The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Gumwars on November 08, 2019, 09:35:28 PM

Title: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 08, 2019, 09:35:28 PM
Greetings all,

So, back in August, Mr. Davis threw down a bit of a challenge to the "roundies" in an attempt to prove the truth behind the shape of planet Earth.  For those that would like to get caught up:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82883.0

The premise is both simple and vague: take a quarter length mile of twine, stretch it between two sticks at a given height, place a candle at the center, and be amazed as the center will never dip low enough to burn.

This would be truly amazing if the following were true:

That Mr. Davis actually performed the task and discovered the problems in setting up the experiment.

Now, I'd love to recreate this experiment but John was rather lacking on some of the more important details.  I believe this oversight was intentional as to avoid getting any of us out in the field reproducing his work.  It is entirely possible that I am completely wrong and this was all a simple misunderstanding.

To be clear, I am 100% willing and able to perform this experiment.  I will document as much as possible, with photographs whenever able, and report those findings here.  All I ask is answers from Mr. John Davis, regarding the following so that I can recreate his experiment:

- What brand, ply, and fiber of twine did you use?
- What length, type, and diameter of pole or stick did you use?
- How did you account for any topographical rise or fall in the area selected?

I will gladly post my findings once these three simple questions are answered.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 08, 2019, 10:01:59 PM
The point was to try it yourself. Not a one of you did. Not a one of you valued empiricism over what you 'believed.'  Except me. Go on. Try the shipping crate. Or the candle. You might be surprised.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 08, 2019, 10:15:40 PM
The point was to try it yourself. Not a one of you did. Not a one of you valued empiricism over what you 'believed.'  Except me. Go on. Try the shipping crate. Or the candle. You might be surprised.

John, I'm going to be as fair and honest as I can with you; a quarter mile of 3 ply jute twine cannot be stretched taut to a point where its level with the ground.  The twine will break well before you draw the slack out.  5 ply jute twine will end the same.  Double braided nylon will still sag in the middle.  John, small gauge steel cable will sag in the middle at that length.  I'm telling you this because I've worked with those materials at lengths equal to and exceeding what you've offered here.  A quarter mile of steel cable is well beyond the price range of most and would be dangerous to pull taut at that length.  We haven't even touched on what sort of methods you'd need to secure each end. 

The point of peer review is that we attempt to recreate your experiment using the tools and methods you used.  We verify the experiment or discover its shortcomings.  If shortcomings are found, we improve on the process and add that to the documentation.  In the end we have a working experiment that others can attempt and improve upon if needed. 

So, are you going to participate or are you going to keep dodging?  I'm as close as you're going to get to a 100% willing guinea pig here John.  I'll buy the stuff and try to put this together.  I just need those questions answered.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 08, 2019, 10:20:51 PM
I have no doubt you are being honest, but there is little fairness to "knowledge." I think if you looked into peer review you might find how deficit it is. But let us continue. Give me a second to bring up the joys of peer review and method. You will soon see, modern science is closer to nazi science or catholicism than it is what you might have been taught in school.

I am a bit drunk so give me this - a point. One point that you will stand upon - a line in the sand that will be a marc betweeen nonsense and 'science'. How can you define the logical, the reasonable, the scientific - from the popularity of the time.

Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 08, 2019, 10:22:38 PM
Well, to be pointed - the popularity of our time.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 08, 2019, 10:28:17 PM
I have no doubt you are being honest, but there is little fairness to "knowledge." I think if you looked into peer review you might find how deficit it is. But let us continue. Give me a second to bring up the joys of peer review and method. You will soon see, modern science is closer to nazi science or catholicism than it is what you might have been taught in school.

I am a bit drunk so give me this - a point. One point that you will stand upon - a line in the sand that will be a marc betweeen nonsense and 'science'. How can you define the logical, the reasonable, the scientific - from the popularity of the time.

Logic is always logic.  And/Or/If/Then/Not/Nor/Xor, truth tables.  What is necessary and what necessarily follows.  Deductive and inductive, strength, soundness.  I will concede that popularity, the mob, the rule of the mob often wins out over reason and logic.  The current political mess in the US (and to a degree, the world) are proof that rational thinking does not always rule the day. 

However, to me, there is always logic.  I define it as it is = a method of finding the truth.  The truth isn't always popular; I'm sure Galileo would comment on that.

