The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: dabbler on January 30, 2013, 09:42:49 AM
-
Hey,
FET proposes that the curvature of the Earth perceived, say, when we're standing at the top of a mountain or when we see ships descend off the horizon is due to light refraction. How does this work in the Bedford Level Experiment, which would have been affected by the same light refraction? Wouldn't it have produced the same curve we see from high mountains?
Also on the validity of the BLE, has this been reproduced on other rivers? That particular river may have been oddly sloped.
Thanks!
-
You may or may not be aware that the BLE was repeated by other people along the same waterway and the results were at odds with those reported by Dr Rowbotham.
I like to think of Rowbotham's experiment as the Victorian version of Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion capers - world changing experiment that mysteriously nobody else has been able to reproduce.
-
You may or may not be aware that the BLE was repeated by other people along the same waterway and the results were at odds with those reported by Dr Rowbotham.
I like to think of Rowbotham's experiment as the Victorian version of Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion capers - world changing experiment that mysteriously nobody else has been able to reproduce.
He's not asking someone to come along to reinforce his beliefs, he's asking for an FE opinion on a topic. Please stop being ignorant. Furthermore, every reproduction of BLE has found the Earth to be flat with the exception of Wallace, whose experiment was nullified in a court of law.
Hey,
FET proposes that the curvature of the Earth perceived, say, when we're standing at the top of a mountain or when we see ships descend off the horizon is due to light refraction. How does this work in the Bedford Level Experiment, which would have been affected by the same light refraction? Wouldn't it have produced the same curve we see from high mountains?
Also on the validity of the BLE, has this been reproduced on other rivers? That particular river may have been oddly sloped.
Thanks!
So essentially RE'ers came up with the idea of this form of refraction to explain the fact that experiments regularly find the Earth to be flat. It's actually the same kind of logic that we FE'ers are regularly accused of, although we are not regularly guilty of. It's basically "hey, this doesn't fit my worldview. Let's come up with a BS explanation of why using a phenomenon we already know exists!"
As for it being performed on other bodies of water, Bedford Canal was chosen for just that reason. It has no curvature relative to the Earth. That is, there was no waterflow. It's quite difficult to find similar bodies of water, which is why now that Bedford no longer exists BLE is performed quite irregularly.
-
Hey,
I guess I was misinterpreting the FET posts on light refraction; this makes sense now.
So the question now is -- how come the Earth looks curved when I look at it from high altitudes? Also, why do ships seem to "fall" off the horizon when I watch them go into the distance?
Thanks!
-
why do no modern FErs do the experiment? just wondering because it would be very easy to do for almost no money? we now have better telescopes better cameras and better mesuring devices. maby this comunity should arange something? when was the last time this experiment was performed?
-
Hey, Pythagoras,
Of course, I've only been on the forums for a day, but my interpretation is that the BLE is no longer done because the Bedford waterway perfect environment is no longer available, and any other body of water would yeild imperfect results due to elevation changes. Constructing such a body of water would, of course, be pretty expensive.
My recommendation to the FES for proving the FET would be to build a working GPS according to the FET schematic, since the propagated method by which GPS works relies on an ellipsoidal Earth. Thus if the FET GPS works reliably, RE proponents know something's wrong with their perception of the world.
My question on the Earth looking curved from high altitudes still stands.
Thanks!
-
Hey,
I guess I was misinterpreting the FET posts on light refraction; this makes sense now.
So the question now is -- how come the Earth looks curved when I look at it from high altitudes? Also, why do ships seem to "fall" off the horizon when I watch them go into the distance?
Thanks!
The Earth only starts to look curved at very high altitudes. I believe the minimum is something like 60,000 feet, which is much higher than commercial airliners fly. An appearance of curvature does regularly occur, especially on commercial jets, but that mainly due to the windows you're viewing from being curved (this is also an RE explanation). Pictures from very high elevations, for example those (very cool) videos you can find on youtube where people send cameras up in weather balloons are caused by the cameras themselves. If you watch one of these videos carefully you'll see that depending on where the camera is pointed the horizon fluctuates between concavity, flatness, and even convexity.
____
The Sinking Ship Effect is caused because as something gets farther away, it appears smaller, especially in relation to waves and swells on the water closer by. The swells and waves start to hide the bottom of the ship as it gets farther, and so it appears to sink.
-
Actually I believe Old Bedford River Canal, particularly the section around Welney still does exists. Someone living in Norfolk could maybe verify that.
-
why do no modern FErs do the experiment? just wondering because it would be very easy to do for almost no money? we now have better telescopes better cameras and better mesuring devices. maby this comunity should arange something? when was the last time this experiment was performed?
