Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #40 on: January 14, 2020, 02:51:15 PM »
The shape of earth is easily measured by survey that doesn't have to include any atmospheric refraction or assumption of shape . Surveyors take no account of ( cannot find ) any curvature over any area of 100sq. miles - because we live on a plane
Incorrect

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

Quote
LIGO’s arms are long enough that the curvature of the Earth was a factor in their construction. Over the 4 km length of each arm, the Earth curves away by nearly a meter! Precision concrete pouring of the path upon which the beam-tube is installed was required to counteract this curvature.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6562
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #41 on: January 14, 2020, 06:29:50 PM »
A further quote from the LIGO curvature compensation:

https://books.google.com/books?id=6mMlDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA168&ots=fhaBCNVwoX&dq=ligo%20curvature&pg=PA168#v=onepage&q=ligo%20curvature&f=false

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

It says that the ends of each arms are situated several feet off the ground than the center station to "account for the curvature of the earth."

Would it work if the earth was flat? Yes, it is possible to point a laser slightly downwards or upwards on a Flat Earth.

LIGO diagram:



They had to take steps to aim and align the components at some point. To hit the opposite marker they would have aimed the laser beam at the destination, or would have aligned the intermediate components so that the laser beam would hit the destination. The set up does not appear to be a physical obstacle on a FE.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2020, 06:34:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #42 on: January 14, 2020, 06:36:22 PM »
That’s the second time recently you’ve posted a quote which says the earth is a globe. Have you finally seen the light?

I was simply responding to the point that they don’t ever need to compensate for the earth’s curve in engineering projects. They sometimes do in larger scale ones, thanks for backing up my point.

Were the earth flat they wouldn’t need to. Yes, they could have made a sloped tunnel and pointed the laser slightly upwards, but why would they?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 11:38:15 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #43 on: January 16, 2020, 04:42:50 AM »
Comment 1 :
The pipes of the LIGO experiments are not only supported at either end, some 4 km apart, but at many intermediary support piers. Compensating for earth's curvature means that the height of theses piers would have to change quadratically with distance if measured with respect to the water level inside a 4 km long water trough running parallel to LIGO pipes. FE would result in a linear dependency.

Comment 2 :
Some of the more sophisticated GPS system measure to within a few centimeters the altitude with respect to an ellipsoid model of the earth. The value for the altitude can be positive or negative depending on whether the elevation you wish to measure is above or below the ellipsoid. Again, the elevation of various points along the length of the pipe should change quadratically. (P.S. Of course one could base a GPS system by approximating earth by a sphere. The principle is the same)

Comment 3 :
All GPS measurements ultimately lead back to having (preferably) four satellites above the horizon at the moment of measurement. All GPS related satellites orbit the round earth at an altitude of about 20,000 km (12,427 miles) and complete two full orbits every day.

Comment 4 :
In addition to millions of earthlings, NASA, NOAA and the entire military complex of NATO uses GPS rather successfully. Russia has its own GPS version (Glonass) and so do China (Beidou ?) and Europe (Galileo). All these systems are satellite based.
 

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #44 on: January 16, 2020, 11:14:41 AM »
1. LEGO experiment link states vaguely that several feet of curvature is accounted for . Which model , pearshape or squashed ball or imaginary R= 6370km is used in this curvature correction?
Could just be allowance for topography .

2. Yes , as stated before WSG is a mathematical ellipsoid surface used to model a globe ,with all vertices converging at earth's supposed centre of gravity . Where is that in whichever  ellipsoid model used?

3. High altitude craft , balloon satellites , signals reflected of the dome, triangulation masts.

4. It's easy to brainwash young people . That's what schooling is about . Critical thinking is not part of the curriculum hence people cannot question what they are told they know .

i

Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #45 on: January 16, 2020, 02:53:21 PM »
1. LEGO experiment link states vaguely that several feet of curvature is accounted for . Which model , pearshape or squashed ball or imaginary R= 6370km is used in this curvature correction?
Could just be allowance for topography .

2. Yes , as stated before WSG is a mathematical ellipsoid surface used to model a globe ,with all vertices converging at earth's supposed centre of gravity . Where is that in whichever  ellipsoid model used?

3. High altitude craft , balloon satellites , signals reflected of the dome, triangulation masts.

4. It's easy to brainwash young people . That's what schooling is about . Critical thinking is not part of the curriculum hence people cannot question what they are told they know .

i
3. Not according to the documentation and information provided by receivers.  Do China and Russia have balloons over the USA?

4. It's not just about young people, engineers and scientists understand, design, build and operate GPNSS systems in many countries.

Conclusion - GPNSS operates exactly as it says on the tin.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #46 on: January 16, 2020, 05:06:33 PM »
Then which globe model does it say on the tin?

Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #47 on: January 16, 2020, 08:31:09 PM »
Then which globe model does it say on the tin?
WGS-84

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 166
    • View Profile
Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #48 on: January 17, 2020, 11:29:03 AM »
But WGS-84 is a reference co-ordinate system system , not a globe models. Clearly explained here.
https://gisgeography.com/wgs84-world-geodetic-system/

OP's original post shows how surveyors who believe the earth is a sphere ( he kindly quotes this in his 2nd post) use a set of equations including a constant of refraction k calculated with a value of R = 6370km .  This is valid is on a perfect sphere only . We know this is not true whichever model we choose to believe .

WGS-84 is an ellipsoid reference co-ordinate system applied to one of many geoids which in the words of that site leads to Geodesists to " believe the error is less than 2cm which is better than NAD83."

The use of that word " believe " leads me to conclude that we are encouraged to have faith in whatever they tell us. Science now has the appearance of religion in which no one is allowed to question the high priests and the faithful have no need for truth .

Re: Revisiting Bedford Level Experiment
« Reply #49 on: January 17, 2020, 11:55:25 AM »
1. LEGO experiment link states vaguely that several feet of curvature is accounted for . Which model , pearshape or squashed ball or imaginary R= 6370km is used in this curvature correction? Could just be allowance for topography .
Sigh.

And this is the problem with debating anything with someone like you. You said

Quote
Surveyors take no account of ( cannot find ) any curvature over any area of 100sq. miles - because we live on a plane

You provided no basis for that claim or no supporting evidence, you just asserted it.
So I found a link about a large scale project which I imagined would probably have had to take account of the earth's curve and, sure enough, found some information on their website where they said they did have to do that.
This is the people who build the sodding thing saying they did indeed have to take the earth's curve into account because of the scale of it.

This is the point where you're supposed to concede the point and see the error of your ways but instead you're just saying "well, maybe it's this, maybe it's that". Again, with no basis or supporting evidence. It's easy to prove yourself right if you ignore or dismiss all evidence showing you to be wrong...
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.