?
I'm looking for faults in the experiment.
If it can't be faulted then the FES should set about organising the experiment.
It is possibly the Holy Grail the society is looking for
-
Anyone?
I'm looking for faults in the experiment.
If it can't be faulted then the FES should set about organising the experiment.
It is possibly the Holy Grail the society is looking for
Hey dude, go do the experiment and let us know how it turns out. In my experience laser beams diffuse on long distances. Jeranism onyoutube has a laser experment over water. Look at that before you waste your time.
-
Hey Hoppy, scroll up a few inches and you'll see that I've posted the Jeranism video you are talking about.
The laser they use disperses about 12 inches over 6 miles, perfectly acceptable.
I think the earth is a sphere so why would I want to prove it's flat?
However, I have devised an experiment that attempts to quantify the degree of curvature of the lake.
If it has flaws then I'm keen to hear them...but as you can see, nobody seems to have come up with any, and I'm confident they won't.
So therefore if the FES are serious, as a society, they should make an attempt to conduct the experiment.
It could give them all the evidence they are looking for.
If they choose not, then maybe they're not so serious about proving the earth flat after all
-
Here's another idea, that could be used for a quick check.
One person is located on the causeway ( out of the traffic ) with a uhf-cb radio and a video camera with a good zoom lens mounted 5' above the roadway.
A second person is in a car with a second uhf-cb radio and the laser mounted 5' above the road and pointing back at the observer, the car then drives away from the camera.
When the stationary observer with the zoom lens can no longer see the laser, he calls the car on the radio and the driver notes the distance the car has travelled.
Assuming the video camera and the laser are about 5' above the road surface and the road surface follows the water surface, more or less, then the laser should not be visible when the car is more than about 9-10 km or so away. ( 6 miles )
Allowing for some forward scattering and refraction, you might get a few k's more, but not the full 38 km ( 24 miles )
So if the laser can't be seen after about 9-10 km (6 miles) or more the earth is curved. If the earth is flat ( and the laser powerful enough ) the laser should be visible all the way across the 38km.
You should make sure the observer has the proper laser filter glasses, so as to avoid eye damage if he inadvertently looks at the laser directly.
Be sure to post the video on youtube.
PS Formula used C+R = 0.574*d2 or if you prefer 5/0.574 = 8.71 = d2, d (miles) = 2.95 miles to the mid point. This allows for the standard 1/7 for downwards refraction of the sight line.
So with both ends of the sight line 5' off the road surface you should get 6 miles or so. Of course if the earth is flat, you should get all the way across, the full 24 miles.
EDIT: Looking at pictures of the bridge, there is a rise in the roadway, probably for shipping, so you wouldn't actually be able to see all the way even if the earth was flat.
http://www.thecauseway.us/ So you need to work out which side has the longest flat section before the shipping channel and see if it's long enough to do the experiment.
-
Similar concept Rayzor.
Calculating the "levelness" of a standing body of water is the entire premise of the FES.
If the FES wants to prove the world of the grand spherical earth conspiracy this is what they need to do.
Any low lying, dead straight and sufficiently long bridge will do...just so happens that the Pontchartrain Causeway is right in the backyard of the home of the FES.
Some similar bridges in China would probably be suitable.
Another alternative is to approach a Louisiana University and ask them to conduct a graduate field experiment to calculate the curvature of Lake Pontchatrain and therefore the earth.
If (when!) the university calculate that the lake is flat then they'll publish the results. A university study in a peer reviewed journal will have some clout.
Just some suggestions for the FES, hopefully they are taken in the correct way
-
I think the earth is a sphere so why would I want to prove it's flat?
Classic round-earth thought process. "I've been told that the earth is a sphere so why would I ever do anything whatsoever to verify what I've been told?"
Imagine if this applied to all fields of study:
"I think leeches cure diseases so why would I want to prove they don't?"
"I think cars are safe enough without airbags so why would I want to prove they aren't?"
"I think that lead is safe to consume so why would I want to prove that it isn't?"
-
You raise a good point Pongo.
Why does anyone want to prove the earth is flat?
If proof is indeed established what will the consequences be?
I am open minded to the idea. I certainly think it is possible.
Before you label me a "round earther" remember that I have provided a legitimate suggestion as to how the FES may indeed prove the world is flat.
The principles of the experiment are valid but the implementation is quite involved.