I'll leave it at that.  John, I don't drink but I hope you enjoy your day/evening/whatever time it is in your neck of the woods.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Plat Terra on November 08, 2019, 10:33:20 PM

- How did you account for any topographical rise or fall in the area selected?



Why would there be any level or sunken areas on a globe if Gravity has the power to crush mass into spheres?

If you say a sphere earth has some level and sunken areas, then gravity has not done it's job in those areas (Not including mountians) and you lose because you cant have it both ways. It either makes the surface a sphere or it doesn't.

If some areas are flat and sunken, then things should weight less in those areas.  Prove to us a 10 pound ball weighs less over the salt flats of the world than any where elese.

You are so screwed!
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 08, 2019, 10:39:19 PM
We must disagree then. There is never logic beyond convention.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 08, 2019, 10:39:48 PM
Have a good night too. The best I can wish you.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: John Davis on November 08, 2019, 10:41:35 PM
Last thing to say here - pay attention to how how logic or reason or even religon might define your space. There are more variables than I think you might be considering.

Best,
John
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on November 09, 2019, 01:25:18 AM

- How did you account for any topographical rise or fall in the area selected?


Why would there be any level or sunken areas on a globe if Gravity has the power to crush mass into spheres?

Simply because gravity isn't infinitely strong.
It can only level hills or mountains if it causes stresses greater than the strength of the rock or whatever the hill or mountain is made of.

So on earth the maximum height of mountains above the surrounding land is very roughly 10 km (and not 3 km or 30 km) .
Mt Everest is 8,848 m above sea-level.
Mauna Kea, on the island of Hawaii, stands 4,207 m above sea level but it rises an 10,203 m above the nearby Pacific Ocean floor.  Hence Mauna Kea also fits the above limit of roughly 10 km.

So gravity has the power to crush mass into approximate spheres with the deviation dependent on the surface gravity and the composition of that body.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: JackBlack on November 09, 2019, 01:26:06 AM
The point was to try it yourself. Not a one of you did. Not a one of you valued empiricism over what you 'believed.'
Instead we showed what you were claiming was nonsense, even if Earth was flat.
The slack in the string, even if using a nylon line at breaking point, will still produce a drop larger than the bulge due to the curvature of Earth.

Except me. Go on. Try the shipping crate. Or the candle. You might be surprised.
The shipping crate experiment has effectively been done countless of times at a much larger scale.
It has been firmly established that the higher you are, the earlier sunrise is and the later sunset is.
We can observe a sunrise illuminating the tops of mountains first and casting shadows upwards from the mountain.

I find the candle experiment quite impractical, especially given just how significant the sag in the string will be.

Why would there be any level or sunken areas on a globe if Gravity has the power to crush mass into spheres?
The exact same argument would apply to a flat Earth.
Whatever magical down making / density sorting force would have levelled everything as well.

Gravity isn't some magical force that will magically turn things into a sphere.

Do you know how gravity forms objects into spheres?
The gravitational attraction will generate a pressure gradient.

As an example, if you had a column of water 10 m high, it will have a pressure of roughly 2 atm at the bottom and 1 atm at the top.
If there was nothing around it to hold it there, that 2 atm of pressure at the bottom will be much greater than the 1 atm of pressure of air at the bottom. This will result in it being pushed outwards and thus spreading out and levelling out.
But that is for a liquid.
If this was a solid instead, with a yield stress above 1 atm then it would still hold together.

The pressure gradient is given by rho*g*h. If this is above the yield stress, the material will fail and spread. If it isn't, then

An approximation for the density and yield stress of rock is 1600 kg/m^3 and 150 MPa (they vary dramatically depending upon the rock.)
This means we can get a height of roughly 10 km. That means we shouldn't expect mountains any higher than 10 km unless they are very light or very strong.

So there is no problem for the RE here.

Gravity will form large masses into roughly spherical objects. Not perfect spheres.


Prove to us
That would be shifting the burden of proof yet again.

Not having 1 particular piece of evidence for a RE doesn't mean RE is wrong or that we are screwed.

Try calculating what that variation should be and then proving that it doesn't exist.

