Offline Trist

  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
.
« on: September 23, 2020, 11:58:53 PM »
.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2020, 12:20:04 AM by Trist »

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 844
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment with Braided Line
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2020, 12:21:14 AM »
What i am planning to do, is that im going to put one extremity of the line in one side of the lake, and the other part in the opposite margin 10 km away, just like a very straight line, 20 cm above the water level.

The reason this is not done is there is no material you can make a rope or cable out of that won't sag at that distance.  In fact, you can't stretch a line for very far at all before it starts to visibly sag no matter how expensive, strong or light.

Re: Experiment with Braided Line
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2020, 09:19:01 PM »
Yes, 10,000m is going to sag. A lot!  :'(
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

Re: Experiment with Braided Line
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2020, 03:51:47 AM »
It's been done. You are welcome to do it again!  Please take video / meticulous documentation!

Use a frozen lake, and measure the rope factoring in any elasticity if you keep the line taut.

Of course there are many other ways to skin this cat and, using buoyancy, the weight of the line "sagging" can be eliminated.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2020, 03:56:20 AM by jack44556677 »

*

Offline RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment with Braided Line
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2020, 03:41:50 PM »
It's been done. You are welcome to do it again!  Please take video / meticulous documentation!

Use a frozen lake, and measure the rope factoring in any elasticity if you keep the line taut.

Of course there are many other ways to skin this cat and, using buoyancy, the weight of the line "sagging" can be eliminated.

Under what context are you using buoyancy?  In the absence of gravity (which many claim is not real) there would be no pressure gradient, and if there were no pressure gradient, there would be no buoyancy.  Also, the effect of buoyancy does not eliminate the weight of anything - a 1000Kg boat weighs 1000Kg regardless of whether it is sat on a mud flat or floating on water.

Anyway, rather than use ropes, let's use light, and let's look at the "Frozen Lake Experiment" which is analogous to the cause:



What's interesting is that this person clearly knows absolutely nothing about how light actually behaves.  Air temperature, air pressure and density gradient all play a part in determining how much light will refract/curve/bend, in this case towards the Earth, because this is what happens when light travels through mediums of different optical density that increase with decreasing altitude.  The closer you are to the ground, and the lower the temperature, the higher the refractive index, the more light bends.  In the above experiment he placed the lights really close to an icy surface, so right in the zone where you would expect light to curve towards the ground.

All the above video shows is that the light is following the curvature of the Earth more than it would do normally because it has a refraction coefficient of 1 or more.  Under certain conditions the light can follow the curvature of the Earth for hundreds of miles, which basically means it can look flat and make it appear that you can see for much further beyond the horizon.  To have done this experiment properly he should have placed the lights a couple of meters off the ground to significantly reduce the refraction coefficient.

I'm sure you are all aware of the following "Rainy Lake Experiment" that basically concludes one thing - the Earth cannot be flat:

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment

I believe the experiment was only done in one orientation, so if we are being pedantic the conclusion on its own can't be consistent with Earth being a globe.  It could, however, be the outer curve of a disc or cylinder, but then we have plenty of other empirical evidence that shows we have pretty much the same curvature in all directions.

I've read the Wiki on related things using flags and stuff (Bedford Canal Experiment) but find the conclusions questionable and inconsistent with what we see in reality, so I wonder what does the flat Earth community think to the above Rainy Lake Experiment?  Does RET just not acknowledge refraction, or it does but treats it differently?
« Last Edit: November 05, 2020, 03:47:53 PM by RhesusVX »
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"