The FES may wish to take this concept to a university or to actually conduct the experiment themselves.
It could be the critical piece of evidence they are looking for.
-
Classic round-earth thought process. "I've been told that the earth is a sphere so why would I ever do anything whatsoever to verify what I've been told?"
Not true, The hypothesis is: The Earth is flat. Now we design an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis, the experiment needs to be carefully designed so as to avoid other factors which could distort the results. Factors like refraction can lead to false results, so the experiment needs to be designed to avoid those factors.
I did some more investigation into the Pontchartrain Causeway, and I suspect the flat sections between the humps for the shipping channels might not be long enough. Ideally we need something like 10 miles flat.
-
Rayzor, you can approach the hypothesis from either direction ie proving that the flat earth is spherical or vice versa.
The problem for the FES is that the belief that the earth is a sphere is so utterly engrained throughout society that the onus is on the FES to prove it is flat.
In terms of the causeway, I think it has significantly long stretches that are flat in order to gain a statistically significant result.
By my calculations, there should be approximately a 3 yard height difference the between the laser and the water surface (compared to the initial height) at a distance of 4 miles from the origin of the beam.
This difference should be plenty, given that equipment and measurement errors of the laser are only likely to be a few 1-2 feet at 4 miles.
Bottom line is this: do you want to prove to the rest of the world that the earth is truly flat? If so then you need to be channeling you're energies into experiments like the one I'm describing.
If you are happy in your beliefs and don't feel the need to prove anything to anybody then don't bother
-
The hypothesis is: The Earth is flat. Now we design an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis, the experiment needs to be carefully designed so as to avoid other factors which could distort the results.
How does this follow from what Pongo was responding to?
I think the earth is a sphere so why would I want to prove it's flat?
-
The hypothesis is: The Earth is flat. Now we design an experiment to prove or disprove the hypothesis, the experiment needs to be carefully designed so as to avoid other factors which could distort the results.
How does this follow from what Pongo was responding to?
I think the earth is a sphere so why would I want to prove it's flat?
My post was a refutation of Pongo's claim that ...
Classic round-earth thought process. "I've been told that the earth is a sphere so why would I ever do anything whatsoever to verify what I've been told?"
My apologies if that wasn't clear to you. You must not have understood the earlier posts.
-
Right, so it sounds like you only went 1 post back and ignored the context that led up to it. I guess that explains your thought process. Try not to do that, though
-
Right, so it sounds like you only went 1 post back and ignored the context that led up to it. I guess that explains your thought process. Try not to do that, though
Umm, no that's what you did. You just jumped in the middle of a discussion and contributed nothing of substance. Try reading properly next time.
-
Umm, no that's what you did. You just jumped in the middle of a discussion and contributed nothing of substance. Try reading properly next time.
Classic round-earth thought process: "I made a mistake? N-no, actually you made the exact same mistake!!!"
-
Umm, no that's what you did. You just jumped in the middle of a discussion and contributed nothing of substance. Try reading properly next time.
Classic round-earth thought process: "I made a mistake? N-no, actually you made the exact same mistake!!!"
Care to explain, because if you read the thread, and followed the logical progression, you would have understood that Pongo's comment was out of step with the discussion.
The entire premise of the thread is a discussion on an experimental method for determining if the earth is curved or flat. Now re-read Pongo's statement...
-
For what it's worth, I am nobody's enemy in the FES.
In these forums there are a lot of intelligent, passionate people making genuine contributions.
I have also seen the YouTube videos showing various structures seen at incredible lengths across bodies of water that seemingly defy the mathematical calculations of the curvature of the earth.
So what would it take to convince the population of the world that the earth is flat?
Answer: confirm that standing bodies of water are horizontal and not curved via legitimate analysis and publishable results.
The experiment I have described can potentially achieve that and I think everyone here knows it.
If the FES wants legitimacy then it should endeavour to conduct such a study.
No need for squabbling amongst yourself, you know what you need to do
-
Care to explain, because if you read the thread, and followed the logical progression, you would have understood that Pongo's comment was out of step with the discussion.
It may be out of step (I disagree that it is, but I can see why someone like you might think otherwise), but that doesn't change much. He made a very specific point with a very clear meaning, and you erroneously tried tying it to something other than the post he clearly quoted as the one he's responding to.
It's okay. We all make mistakes. Own up and move on.