Also note that it isn't as simple as less mass thus gravity is less. By being closer to the centre of mass of Earth, gravity from that would increase. So which factor wins?
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: JackBlack on November 09, 2019, 01:28:39 AM
Mauna Kea, on the island of Hawaii, stands 4,207 m above sea level but it rises an 10,203 m above the nearby Pacific Ocean floor.  Hence Mauna Kea also fits the above limit of roughly 10 km.
If my thinking is correct, putting it under water significantly increases the height. Using the same value of 1600 kg/m^3 and 150 MPa, if it is in water it can go to ~25 km. That is because of the pressure gradient of the water is no longer insignificant like the atmosphere is.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Gumwars on November 09, 2019, 02:22:00 AM

- How did you account for any topographical rise or fall in the area selected?



Why would there be any level or sunken areas on a globe if Gravity has the power to crush mass into spheres?

If you say a sphere earth has some level and sunken areas, then gravity has not done it's job in those areas (Not including mountians) and you lose because you cant have it both ways. It either makes the surface a sphere or it doesn't.

If some areas are flat and sunken, then things should weight less in those areas.  Prove to us a 10 pound ball weighs less over the salt flats of the world than any where elese.

You are so screwed!

Plat, I'm speaking strictly about topographical variations in elevation at any given location.  Trying to find a spot that has zero elevation change can be difficult depending on where you live.  I'm near some mountains so finding a spot that has no elevation change isn't easy.  I was curious as to how John solved that issue when he did the experiment.  So, to point, what I'm discussing has nothing to do with whatever it is you're on about.  Further, Rab and Jack have pointed out that whatever your on about is, as always, hilariously wrong.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: JackBlack on November 09, 2019, 02:29:38 AM
The simplest (i.e. low tech) solution to get a level surface is to use water.

As a good one for a level all the way along, I might recommend building a tank along the 400 m stretch.
Have clear walls, at least where you are placing anything where the height is important.
Then put some water in and seal it up.

That should be a quite good level to use as a reference.

The main problem is the amount of water needed. (I estimate roughly 100 000 l for one 0.5 m wide and 0.5 m high.

If you only need the level at a few points, then set up smaller tanks there (still enclosed) with hoses connecting the bottom of all the tanks (which need to remain full of water) and hoses connecting the tops of all the tanks (which needs to remain full of air, i.e. no water in the top hoses).
That should then provide a reference level for those 3 (or however many you need) locations.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on November 09, 2019, 03:50:32 AM
Mauna Kea, on the island of Hawaii, stands 4,207 m above sea level but it rises an 10,203 m above the nearby Pacific Ocean floor.  Hence Mauna Kea also fits the above limit of roughly 10 km.
If my thinking is correct, putting it under water significantly increases the height. Using the same value of 1600 kg/m^3 and 150 MPa, if it is in water it can go to ~25 km. That is because of the pressure gradient of the water is no longer insignificant like the atmosphere is.
Yes if it were all under water. The value would also depend on the density of the undersea rock. The oceanic floor averages about 2900 kg/m3 but I don't know what the density of the main part of the base of Mauna Kea might be.

But in any case the maximum mountain height is only a rough approximation.
By the way Mars has a surface gravity of 3.71 m/s2 and Olympus Mons is  21,287 m above the datum and  about 26 km above the local relief.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Crutchwater on November 09, 2019, 05:56:36 AM
The simplest (i.e. low tech) solution to get a level surface is to use water.

As a good one for a level all the way along, I might recommend building a tank along the 400 m stretch.
Have clear walls, at least where you are placing anything where the height is important.
Then put some water in and seal it up.

That should be a quite good level to use as a reference.

The main problem is the amount of water needed. (I estimate roughly 100 000 l for one 0.5 m wide and 0.5 m high.

If you only need the level at a few points, then set up smaller tanks there (still enclosed) with hoses connecting the bottom of all the tanks (which need to remain full of water) and hoses connecting the tops of all the tanks (which needs to remain full of air, i.e. no water in the top hoses).
That should then provide a reference level for those 3 (or however many you need) locations.

How about a shitload of PVC pipe, with clear risers every 100' or so, filled with colored water?

Essentially a giant version of the handheld horizon dip-angle viewer seen in other experiments.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Unconvinced on November 09, 2019, 07:24:47 AM
The point was to try it yourself. Not a one of you did. Not a one of you valued empiricism over what you 'believed.'  Except me. Go on. Try the shipping crate. Or the candle. You might be surprised.

Empiricism is only as good as the quality of the data.  What’s the point of trying a fatally flawed experiment? 

Three huge issues were identified with your proposed set up.