Well, my current answer is that the water is damned cold where I live at the moment. This summer I plan to measure the relative convexity of a river on which I work as a sailing instructor and to attempt to measure the curvature thusly. I'm going to use the floating orange experiment to measure the flow of the river, which is quite negligible, and use that to find the change in elevation from the start of the experiment to the end. Then I will adjust my results according to this change.
-
fair enough well i hope you take pictures and post on hear. :)
-
Hey,
On the Sinking Ship effect -- if it is waves that cause the "sinking" effect, then we should see a strict proportion between ship size and horizon distance; that is, a ship twice as tall should be able to go twice as far before "falling" off the horizon. However, this doesn't seem to be the case; the horizon is almost the same for all sizes of ship. Why is that?
Thanks!
-
i like this guy ^^^^ i never thought of it like that. very good point indeed.
-
Hey,
I guess I was misinterpreting the FET posts on light refraction; this makes sense now.
So the question now is -- how come the Earth looks curved when I look at it from high altitudes? Also, why do ships seem to "fall" off the horizon when I watch them go into the distance?
Thanks!
The Earth only starts to look curved at very high altitudes. I believe the minimum is something like 60,000 feet, which is much higher than commercial airliners fly. An appearance of curvature does regularly occur, especially on commercial jets, but that mainly due to the windows you're viewing from being curved (this is also an RE explanation). Pictures from very high elevations, for example those (very cool) videos you can find on youtube where people send cameras up in weather balloons are caused by the cameras themselves. If you watch one of these videos carefully you'll see that depending on where the camera is pointed the horizon fluctuates between concavity, flatness, and even convexity.
____
The Sinking Ship Effect is caused because as something gets farther away, it appears smaller, especially in relation to waves and swells on the water closer by. The swells and waves start to hide the bottom of the ship as it gets farther, and so it appears to sink.
The waves that would be obstructing your view would still be a considerable distance away. And is there always some bulge of waves that lies only between an observer and a ship?
Plus this guy's very good point:
Hey,
On the Sinking Ship effect -- if it is waves that cause the "sinking" effect, then we should see a strict proportion between ship size and horizon distance; that is, a ship twice as tall should be able to go twice as far before "falling" off the horizon. However, this doesn't seem to be the case; the horizon is almost the same for all sizes of ship. Why is that?
Thanks!
-
You may or may not be aware that the BLE was repeated by other people along the same waterway and the results were at odds with those reported by Dr Rowbotham.
I like to think of Rowbotham's experiment as the Victorian version of Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion capers - world changing experiment that mysteriously nobody else has been able to reproduce.
He's not asking someone to come along to reinforce his beliefs, he's asking for an FE opinion on a topic. Please stop being ignorant. Furthermore, every reproduction of BLE has found the Earth to be flat with the exception of Wallace, whose experiment was nullified in a court of law.
I get criticised for daring to speak in a thread when I'm not a FE'er, yet when you do speak, you get the facts completely wrong, as a quick visit to Wikipedia shows us...
a supporter by the name of John Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham's experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace, by virtue of his surveyor's training and knowledge of physics, avoided the errors of the preceding experiments and won the bet.[5][6] The crucial step was to set a sight line 4 metres (13 ft) above the water.[7] Despite Hampden initially refusing to accept the demonstration, Wallace was awarded the bet by the referee, editor of The Field sports magazine. Hampden subsequently published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for libel and threatening to kill Wallace.[
Sounds to me like if the court passed a verdict of guilty on libel charges at Hampden, they were officially confirming that in their view, Wallace conducted the experiment properly. The exact opposite of your claim.
The same page then goes on to list the experiment conducted by one Henry Yule Oldham...
In 1901 Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[4][5] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools as until images taken from orbiting satellites became available.[
How does that tie in with "only Wallace found roundness", Tausami?
-
My own personal experience with this involves a fire control radar with a pin point beam from an aircraft carrier in the middle of the Indian Ocean during a tracking exercise.
We were doing a tracking exercise against a single aircraft flying extremely low to the water. The point was to see how soon we could pick up the aircraft and at what point we lost the aircraft outbound. The radars were situated well over 100 feet off the waterline on the super structure of the ship and though had a featured range of 50 NM we were able to tweak them to about 75 NM. They had audio Doppler conversion as well which was helpful in being able to hear our target as well as see it.
The Indian Ocean, during this time, was glassy... very little waves. It's a surreal view. This is why we did this low flying exercises here, less danger to the aircraft.
During one of the outbounds I was able to stay on the aircraft until I heard a taletell woosh and lost contact. That woosh was water. He had gone beyond the horizon line which was about 17NM if memory serves me for my radar.