-
Care to explain, because if you read the thread, and followed the logical progression, you would have understood that Pongo's comment was out of step with the discussion.
It may be out of step (I disagree that it is, but I can see why someone like you might think otherwise), but that doesn't change much. He made a very specific point with a very clear meaning, and you erroneously tried tying it to something other than the post he clearly quoted as the one he's responding to.
It's okay. We all make mistakes. Own up and move on.
Pongo took one line of a post out of context and twisted it into a false generalization about round earthers, I am sure you can read English well enough to understand at least that much.
"Own up and move on"? yes you should. All you've done is derail an interesting discussion about an experiment, but maybe that was your intent.
The post that Pongo responded to was this
I think the earth is a sphere so why would I want to prove it's flat?
However, I have devised an experiment that attempts to quantify the degree of curvature of the lake.
If it has flaws then I'm keen to hear them...but as you can see, nobody seems to have come up with any, and I'm confident they won't.
So therefore if the FES are serious, as a society, they should make an attempt to conduct the experiment.
It could give them all the evidence they are looking for.
If they choose not, then maybe they're not so serious about proving the earth flat after all
His response ..
I think the earth is a sphere so why would I want to prove it's flat?
Classic round-earth thought process. "I've been told that the earth is a sphere so why would I ever do anything whatsoever to verify what I've been told?"
Imagine if this applied to all fields of study:
"I think leeches cure diseases so why would I want to prove they don't?"
"I think cars are safe enough without airbags so why would I want to prove they aren't?"
"I think that lead is safe to consume so why would I want to prove that it isn't?"
And you don't see the glaring dishonesty?
-
Pongo's observation strikes me as accurate. Round Earthers have a strange sense of entitlement, and him pointing it out was both timely and humorous.
As a side note, you might want to avoid personal insults on this forum. They're not okay here.
-
Pongo's observation strikes me as accurate. Round Earthers have a strange sense of entitlement, and him pointing it out was both timely and humorous.
As a side note, you might want to avoid personal insults on this forum. They're not okay here.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't trying to be humorous. I'm getting the strong impression that flat earthers don't like putting their ideas to independent experiment.
If you would care to point out where I've used a personal insult, that was not my intent. I'll happily apologize.
-
Don't let minor points of difference over who said or meant what...the key point is to determine a way to accurately measure the curvature (or lack thereof) of standing bodies of water.
Prove that water surfaces are horizontal and you'll prove your theory...no need to thank me
-
...no need to thank me
Classic RE entitlement behavior...
You choose to visit and participate on a forum of which goes against your personal beliefs. Then ASSERT that your experiment is the only way to prove "once and for all" if the world if flat or round.
Perhaps we should all bow to your excellency?
Here are your flaws you have asked us to point out in your experiment.
1. Your experiment is incomplete. To start, you have not said what direction we are facing during your experiment. Are we looking North to South or South to North. This is YOUR experiment. So you must have a hypothesis for us.
Quoting the RE model there is a bulge at the equator. So that means we should get different results depending upon what direction we are facing. If facing South, towards the equator, our laser would at some point hit the water correct? Have you even given this any thought per your RE model?
2. FE's only hope is to close down a part of a major causeway in the United States. Involve a very high grade laser, of which even you admit has flaws. And involve several people possibly a hundred or more. On a forum with few constant visitors.
So if the very small FE community spread out across the entire world cannot collectively come together and do your experiment then "we shouldn't bother" Bother with what I must ask? You mean bother each other with our own ideals? You forget... You are on a FE forum not a globe forum. For you to assert that we must do your experiments to prove our theory is preposterous to put it mildy.
3. You are also asking us to allow a United States university to do "our" experiment. Haven't you heard? FE's are so dumb that they think Universities and the entire education system has mislead the world for the past 500 years... and beyond.
4.The nature of you asking us to use a very large man made structure, of which isn't level and flawed and has a huge hump in it, to prove anything is once again preposterous.
5. Why must a bridge be invovled. If you remove all the brides in the world today I will still not belive the earth is round.
6. There are plenty of documented laser tests done over bodies of water. Yours isn't the first. And, no, you haven't come up with anything new or definitive by any stretch of the imagination.
The real question is where are YOUR experiments? You have not taken the time to view all of the FE experiments, yet you seem to think your experiment is the only way to prove "once and for all".
You refer to "sea level". What is sea level? What is sea level at the supposed bulged equator on your RE model?