1.  As mentioned above, no regular string or cable can be pulled that taught over such a distance.  Or if such a thing does exist, it’s highly specialised which means you need to specify it.  You ignored all requests to state what you used when you claim you did the experiment.

2.  Also mentioned here, how can find a sufficiently level 1/4 mile of land, and how do we confirm that?  You ignored all requests to explain how you managed this.

3.  You fluffed the curve calculation.  The one calculation flat earthers constantly quote, the “8 inch drop per mile squared”.  You used a linear relationship, getting an expected 2 inch drop over a quarter of a mile, when it should be a squared relationship giving an 1/8 inch drop.  Plus, we’re supposed to measure from the middle, so we need to halve that again to 1/16 inch.  So even if we could overcome problems 1 & 2, the difference between a flat earth result and a round result is an astonishing 32x what you claimed it would be.

Why should anyone waste their time on a nonsense experiment?

Come up with a sensible test, and I’m sure someone will give it a go.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Macarios on November 09, 2019, 12:50:47 PM
The point was to try it yourself. Not a one of you did. Not a one of you valued empiricism over what you 'believed.'  Except me. Go on. Try the shipping crate. Or the candle. You might be surprised.

Ok, I also want to try it myself.

For the candle experiment:
What are the specifications of line, poles, and candle?
How tall the poles, how tall the candle, how tall the candle flame?
How much of a sagging is allowed?

For the crate experiment:
How high above the ground the crate has to be to achieve the required horizon dip during sunrise / sunset?
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: markjo on November 09, 2019, 01:34:19 PM
The point was to try it yourself. Not a one of you did. Not a one of you valued empiricism over what you 'believed.'  Except me.
Did you, John?  Did you really?  What evidence have you provided that you actually did perform this experiment?
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: robinofloxley on November 09, 2019, 01:45:11 PM
The point was to try it yourself. Not a one of you did. Not a one of you valued empiricism over what you 'believed.'  Except me. Go on. Try the shipping crate. Or the candle. You might be surprised.

Ok, I also want to try it myself.

For the candle experiment:
What are the specifications of line, poles, and candle?
How tall the poles, how tall the candle, how tall the candle flame?
How much of a sagging is allowed?

For the crate experiment:
How high above the ground the crate has to be to achieve the required horizon dip during sunrise / sunset?

This whole thing is a bit odd really. It's like someone saying, "hey, I cooked an amazing meal last night, you should try it" - sure says I, what's the recipe and how did you cook it? "Well you'll need some protein based foodstuffs, some carbs, spices and sauce. And then you just cook it - costs about $15". Care to be a bit more specific? "Nope".

If I genuinely believed I had a killer proof of something, I'd document everything down to the last detail, encourage everyone to try my experiment and be glad to clarify any aspect of it - but that's just me.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on November 09, 2019, 02:38:25 PM
The point was to try it yourself. Not a one of you did. Not a one of you valued empiricism over what you 'believed.'  Except me. Go on. Try the shipping crate. Or the candle. You might be surprised.
So please show the results of your "Candle Experiment" and "shipping crate" experiment.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Themightykabool on November 09, 2019, 03:03:07 PM
What was the ship crate supposed to prove?
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: markjo on November 09, 2019, 03:05:19 PM
What was the ship crate supposed to prove?
Do you mean other than that FE'ers don't know how to design meaningful experiments?
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: JackBlack on November 09, 2019, 04:57:43 PM
How about a shitload of PVC pipe, with clear risers every 100' or so, filled with colored water?

Essentially a giant version of the handheld horizon dip-angle viewer seen in other experiments.
Yes, that should work as well. But I prefer a system that is enclosed, so also a pipe connecting the top.

I'm not sure if PVC pipe or a hose would be the cheaper/easier option given the amount of water needed for such a long length.

3.  You fluffed the curve calculation.  The one calculation flat earthers constantly quote, the “8 inch drop per mile squared”.  You used a linear relationship, getting an expected 2 inch drop over a quarter of a mile, when it should be a squared relationship giving an 1/8 inch drop.  Plus, we’re supposed to measure from the middle, so we need to halve that again to 1/16 inch.  So even if we could overcome problems 1 & 2, the difference between a flat earth result and a round result is an astonishing 32x what you claimed it would be.
Your numbers are slightly off.
Where you said 1/8 should be 1/2.

Going to the middle means we need 1/4 of that, not 1/2, again because it is a quadratic relationship.