That's what happened to me. Not a light wave, not line of sight... an electro-magnetic, microwave beam. It's a Bedford Level with a modern twist.
-
My own personal experience with this involves a fire control radar with a pin point beam from an aircraft carrier in the middle of the Indian Ocean during a tracking exercise.
We were doing a tracking exercise against a single aircraft flying extremely low to the water. The point was to see how soon we could pick up the aircraft and at what point we lost the aircraft outbound. The radars were situated well over 100 feet off the waterline on the super structure of the ship and though had a featured range of 50 NM we were able to tweak them to about 75 NM. They had audio Doppler conversion as well which was helpful in being able to hear our target as well as see it.
The Indian Ocean, during this time, was glassy... very little waves. It's a surreal view. This is why we did this low flying exercises here, less danger to the aircraft.
During one of the outbounds I was able to stay on the aircraft until I heard a taletell woosh and lost contact. That woosh was water. He had gone beyond the horizon line which was about 17NM if memory serves me for my radar.
That's what happened to me. Not a light wave, not line of sight... an electro-magnetic, microwave beam. It's a Bedford Level with a modern twist.
That's a good analog to the BLE. And it discredits Dr Rowbotham.
-
Hey,
Thanks, Pythagoras! I actually think I'm going to start a separate thread, so that this one can remain on the BLE.
Thanks!
-
When I first came here in 2007 I brought that experience up with the understanding that it's my own personal undocumented experience and if others choose to believe me or not so be it. I respect other people's opinions, even if I find flaw in them.
Bedford Level Experiment, to me, represents a bad case of desired outcome, maybe in both cases but more so in Rowbathom's case. It is a great experiment to repeat because it would show an up and coming generation how to explore the nature of some when you can only see a small portion of it. There are people that have been coming to this site to argue the virtues of our Earth as a Globe and yet they haven't the slightest clue how to prove it. That's why they should wade into a calm body of water and see through a telescope.
At least the Zetectics aren't taking things as defacto truth. I admire there spunk.
-
Actually I believe Old Bedford River Canal, particularly the section around Welney still does exists. Someone living in Norfolk could maybe verify that.
Looks like a couple sections plus another larger canal parallel to it as of 2006.
52*31'09.17N 0*15'32.07E For anyone interested in looking at in on google earth or something.
There are people that have been coming to this site to argue the virtues of our Earth as a Globe and yet they haven't the slightest clue how to prove it. That's why they should wade into a calm body of water and see through a telescope.
At least the Zetectics aren't taking things as defacto truth. I admire there spunk.
I've found myself conducting photography experiments to see things for myself. I find it rather fun. The bridge and hillside pictures I posted a little while back showed things dropping below the horizon when viewed from just above the water due to my observation height changing, with refraction allowing me to still see shoreline objects, only somewhat compressed. I was pointed toward ENaG, but it didn't completely explain it. RET explains it though.
-
You may or may not be aware that the BLE was repeated by other people along the same waterway and the results were at odds with those reported by Dr Rowbotham.
I like to think of Rowbotham's experiment as the Victorian version of Pons and Fleischmann's cold fusion capers - world changing experiment that mysteriously nobody else has been able to reproduce.
He's not asking someone to come along to reinforce his beliefs, he's asking for an FE opinion on a topic. Please stop being ignorant. Furthermore, every reproduction of BLE has found the Earth to be flat with the exception of Wallace, whose experiment was nullified in a court of law.
I get criticised for daring to speak in a thread when I'm not a FE'er, yet when you do speak, you get the facts completely wrong, as a quick visit to Wikipedia shows us...
a supporter by the name of John Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham's experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace, by virtue of his surveyor's training and knowledge of physics, avoided the errors of the preceding experiments and won the bet.[5][6] The crucial step was to set a sight line 4 metres (13 ft) above the water.[7] Despite Hampden initially refusing to accept the demonstration, Wallace was awarded the bet by the referee, editor of The Field sports magazine. Hampden subsequently published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for libel and threatening to kill Wallace.[
Sounds to me like if the court passed a verdict of guilty on libel charges at Hampden, they were officially confirming that in their view, Wallace conducted the experiment properly. The exact opposite of your claim.
The same page then goes on to list the experiment conducted by one Henry Yule Oldham...
In 1901 Oldham used a plate camera and theodolite for his careful observations along the length of the river and he presented his results at an illustrated lecture held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science.[4][5] His experiment, because of its photographic proof, is regarded as definitive and was taught in schools as until images taken from orbiting satellites became available.[
How does that tie in with "only Wallace found roundness", Tausami?