How does the curvature math work if looking east to west? If standing on the equator and looking east to west what curvature should we see at 10 miles? If standing on the causeway in Louisiana and looking east to west what curvature should we see at 10 miles?
Shouldn't we see a difference in the curviture given in your model is bulged at the equator?
So tell us what the equation is for the RE? Haven't been asked this one before huh?
Your bulge on the RE model blows all curviture calculations OUT OF THE WATER, especially if standing on Lake Ponchatraun...
But please by all means give us a more complete experiment along with a detailed hypothesis.
-
Your bulge on the RE model blows all curviture calculations OUT OF THE WATER, especially if standing on Lake Ponchatraun...
Let me try and answer one of your objections.
How does the equatorial bulge affect the curvature calculation?
The equatorial bulge is 26.5 miles, the diameter of the earth at the equator is 7927 miles. At the poles it is 7900 miles.
The curvature calculation ( for distances small relative to the diameter ) h =0.6661*miles2 for D=7927, and h = 0.6683*miles2 for D=7900, h is height in ft.
So the horizon for an observers 5' above the road level, or lake level is 2.739 miles, so they should be able to see the laser for at least 5.479 miles on the east west curvature
repeating the calculation for the north south curvature, the distance to the horizon is 2.735 miles, and the total distance the laser would be visible for is 5.470 miles on the north south curvature.
So the difference is negligible.
If you want to add the standard refraction correction, then add 1/7 to the curvature.
Seeing as you know so much about laser experiments over water, can you point me to one where a level was established at multiple points along the sight line.
Standing on the lake requires much voodoo magic. A boat is easier.
-
Again, I am not your enemy.
And thank you Rayzor, those calculations equate with mine.
It does beg a very interesting question though: if it is fundamentally impossible to determine the curvature of a standing body of water, how then does anyone know that it is curved...apart from photos from outer space showing a globe earth.
The inability to experimentally prove that standing bodies of water are curved must therefore conclude that they may also be flat.
The greater population (even if they have been deceived on a grand scale) essentially ridicule the concept of a flat earth.
If the FES want to be taken seriously then they must demonstrate with the utmost of scientific robustness that the earth is flat.
My experiment might do it, food for thought for the FES
-
A proper, science-paper-worthy experiment should be done if FE people want credibility. It must not be done by roundheads because flatheads will just say it's fake. If FE people produce this to a publishable standard, others on either side can support/oppose it by analysing the data and replicating the experiment themselves. Science.
-
You guys are asking the FE community in a whole to conduct experiments of your choosing of which you have not done yourself...
Also asking the FE community to write a "proper science paper".
First off, who on the FE side is clamoring for the entire world to "take us seriously"?
I most certainly don't care if anyone takes me "serious". We are not "serious" only in YOUR mind. If you want to continue to believe everything you read then so be it. Other men of this world have a higher intellect and perhaps even a calling.
So you want us to use your bunk science to prove our science? It's impossible. An impossible challenge.
You also want us to shut done a major causeway in the United States to perform YOUR experiment? Millions of dollars, hundreds of people, and special equipment of which you still have not clearly defined.
Tell you what, you do it first then publish your results...
Where are all the RE believers experiments? You come here with only book knowledge and challenge us to prove that wrong.
How about you introduce yourself properly with your credentials and then supply US with YOUR experiments and THEN challenge US to refute it?
There are more FE experiments and observations being taken place than you would care research. Instead you pull your head out of a book and decide WE must prove you wrong.
No. YOU must prove YOUR science correct. You haven't and probably will not ever.
Quote books all you want. Fact is you've never done anything to prove the earth is round and again probably never will.
That is hypocrisy at its finest!
-
So therefore if the FES are serious, as a society, they should make an attempt to conduct the experiment.
It could give them all the evidence they are looking for.
If they choose not, then maybe they're not so serious about proving the earth flat after all
That is an egotistical assertion...
If the FE wants to be taken serious we must do YOUR experiment?
You've never actually told us are we looking North or South? You can't even begin to give us a proper experiment to conduct...
You first made this thread looking for holes in your experiment. After only a few comments you assert that we must do this experiment to be taken serioulsy...
And now we know that you do not even have a hypothesis, thus no experiment can take place. We also know that you have yet to give us a proper experiment to conduct.