Or the simpler option, the bulge for 1/4 mile is the drop for 1/8 mile, which is 1/8 th of an inch.

So overall, the drop expected is 1/8th of an inch, 1/16th of what was claimed.

While the sag, even for nylon at breaking point, is greater than that.

What was the ship crate supposed to prove?
The shipping crate is a tiny scale version of the top of a mountain being illuminated first.

If RE is true, then at sunrise, the tops of objects should be illuminated first, with the bottom only being illuminated after some time.

If FE is true, then it depends upon what brand of nonsense you use for the explanation for sunrise.
With magic bendy light, the same is expected.
With a spotlight sun, the bottom should be illuminated first as the top is out of the cone of the spotlight.
With the atmosphere magically obscuring the view, then the top should be illuminated first as it is closer.

The big issue is the tiny scale.
Assuming a 4 m tall container, with the person at the equator on the equinox (for simpler math), and a 24 hour day with an Earth of radius 6378 km (to match the equator) and completely ignoring refraction, then the top of the container will be illuminated roughly 12 seconds before the bottom.
But this is during the course of sunrise, which takes roughly 2 minutes for the sun to come from below the horizon to be entirely above it.  (feel free to double check my math).
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Themightykabool on November 10, 2019, 10:55:34 AM
Still at a loss what this shipper is supoosed to do.
Maybe johnD can post some photos of himself in one of these.
Showing what is seen vs what is expected.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Apokalypt on November 10, 2019, 12:45:01 PM
I did the experiment and verified that the earth is indeed round. To be fair and not confuse the minds of others who would do the experiment, I will not post my findings and pictures and what tools I used etc.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: mak3m on November 10, 2019, 01:17:44 PM

- How did you account for any topographical rise or fall in the area selected?



Why would there be any level or sunken areas on a globe if Gravity has the power to crush mass into spheres?

If you say a sphere earth has some level and sunken areas, then gravity has not done it's job in those areas (Not including mountians) and you lose because you cant have it both ways. It either makes the surface a sphere or it doesn't.

If some areas are flat and sunken, then things should weight less in those areas.  Prove to us a 10 pound ball weighs less over the salt flats of the world than any where elese.

You are so screwed!

If you are genuinely interested start a thread on it, if not stay on topic
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: mak3m on November 10, 2019, 01:40:16 PM
Experiment falls apart with the gentlest of questions.

JD doesnt answer questions put too him, so it's a waste of time  ???
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on November 10, 2019, 03:10:50 PM
I did the experiment and verified that the earth is indeed round. To be fair and not confuse the minds of others who would do the experiment, I will not post my findings and pictures and what tools I used etc.
In 2017 Dutchy tried to claim something similar to the Candle Experiment would settle the matter but did not do anything about it - I wonder why?
Here is one reply, Keep up the good work « Reply #15 on: April 24, 2017, 12:35:53 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70328.msg1900761#msg1900761)
Back then Dyneema fibre (an Ultra High Density PolyEthylene) had the best strength to weight ratio of any available fibre.

Dutchy's "experiment" was to be over 3 km but over that distance, the least sag (going to twice the recommended stress ::)) was about 4.3 metres!
And over that 3 km the earth's curvature would only have the centre about  0.18 meters (6.95 inches) above either end!

John Davis's original "Candle Experiment
The disproofs of a round earth are so plentiful and readily available that we can show its absurdity with ease at the beck and call of any globularist - just don't expect such a man (or woman!) to accept their defeat but instead you will be privy to the greatest show of mental acrobatics this side of the plane. I am sure we will see some such acrobats visit this very thread.

Procure the following items, and keep them securely in a map-case should the need arise to dumbfound those whose ideas are founded in dumbness. The rational man will have to reject any round earth slumgullion immediately upon seeing the results.
  • A candle.
  • A ball of twine, 1320 feet. This should cost approximately 61 dollars.
  • Two good sized, sturdy sticks approximately half a meter in length.
  • A box of matches
His 1320 feet in only 402 metres and for that distance, the curve of the earth would only have the ends about 3 mm below the centre.
And if my data is correct the sag in that cable loaded to about yield strength would be about 33 mm (13 inches) ::).