No, I didn't criticize you for 'daring to speak in a thread when you're not an FE'er'. I criticized you for using his question as a shallow opportunity to reinforce your own and the OP's beliefs when that's the opposite of what the OP was asking for. Imagine a liberal asking a conservative why he does not believe in gun control and another liberal jumping in and saying it's because he's an idiot. The second liberal is only going to annoy everyone.
As for the rest of your post, Wiki is far from an unbiased source when it comes to FET. They essentially state outright that they believe us to be incorrect. The court ruled that Wallace was not owed money by Hampden as the wager was improper. They ruled that Hampden was guilty of libel, but on the other hand he was. Hampden was kind of a jerk by all accounts.
Oldham had no witnesses and therefore counts for very little as far as evidence is concerned. Also, because his name is Oldham I can't help picture him as a little old man with a camera wading into a canal with waders too big for him. Is that weird?
-
Hey,
On the Sinking Ship effect -- if it is waves that cause the "sinking" effect, then we should see a strict proportion between ship size and horizon distance; that is, a ship twice as tall should be able to go twice as far before "falling" off the horizon. However, this doesn't seem to be the case; the horizon is almost the same for all sizes of ship. Why is that?
Thanks!
Quite a fair point. However, it's somewhat mathematically fallacious. The equation for the angular diameter of an object (its apparent size) is given by z=2arctan(.5x/y), where z is the angular diameter, x is the actual size of the object, and y is the distance to the object. Now this difficult to graph, being in three variables, so let's presuppose that the object is 6 meters across. If we increase the diameter to 12 meters, the angular diameter is not also doubled. I made a graph of these two in Wolfram Alpha for visual purposes
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2arctan%283%2Fy%29%3Dz (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2arctan%283%2Fy%29%3Dz) (diameter is 6)
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2arctan(6%2Fy)%3Dz (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2arctan(6%2Fy)%3Dz) (diameter is 12)
Observe how the angular diameter does not double between these two. It increases, but this is intuitive and easily observable in nature. Larger objects do indeed take longer to go over the horizon.
-
Hey,
While this is absolutely true, we're not dealing with angular size at a certain distance here. We're looking at the distance required to reach a certain angular size (the angular size that starts being obscured by close waves). Since formula has it as 2arctan(0.5(x/y)), then for the angular size to be the same, if x is doubled, then y is also doubled (x is proportional to y).
(On a side note, the formula for the angular size of the object in this case is actually simply z=arctan(x/y), since we're positioned at the bottom of the object; the formula you gave is for angular diameter when the triangle formed by us and the ends of the object is isoceles; when we're in the "middle" of the object).
We can do this whole problem without trig, though --
Draw line l representing the sea. Take point P on l, and draw wave AB perpendicular to l somewhere to the right of P, with B on l. In order for ship XY to be "sunk" (with Y on l), segment XY cannot intersect PB (if it did, light could travel from XY to P without intersecting AB). Thus the horizon distance is determined by side PY of triangle PXY similar to PAB (closest XY can be without intersecting PB). Since all such triangles are similar, PY is proportional to XY.
So... what's this?
Thanks!
-
Here's a crude approximation of the diagram, if you're having trouble drawing it.
(http://i
mg17.imageshack.us/img17/7743/downloadpgr.png) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/downloadpgr.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
Dinosaur Neil also makes the very good point that if you're looking at it from a standpoint higher than the highest wave, the wave now has to be taller than the boat to obscure it.
Thanks!
-
Dinosaur Neil (though often unproductive)
At least I don't keep putting "Thanks!" at the end of every post - you know that's annoying?
-
That diagram isn't quite accurate, because SSE isn't the only phenomenon at work. There's also atmospheric visibility, refraction, edification, and (according to some) electromagnetic acceleration. Therefore, the hypotenuse of that triangle is not actually straight. It should be exponential. Therefore, the same light ray which reaches the top of ship 1 would not also reach the top of ship 2.
-
Dinosaur Neil (though often unproductive)
At least I don't keep putting "Thanks!" at the end of every post - you know that's annoying?
SHHH, adults talking.
That diagram isn't quite accurate, because SSE isn't the only phenomenon at work. There's also atmospheric visibility, refraction, edification, and (according to some) electromagnetic acceleration. Therefore, the hypotenuse of that triangle is not actually straight. It should be exponential. Therefore, the same light ray which reaches the top of ship 1 would not also reach the top of ship 2.
...all of which should be reproducible. I feel a science field experiment coming on. I should at least test using a laser and photo equipment. I have an amateur radio license but building a radar... wait... a radar gun kit. :D This is why I love this site, gets my juices going.
THANKS
-
I'm actually working on a way to include that in my planned BLE. I'd appreciate some ideas.