So by your assertion, since we can't please you and your amazingly near impossible experiment we shouldn't be taken seriously.
Better said, you will not be taken seriously until you give us an experiment that is conductable.
P.S. "the bulge is negligible.." that's laughable. That statement makes your science negligible.
-
I'll respond to your concerns respectfully and Tom Bishop, I would love to know where you stand on this one.
Firstly, the degree of curvature of standing bodies of water is fundamentally what the evidence for a flat earth is reliant upon...hopefully you don't disagree with that.
If anyone can quantitatively measure the degree of curvature of a large standing body of water and display, with robust technique, that the standing body of water has no curvature then this would be very good evidence that the world is flat.
So my hypothesis would be: "the earth is a globe with an equatorial radius of x".
You can pick any number you want for x but I would pick a best estimate for the latitude of the Pontchartrain Causeway.
Now, to discuss your points.
Firstly, if the earth is flat, then it will not matter which way you conduct the experiment, the laser beam and water surface will be parallel in both directions either north or south.
In fact, I would recommend it be performed in both directions in order to account for minor tidal variations.
If the earth is a globe, there will be a significant elevation of the laser beam above the water surface, well and truly above any corrections for variation of radius, tidal movements or equipment/measurement errors.
Combined, these will of the order of magnitude of 1 yard over 6 miles but the expected height difference over 6 miles will be greater than 3 yards (maybe more depending on your calculations).
So what would the results need to be in order to display a result?
+/- 1 yard of the predicted elevation for a radius of x would give a result consistent with a globe earth.
+/- 1 yard of the initial height of the laser beam above the water surface throughout its journey would give a result consistent with the laser beam and water being parallel. And if you believe the laser beam is free from the effects of refraction then the water surface by definition is flat.
The beauty of performing the experiment on a bridge (although logistically very difficult) is that it attempts to minimise the issue of light refraction when optical measurements are taken very near the water surface, so therefore the laser should indeed be very close to a straight line.
I am guessing that will not keep you happy so tell you what, put some thought into it and design an experiment yourself that measures the curvature of standing bodies of water.
Remembering of course the criticisms of previous experiments and accounting for them in your design.
If you can think of an easier, more robust way of doing it that's great...put it into action and prove to the world the earth is flat!
-
My opinion is that this laser experiment is really the same water convexity experiment which has been conducted time and time again since the days of Rowbotham. It ridiculous that you ask us to "prove it again" for more concrete evidence immediately after seeing such videotaped evidence of a proof, considering that we have a library with many such observations and claims.
-
My opinion is that this laser experiment is really the same water convexity experiment which has been conducted time and time again since the days of Rowbotham. It ridiculous that you ask us to "prove it again" for more concrete evidence immediately after seeing such videotaped evidence of a proof, considering that we have a library with many such observations and claims.
Perhaps you could help me out in that case, I've yet to see such an experiment where care has been taken to establish a sight line with multiple intermediate points, and consideration given to refractive effects.
If you already have documentation on such an experiment, proving the Earth to be flat I'd be very interested. I am only aware of such experiments proving the curvature.
PS. The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was carried by Henry Yule Oldham, and it proved the curvature of the Earth.
-
Thanks Tom.
I think the point of difference here, as Rayzor points out, is an attempt to remove the refractive effects.
In addition, it attempts to measure curvature in a quantitative way.
The experimental evidence you talk of appears to not address these points and perhaps this is why the greater population of the world are not convinced the world is flat.
Again, I think my suggestion is scientifically robust.
Do you agree?
-
If the earth is a globe, there will be a significant elevation of the laser beam above the water surface,
If the earth were a globe with a supposed bulge it would most DEFINITELY matter where you are and what direction you are facing.
On your globe model, if you are standing anywhere in the northern hemisphere looking south,
YOUR LASER WOULD EVENTUALLY HIT THE WATER CORRECT?
From what I have seen no one else has made this correlation...
This is why the bulge and the round earth isn't factual.
You say it doesn't matter what direction you are facing. I think it should. Given your science claims the earth is bulged, the curviture math the RE's bring forward is bunk to say the least.
On a bulged round object, the curviture cannot be summarized by one simple equation.
Rather, the curviture would be dependant on where you are and what direction you are facing.
Understanding your own science is crucial to unlocking the key to its fraudulent claims.
To long to read?
How can we have one equation for the curviture of the earth when it is supposedly round and bulged?