If John believed that his Candle Experiment was reliable he might think he proved that the Earth was a Globe with a far smaller radius than it really has!
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: robinofloxley on November 11, 2019, 04:39:04 AM
Sag calculations are of great importance to electrical engineers designing overhead power transmission lines. In principle I can't see the difference between calculating power line sag and working out how much sag would be present in JD's experiment.

https://electricalengineerresources.com/2018/01/13/sample-calculation-of-sag-and-tension-of-transmission-line/ (https://electricalengineerresources.com/2018/01/13/sample-calculation-of-sag-and-tension-of-transmission-line/)

The parameters we need for the calculation are:

W1 = Unit weight of the line (N/m)
H1 = Tension in the line (N)
S = Span length (m)

And using these we will calculate the expected drop/sag (m) (D).

The calculation for drop is given in the quoted article as: D = H1/W1 (cosh(S / (2H1/W1)) -1)

Using this product: 3-Ply 84 lb. Tensile Strength Jute Tying Twine - 5,000 feet (https://www.interplas.com/84lb-jute-tying-twine-p-twj-500 (https://www.interplas.com/84lb-jute-tying-twine-p-twj-500)) we have a 5000 foot roll of 84lb tensile strength twine weighing in at 10lb. From this we can calculate...

W1 = 10lb / 5000ft = 0.002 lb per foot or 0.029 N/m
H1 = 84lb (i.e. we tension the line to 100% of its breaking point) or 373.78 N
S = 1320ft or 402.34m

Plugging these parameters in to the calculation gives an expected sag of 1.58m or 62 inches.

If we try to pull the twine any tighter, then according to the calculation, make no mistake, it will break. We could do better with something like dyneema, but JD did specify twine after all.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: rvlvr on November 11, 2019, 04:57:50 AM
Yeah, twine it is. Wouldn’t want to mess that part up. We need to stay true.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on November 11, 2019, 06:37:17 AM
As my old grandma used to say:

If you ain't got the twine, then don't waste your time.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Psychomech on November 12, 2019, 06:09:26 AM
Why not use a laser pointer?

Measure the height of the laser above the clear riser, in the PVC pipe setup, at each end and in the middle.
Surely that would give the level of accuracy needed to prove the principal.

Just a thought.  :)
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: markjo on November 12, 2019, 06:22:09 AM
Why not use a laser pointer?
Lasers are susceptible to atmoplanic refraction.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Psychomech on November 12, 2019, 06:37:19 AM
Why not use a laser pointer?
Lasers are susceptible to atmoplanic refraction.

Atmospheric refraction is due to variations in air density. Over a quarter of a mile, with no major change in height, I am pretty sure that there would be discernible effect.

Got to be far more accurate that stretching the shit out of a piece of string.  :P
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Namredips on November 12, 2019, 12:34:49 PM
Didn't they try using a laser pointer on the behind the curve documentary on Netflix?
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on November 12, 2019, 06:07:46 PM
Why not use a laser pointer?
Lasers are susceptible to atmoplanic refraction.

Atmospheric refraction is due to variations in air density. Over a quarter of a mile, with no major change in height, I am pretty sure that there would be discernible effect.

Got to be far more accurate that stretching the shit out of a piece of string.  :P
Far more accurate than a piece of string. piano wire or even the best Dyneema fibre but the Earth's curvature is less than any of those could detect.
You need something like a very high-quality level or theodolite.

So ask a Geodetic Surveyor, they know!
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: mak3m on November 12, 2019, 09:33:44 PM
Why not use a laser pointer?
Lasers are susceptible to atmoplanic refraction.

Atmospheric refraction is due to variations in air density. Over a quarter of a mile, with no major change in height, I am pretty sure that there would be discernible effect.

Got to be far more accurate that stretching the shit out of a piece of string.  :P
Far more accurate than a piece of string. piano wire or even the best Dyneema fibre but the Earth's curvature is less than any of those could detect.
You need something like a very high-quality level or theodolite.

So ask a Geodetic Surveyor, they know!


A level, theodolite or total station would do it in a heartbeat, you wouldn't need to do the quarter mile either.

If the modern instruments are off putting  a good old mechanical theodolite would be just as effective.

Simple measurements aswell so no need to set up a full survey. Position your instrument and set up the two poles, measure the vertical angle of each pole, bit of high school trig and a decent surveyor will get you Earths R to +/- 2mm
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: rvlvr on November 12, 2019, 11:11:33 PM
As my old grandma used to say:

If you ain't got the twine, then don't waste your time.
If you can’t do the time, don’t do the twine.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Macarios on November 13, 2019, 02:27:02 AM
What you need is long strong line with the specific weight matching water.
Such line you should be able to stretch in water without sagging.
Then you can see if it dives in the middle as you pull it straight through the curve.