-
I'm actually working on a way to include that in my planned BLE. I'd appreciate some ideas.
Cool. Where are you going to do it?
-
Hey,
That diagram isn't quite accurate, because SSE isn't the only phenomenon at work. There's also atmospheric visibility, refraction, edification, and (according to some) electromagnetic acceleration. Therefore, the hypotenuse of that triangle is not actually straight. It should be exponential. Therefore, the same light ray which reaches the top of ship 1 would not also reach the top of ship 2.
So, I may be misinterpreting this, but I think the argument posed here is that light bends, so that a ship of double height isn't able to go double distance but in fact log(2x)/log(x) = log(2)/log(x) + 1 times as far, with x being the original distance. How would this light bending manifest in the BLE?
Thanks!
-
Well, here's how I think about it. For the results of the Bedford Level Experiment to be consistent with a round Earth, light would have to consistently refract logarithmically. For the results of the Sinking Ship Effect to be consistent with a flat Earth, light would have to consistently refract exponentially. Now, exponential refraction is regularly observed in day to day life, for example in mirages. Logarithmic refraction not so much. This, in my own opinion, is evidence of a flat Earth. However, I would like to quantify this refraction if possible. The one flaw in Rowbotham's work is that his results were qualitative. When I reproduce his experiments more modernly I hope to record my results in a quantitative manner, at which point we will be able to determine whether there is exponential or logarithmic curvature to the light.
-
Hey,
I see. So what remains is an experiment with light refraction in air. I'll wait to see your results from your proposed BLE, and maybe even try a small experiment of my own.
One simple experiment you could do on the tabletop would be to cut out three pieces of paper, of lengths 1, 2, and 3 (any units you'd like), and line them up on the table so that when your eye is at the table, the 2 and 3-long segments are just barely hidden behind the 1-segment. Then measure the distances between the segments and the edge of the table. I haven't tried this yet, but I can do so pretty soon. Maybe you could do one such setup yourself, Tausami?
If this seems to short to be accurate, we can also try to do it with plywood boards, or do some measurements of large buildings and their apparent angular size (depending on how light curves, the angular size will be different).
Thanks!
-
Here was my experiment I did. I tried another one before with almost perfectly calm water in a gravel pit, but I was getting a mirage effect (the rock was blending right into it's own reflection- I can post the pictures if anyone wants to see them), and 1km isn't much to work with anyway.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img507/2186/refractionandcurvature2.jpg)
The hillside and bridge sinking into the horizon (the waterline), only this is elevation based vs 'increasing distance' based, and with refraction allowing the lower features to be visible, only with a compressed look.
I was pointed to ENaG and perspective, but didn't find an answer in ENaG, and perspective makes things smaller with increased distance sure, except my distance didn't increase, only my elevation.
Also, a swell isn't likely according to Tom Bishop, as this is a long narrow channel perhaps a mile wide and averaging 150ft deep.
-
I'm actually working on a way to include that in my planned BLE. I'd appreciate some ideas.
Cool. Where are you going to do it?
In the Tom's River, in New Jersey. Which in actually like, directly perpendicular to Seaside, which is the place where those idiots on Jersey Shore got famous. It's a wide, long, straight river with very slight flow. The length of it used in the experiment will be about 3 miles long.
Hey,
I see. So what remains is an experiment with light refraction in air. I'll wait to see your results from your proposed BLE, and maybe even try a small experiment of my own.
One simple experiment you could do on the tabletop would be to cut out three pieces of paper, of lengths 1, 2, and 3 (any units you'd like), and line them up on the table so that when your eye is at the table, the 2 and 3-long segments are just barely hidden behind the 1-segment. Then measure the distances between the segments and the edge of the table. I haven't tried this yet, but I can do so pretty soon. Maybe you could do one such setup yourself, Tausami?
If this seems to short to be accurate, we can also try to do it with plywood boards, or do some measurements of large buildings and their apparent angular size (depending on how light curves, the angular size will be different).
Thanks!
I rather think that would be too short. If light does indeed bend, it must be over fairly long distances. I have some vague ideas involving laser pointers that I must think on more.
-
There are people that have been coming to this site to argue the virtues of our Earth as a Globe and yet they haven't the slightest clue how to prove it. That's why they should wade into a calm body of water and see through a telescope.
At least the Zetectics aren't taking things as defacto truth. I admire there spunk.
I've found myself conducting photography experiments to see things for myself. I find it rather fun. The bridge and hillside pictures I posted a little while back showed things dropping below the horizon when viewed from just above the water due to my observation height changing, with refraction allowing me to still see shoreline objects, only somewhat compressed. I was pointed toward ENaG, but it didn't completely explain it. RET explains it though.