-
I understand the point you are making Neptune.
Remember, I am suggesting a laser is placed on the bridge surface horizontally which is therefore parallel to the surface of the water below it at this point.
If you believe the earth is a globe then you also acknowledge that it is not a perfect sphere.
If it was a perfect sphere then the degree of curvature over a given distance would be identical no matter which part of the sphere you were on or what direction you were facing. Hence, a laser parallel to the surface (tangential to the radius) would never touch the earth again.
On the global earth model, given that it is acknowledged that the earth is not a perfect sphere then this rate of curvature will be different on different parts of the globe. And therefore it is potentially possible that a parallel laser may eventually touch the earths surface again.
However, given that the estimated discrepancy of the radius is approximately 20 miles out of a total distance of an approximate 4000 mile radius, the resultant effects on degree of curvature will be very small.
In other worlds, in the global earth model, the earth is not a perfect sphere but pretty damn close.
A good study takes variables such as these into account and is designed so that a significant result will be obtained, even allowing for extremes of such variables.
An expected height variation of 3-6 yards at 6 miles (depending on how you calculate it) should well and truly account for discrepancies due to variation of the earths radius at different points, which should be a couple of inches max.
And I also suggested performing the experiment both directions to mainly account for tidal differences but to also satisfy what you described.
Of course, none of the above is relevant if the earth is flat. If so, the beam will be parallel with the water along its entire path
-
If the earth were a globe with a supposed bulge it would most DEFINITELY matter where you are and what direction you are facing.
On your globe model, if you are standing anywhere in the northern hemisphere looking south,
YOUR LASER WOULD EVENTUALLY HIT THE WATER CORRECT?
No. With an oblate spheroid (slight flattening at the poles) a laser will not touch the surface again if the beam is exactly level at it's point of origin.
From what I have seen no one else has made this correlation...
No one else bothered as there was no need to. Would there be a tiny difference in the rate of curvature depending on what part of the globe? Yes. Would the beam intersect the surface again? No.
On the global earth model, given that it is acknowledged that the earth is not a perfect sphere then this rate of curvature will be different on different parts of the globe. And therefore it is potentially possible that a parallel laser may eventually touch the earths surface again.
No, it's not possible (unless there is an actual rise in elevation of a surface feature), because regardless weather the laser is near one of the poles, or aimed across the equator, the curvature is still 'dropping' away from the beam (given a beam that is exactly level at it's point of origin).
-
I get what you are saying Model and I agree.
The only point of difference is that if you draw a tangent to the radius on an ellipse then, by definition, it will only be parallel to the surface of the ellipse at 4 points, the apices of the ellipse.
I think this is what Neptune is referring to.
Ultimately, in the globe earth model, given that the relative size difference of the maximum radius versus the minimum radius in comparison to the average radius is so small, a horizontal laser beam can be said to be parallel to the earth's surface anywhere on the globe.
Of course, all entirely irrelevant if the earth is flat.
Tom, having reread your answer and looked on the Wiki, I have noticed you have conducted the Bishop experiment.
Essentially, my suggestion is a higher tech version of that, with quantitative measurement of the curvature (or lack thereof) of the lake with an attempt to take into account the issue of refraction of light when viewed close to the water's surface.
Your experiment and others before it are impressive but here's the catch: the FES will not be taken seriously until an experiment is performed that satisfies conventional scientific robustness (i.e. published in a reputable journal and subject to peer review) and in my opinion performed in conjunction with an outside body, such as a university
Such an experiment, like the one I have described, will undoubtedly be expensive and a logistical challenge.
But what else are you going to do?
Just keep talking about it and relying on non-published, non-peer reviewed experiments as well as historical experiments from 100+ years ago?
That will not achieve anything in terms of convincing the greater population of the world because a couple of pretty massive obstacles stand in your way: 1, the photos of earth from outer space and 2, the landing on the moon.
Both of these things may well be very elaborate hoaxes and grand conspiracies but they have certainly got 99.99% of the population convinced that the world is a globe.
So again, if you can think of a better experiment than mine which accounts for the shortcomings of previous experiments, will be publishable and will stand up to the scrutiny of peer review then I would love to hear it.
If not, this whole thing will just be a talk fest…
So obviously the question is to how serious are you about convincing the population the earth is flat.
Publication and peer review is your only hope for that unfortunately, sorry to be the one who breaks it to you