With the Earth radius of 6371 km, and with the string of 1 km,
the middle should dip for about 2 cm (0.00002 km).
At 2 km string you should have 8 cm (0.00008 km) dip.

Is there such line?
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: JackBlack on November 13, 2019, 03:11:38 AM
What you need is long strong line with the specific weight matching water.
Such line you should be able to stretch in water without sagging.
Then you can see if it dives in the middle as you pull it straight through the curve.

With the Earth radius of 6371 km, and with the string of 1 km,
the middle should dip for about 2 cm (0.00002 km).
At 2 km string you should have 8 cm (0.00008 km) dip.

Is there such line?

Dynema (Rab's suggestion) might match that. It has a density of 0.97 g/ml.
But as it is slightly less dense, it will curve up slightly due to buoyancy.

Of course, some people might complain that you can't use a candle under water.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Themightykabool on November 13, 2019, 05:12:38 AM
Anything over an extended distance will sag.
Super impractical experiment.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: markjo on November 13, 2019, 06:43:06 AM
Didn't they try using a laser pointer on the behind the curve documentary on Netflix?
They probably didn't factor in aetherific eddification.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: robinofloxley on November 13, 2019, 08:18:37 AM
Anything over an extended distance will sag.
Super impractical experiment.

Well you might think that, I might think that too, however John Davis is quite convinced that the twine won't sag at all as far as I can see.

It would be quite interesting for someone (Gumwars said he was willing) to propose a properly specified experiment (e.g. type of twine/candle/sticks etc.) and a methodology to follow based on the little JD has explained and see if JD is willing to accept the chosen parameters and whatever results from the experiment.

I see two main problems, firstly, I doubt JD will be willing to unambiguously agree to anything proposed and secondly, there is a get-out clause in his original post:

If necessary, repeat this experiment a number of times and localities to rule out local variances skewing the results.

So how many times would the experiment have to be done to "rule out local variances" I wonder?
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Alpha2Omega on November 13, 2019, 01:07:31 PM
What you need is long strong line with the specific weight matching water.
Such line you should be able to stretch in water without sagging.
Then you can see if it dives in the middle as you pull it straight through the curve.

With the Earth radius of 6371 km, and with the string of 1 km,
the middle should dip for about 2 cm (0.00002 km).
At 2 km string you should have 8 cm (0.00008 km) dip.

Is there such line?

Dynema (Rab's suggestion) might match that. It has a density of 0.97 g/ml.
But as it is slightly less dense, it will curve up slightly due to buoyancy.

Of course, some people might complain that you can't use a candle under water.

That's a very clever idea!

The buoyancy of Dyneema would be equivalent to line with a density of 0.03 g/ml, so it would be equivalent to line with more or less the same strength, but weighing only 3% as much (unless Dyneema loses significant strength when wet).
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: JackBlack on November 13, 2019, 01:46:15 PM
The buoyancy of Dyneema would be equivalent to line with a density of 0.03 g/ml, so it would be equivalent to line with more or less the same strength, but weighing only 3% as much (unless Dyneema loses significant strength when wet).
Close. It would be equivalent to ~ -0.03 g/ml.
I wonder if any FEer would try to use this with the appropriate tension to keep it perfectly level and claim Earth is flat?

But that does also provide one key part:
If the region in the middle is lower than at the edges, then there is literally no way for a FE to explain it.
"Sag" in this case would be upwards.

It seems that at breaking point, over 1000 m, it would be higher by roughly 1.5 cm, while the curvature of Earth is roughly 2 cm.
That means it should still sag a big, but it would require 2.5 GPa.
Dropping it to 1 GPa would produce 3.7 cm upwards, meaning it would still go up.

So we need a heavier fibre.
Perhaps coat the fibre in something heavier than water to make it match water?
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on November 13, 2019, 02:58:46 PM
The buoyancy of Dyneema would be equivalent to line with a density of 0.03 g/ml, so it would be equivalent to line with more or less the same strength, but weighing only 3% as much (unless Dyneema loses significant strength when wet).
Close. It would be equivalent to ~ -0.03 g/ml.
I wonder if any FEer would try to use this with the appropriate tension to keep it perfectly level and claim Earth is flat?