That compression is exactly what Rowbotham explains/predicts in ZA:ENaG. I'm not sure what part remains unexplained. You might link to the old thread so that new-comers will be able to see your photos.
-
(http://imageshack.us/a/img507/2186/refractionandcurvature2.jpg)
The hillside and bridge sinking into the horizon (the waterline), only this is elevation based vs 'increasing distance' based, and with refraction allowing the lower features to be visible, only with a compressed look.
I was pointed to ENaG and perspective, but didn't find an answer in ENaG, and perspective makes things smaller with increased distance sure, except my distance didn't increase, only my elevation.
Actually, objects closer to the eyeline become compressed by perspective more rapidly than those farther from it. This is covered extensively in Chapter XIV of ENaG which also illustrates the failings of common or "art school perspective", for lack of a better term.
Also, a swell isn't likely according to Tom Bishop, as this is a long narrow channel perhaps a mile wide and averaging 150ft deep.
Nor are most swells sufficient of height to produce the sinking ship phenomena, I'm sure we agree.
-
Did some reading, started typing a reply, read it more, procrastinated, then forgot about this, rinse and repeat.
Actually, objects closer to the eyeline become compressed by perspective more rapidly than those farther from it. This is covered extensively in Chapter XIV of ENaG which also illustrates the failings of common or "art school perspective", for lack of a better term.
-Read through that section, but I'm just not seeing it. I read the stuff a few times on his take on perspective as it pertains to things receding into the distance and the 'eye line', which I guess in this case is the water line.
Sure the 'eye-line' is a distinct visible feature, but as I was viewing the hillside through a scope, things were distorted. The camera is only capturing an image of the light reaching the scope. For all intents and purposes, that hillside in the pictures has pretty much become a 2-dimensional feature. He goes on and on about near objects receding into the distance, but I'm looking a large and very wide feature at a fixed distance from two different elevations.
But even on the sea, when the water is very calm, if a vessel is observed until it is just "hull down," a powerful telescope turned upon it will restore the hull to sight. From which it must be concluded that the lower part of a receding ship disappears through the influence of perspective, and not from sinking behind the summit of a convex surface.
-I tried various levels of magnification and nothing changed.
Those who believe that the earth is a globe have often sought to prove it to be so by quoting the fact that when the ship's hull has disappeared, if an observer ascends to a higher position the hull again becomes visible. But this, is logically premature; such a result arises simply from the fact that on raising his position the eye-line recedes further over the water before it forms the angle of one minute of a degree, and this includes and brings back the hull within the vanishing point, as shown in fig. 84
-Light doesn't care about a minute of a degree. If my line of sight is above the surface of the water the entire distance, what is actually distorting the light from the objects higher than the water? There must be some type of refraction occuring. If that water is actually flat and my line of sight is above it the whole way, then the refraction is also curving the light of the higher objects down and straigtening it, but doing it in a way that doesn't compress it like the lower objects.
Perspective can fool the eyes and senses sometimes, but a camera captures whatever light is reaching it. Sure there are pictures of that room that makes someone up close look smaller than the person further away at the back of it (TB posted a little while ago if I remember), or something like that, but I was photographing an actual distortion of light.
I can look at all kinds of distant objects ranging from a car to a mountain, and with varying levels of magnification, and it isn't until I'm looking along an almost parallel and very long surface that things start becoming distorted (excluding the usual atmospheric wavering).
If an object be held up in the air, and gradually carried away from an observer who maintains his position, it is true that all its parts will converge to one and the same point--the centre, in relation to which the whole contracts and diminishes. But if the same object is placed on the ground, or on a board, as shown in diagram 74, and the lower part made distinctive in shape or colour, and similarly moved away from a fixed observer, the same predicate is false. In the first case the centre of the object is the datum to which every point of the exterior converges; but in the second case the ground or board practically becomes the datum in and towards which every part of the object converges in succession--beginning with the lowest, or that nearest to it.
-The building, landslide, trees, and bridge are all pretty distinctive from the water. If the objects are supposed to be converging because they're too small for the naked eye to make them out, then magnification should bring them back to detail and elliminate the 'converging' effect. It didn't.
I guess (to me anyway) what I observed while taking the pictures simply fits what is expected of RET more so than FET.
Sooner or later I'll happen by there again with my scope on clear day and see if anything looks different. I'd love to take a ladder along in my truck and gain another 12-15 feet over the other two elevations.
-
My own personal experience with this involves a fire control radar with a pin point beam from an aircraft carrier in the middle of the Indian Ocean during a tracking exercise. Ok sounds interesting
We were doing a tracking exercise against a single aircraft flying extremely low to the water. The point was to see how soon we could pick up the aircraft and at what point we lost the aircraft outbound. The radars were situated well over 100 feet (30meters, approx yeah)off the waterline on the super structure of the ship and though had a featured range of 50 NM we were able to tweak them to about 75 NM. They had audio Doppler conversion as well which was helpful in being able to hear our target as well as see it.
The Indian Ocean, during this time, was glassy... very little waves. It's a surreal view. This is why we did this low flying exercises here, less danger to the aircraft.Whilst it maybe less dangerous to aircraft flying low as in hitting an object sticking up above the ground level , it is very dangerous for the pilot, flying low above any smooth glassy looking body of water
During one of the outbounds I was able to stay on the aircraft until I heard a taletell woosh and lost contact. That woosh was water. He had gone beyond the horizon line which was about 17NM if memory serves me for my radar. This paragraph I have trouble believing, are you sure it was 17NM and not further? 17NM = 27.37Km I can see all along a beach near I live and it's 30Km long, beach curves around a bay, from one end to the other across the bay is 30Km, I took a photo last weekend on my iPhone standing on a break wall at one end, probably not more than 3 to 4 meters off the water line
???
That's what happened to me. Not a light wave, not line of sight... an electro-magnetic, microwave beam. It's a Bedford Level with a modern twist.
Hi I posted some stuff in red in your above quote.
-
My own personal experience with this involves a fire control radar with a pin point beam from an aircraft carrier in the middle of the Indian Ocean during a tracking exercise. Ok sounds interesting
We were doing a tracking exercise against a single aircraft flying extremely low to the water. The point was to see how soon we could pick up the aircraft and at what point we lost the aircraft outbound. The radars were situated well over 100 feet (30meters, approx yeah)off the waterline on the super structure of the ship and though had a featured range of 50 NM we were able to tweak them to about 75 NM. They had audio Doppler conversion as well which was helpful in being able to hear our target as well as see it.
The Indian Ocean, during this time, was glassy... very little waves. It's a surreal view. This is why we did this low flying exercises here, less danger to the aircraft.Whilst it maybe less dangerous to aircraft flying low as in hitting an object sticking up above the ground level , it is very dangerous for the pilot, flying low above any smooth glassy looking body of water
During one of the outbounds I was able to stay on the aircraft until I heard a taletell woosh and lost contact. That woosh was water. He had gone beyond the horizon line which was about 17NM if memory serves me for my radar. This paragraph I have trouble believing, are you sure it was 17NM and not further? 17NM = 27.37Km I can see all along a beach near I live and it's 30Km long, beach curves around a bay, from one end to the other across the bay is 30Km, I took a photo last weekend on my iPhone standing on a break wall at one end, probably not more than 3 to 4 meters off the water line
???
That's what happened to me. Not a light wave, not line of sight... an electro-magnetic, microwave beam. It's a Bedford Level with a modern twist.
Hi I posted some stuff in red in your above quote.
Safety and glassy oceans: Tell them that. I was just there operating a radar.
Horizon: That was off memory but I did mention the radars were pretty high up, about 150 or so off the waterline on the superstructure of the ship... I'm recounted this from memory so the numbers get fogged. It may have been longer.
I'll throw the disclaimer out there that this is a personal experience, anecdote at best, and should be regarded as proof to any except to explain my own opinions of things. In a real experiment all that shit would be documented and a peer reviewed report would follow.
-
Do you know how high the planes were flying because your figures are fairly consistent with a very low flying plane and a tower approximately 30m above sea level, assuming radar isn't refracted the same as visible light.
-
Do you know how high the planes were flying because your figures are fairly consistent with a very low flying plane and a tower approximately 30m above sea level, assuming radar isn't refracted the same as visible light.
It was a low flying popup target exercise from an aircraft carrier.
As I mentioned the aircraft was really scary low... maybe 30-50m off the waterline and I was about 60m up. The numbers are a fog now as this was in 1987.
AND once again...
I'll throw the disclaimer out there that this is a personal experience, anecdote at best, and should be regarded as proof to any except to explain my own opinions of things. In a real experiment all that shit would be documented and a peer reviewed report would follow.
-
Tausumi, if you are still in this thread. I have a 500mw laser, it is very strong. I have a canoe and can travel to Toms River NJ(about 175 miles).. I can help you with experiments.
-
I've been pondering an experiment I could conduct in the lake next door.
I would use stakes about 7ft long or so, with marks designating a 6 foot length (the extra foot is for driving into the ground)
I can place them away from my vantage point .12, .40, and .57 mile away. The bottom mark will be exactly at water level (I'll even wait for conditions when the water is almost perfectly calm) and the top mark will be 6 feet above the water, and should be above any refractive conditions near the surface.