But that does also provide one key part:
If the region in the middle is lower than at the edges, then there is literally no way for a FE to explain it.
"Sag" in this case would be upwards.

It seems that at breaking point, over 1000 m, it would be higher by roughly 1.5 cm, while the curvature of Earth is roughly 2 cm.
That means it should still sag a big, but it would require 2.5 GPa.
Dropping it to 1 GPa would produce 3.7 cm upwards, meaning it would still go up.

So we need a heavier fibre.
Perhaps coat the fibre in something heavier than water to make it match water?
But what happens if there is the slightest movement of the water? It all goes awry.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Timeisup on November 14, 2019, 02:27:36 AM
To anyone who has been involved in surveying on a professional basis, the idea of using lengths of string and candles to prove anything in regard to the topography of an area is just preposterous. The only thing it does prove is how divorced from reality the designer of this 'experiment' is.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: mak3m on November 14, 2019, 02:43:03 AM
To anyone who has been involved in surveying on a professional basis, the idea of using lengths of string and candles to prove anything in regard to the topography of an area is just preposterous. The only thing it does prove is how divorced from reality the designer of this 'experiment' is.

To be completley fair string is used quite a lot in surveying, but knowhere near the lengths suggested by the experiment.

Kerbs are set out with string prior to laying, and strings tangentially across kerbs are used to dip (calculate) the depths of bituminous materials required at 10m chainages
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Themightykabool on November 14, 2019, 05:01:31 AM
No
JohnD put out a compleyely assinine experiement - either forgetting that gravity exists or expecting it to not exist...

Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Crutchwater on November 14, 2019, 10:09:34 AM
No
JohnD put out a compleyely assinine experiement - either forgetting that gravity exists or expecting it to not exist...

...to the amazement of all who witnessed it!
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: markjo on November 14, 2019, 10:23:42 AM
No
JohnD put out a compleyely assinine experiement - either forgetting that gravity exists or expecting it to not exist...
Or, he's using an unobtanium twine that is infinitely strong and nearly weightless.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Macarios on November 14, 2019, 11:24:49 AM
So we need a heavier fibre.
Perhaps coat the fibre in something heavier than water to make it match water?

Dyneema / UHMWPE is 0.97
Nylon is 1.14

We can intertwine them in the desired proportion.
6D + 1N gives 0.9943, but then the used N can be slightly thicker for fine tuning.
Or the difference can still be kept to keep it floating until tense.

(Or we could skip Nylon and put series of rings on Dyneema with calculated spacing.)

But what happens if there is the slightest movement of the water? It all goes awry.

The experiment can be done on Bedford canal.

EDIT: It is 9.7 km long.

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/NAbRce.jpg)
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Themightykabool on November 14, 2019, 01:13:57 PM
In the winter with no refraction
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: rvlvr on November 15, 2019, 12:45:17 AM
But it has to be safe from moonlight and heaven energies.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: rabinoz on November 15, 2019, 02:16:18 AM
But it has to be safe from moonlight and heaven energies.
I've heard that enclosing the experiment in a Bismuth box might shield it from "heaven energies".
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: rvlvr on November 15, 2019, 02:18:57 AM
Yes, it might.
Title: Re: Revisiting the Candle Experiment
Post by: Timeisup on November 15, 2019, 02:44:56 AM
To anyone who has been involved in surveying on a professional basis, the idea of using lengths of string and candles to prove anything in regard to the topography of an area is just preposterous. The only thing it does prove is how divorced from reality the designer of this 'experiment' is.

To be completley fair string is used quite a lot in surveying, but knowhere near the lengths suggested by the experiment.

Kerbs are set out with string prior to laying, and strings tangentially across kerbs are used to dip (calculate) the depths of bituminous materials required at 10m chainages

If you are into home improvements and laying out a patio/kerb then sure using 20 meters of mason's twine would be a good way to go, along with some other basic leveling items. The 'Clown' who started off this particular mad caper was suggesting using a line over 400 meters long! That's in a totally different ballpark. If you turned up on-site to do some meaningful measurements witha ball of string 400 meters plus, you would be medicated then sent home for your own good.
I'm not sure who the instigator of this stupidity was but one thing is for certain he knows less than nothing about basic surveying. Having read a few of the other discussions on this site it looks like it could be medication for quite a few is required.