From my vantage point with a spotting scope, or telescope, I'll try to see if the 6 foot marks are all level with eachother. In theory, the middle mark will be a little higher than the first and last if the earth is round. If it's flat, they should all be the exact same height.
How the marks are going to look in the scope? I don't know. I'd have to try out different types of marks first to see what works.
Are those distances enough to be conclusive? I don't know. I'm looking at a distance well less than a mile, stakes are just under half a mile total, and the curvature is 8in per mile. I'm not sure if it would be an inch of difference or what, nor if I'll be able to see the marks clearly enough. I can use another line that puts me out to .71, but the first stake would be at a rock out in the water, and I don't think there's anything to drive it into.
I'm mainly just curious if I'll be able to make anything out. I have my doubts about the distance being sufficient.
Anyway, I think I have some stakes like that, and I'll see if I can see the marks or not first.
-
I've been pondering an experiment I could conduct in the lake next door.
I would use stakes about 7ft long or so, with marks designating a 6 foot length (the extra foot is for driving into the ground)
I can place them away from my vantage point .12, .40, and .57 mile away. The bottom mark will be exactly at water level (I'll even wait for conditions when the water is almost perfectly calm) and the top mark will be 6 feet above the water, and should be above any refractive conditions near the surface.
From my vantage point with a spotting scope, or telescope, I'll try to see if the 6 foot marks are all level with eachother. In theory, the middle mark will be a little higher than the first and last if the earth is round. If it's flat, they should all be the exact same height.
How the marks are going to look in the scope? I don't know. I'd have to try out different types of marks first to see what works.
Are those distances enough to be conclusive? I don't know. I'm looking at a distance well less than a mile, stakes are just under half a mile total, and the curvature is 8in per mile. I'm not sure if it would be an inch of difference or what, nor if I'll be able to see the marks clearly enough. I can use another line that puts me out to .71, but the first stake would be at a rock out in the water, and I don't think there's anything to drive it into.
I'm mainly just curious if I'll be able to make anything out. I have my doubts about the distance being sufficient.
Anyway, I think I have some stakes like that, and I'll see if I can see the marks or not first.
I think you need to get higher to rule out/minimise refraction, Alfred Wallace performed his counter experiment with posts 4m high.
-
I've been pondering an experiment I could conduct in the lake next door.
I would use stakes about 7ft long or so, with marks designating a 6 foot length (the extra foot is for driving into the ground)
I can place them away from my vantage point .12, .40, and .57 mile away. The bottom mark will be exactly at water level (I'll even wait for conditions when the water is almost perfectly calm) and the top mark will be 6 feet above the water, and should be above any refractive conditions near the surface.
From my vantage point with a spotting scope, or telescope, I'll try to see if the 6 foot marks are all level with eachother. In theory, the middle mark will be a little higher than the first and last if the earth is round. If it's flat, they should all be the exact same height.
How the marks are going to look in the scope? I don't know. I'd have to try out different types of marks first to see what works.
Are those distances enough to be conclusive? I don't know. I'm looking at a distance well less than a mile, stakes are just under half a mile total, and the curvature is 8in per mile. I'm not sure if it would be an inch of difference or what, nor if I'll be able to see the marks clearly enough. I can use another line that puts me out to .71, but the first stake would be at a rock out in the water, and I don't think there's anything to drive it into.
I'm mainly just curious if I'll be able to make anything out. I have my doubts about the distance being sufficient.
Anyway, I think I have some stakes like that, and I'll see if I can see the marks or not first.
This is also where a strong laser pointer would come in real handy, coupled with experiment and if you set it to hit the back pole, then if the water is curved, you should see the laser dot hit the centre pole. If not, it would lend more legitimacy to the flat earth theory.
-
I've been considering repeating this at Lake Guntersville, from the Alabama Highway 69 causeway to the bridge at U.S Highway 431.
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=guntersville+al&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&ei=JoErUcmkDMuF0QHZtoHYDQ&ved=0CAsQ_AUoAg
It can be choppy but the peaks rarely get over 2 feet.
-
The bedford experiment has been replicated on this forum already - once by Daniel who's results I am unable to find, and another by forum user 'A R Wallace'.
This is the applicable thread detaling the experiment itself (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,47624.0.html)
Pictures of the experiment and its results (https://picasaweb.google.com/110581442329294829593/BedfordLevel?authkey=Gv1sRgCJTS75Ckwdv9MA&feat=directlink#)
Here is Daniel's thread about his experiment but I'm unable to find any further information. (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,31522.0.html)
If anyone else has any other links to previous experiments let me know.