Has this been done? Or will it work?

Well, here are my 2 cents on this topic.

Obviously you cannot use any physical line as it would have mass and the center would dip into the water with the appearance of a convex surface whether or not there actually is a curvature to that surface.  We all agree that we need a mass-less way of measuring between 2 objects of significant distance on the water.

Lasers were suggested, but again you have the problem of calibration and aiming the laser consistently at the sensor.

This may sound a little old school, but line of sight works just as well as a laser beam but approaches this from the other angle.

Setting up the experiment is simple enough, and would be best to do from 2 islands that are ideally spaced to eliminate the discrepancies caused by the rise and fall of a ship on the waves... But a ship works too... you just have to keep the wave effect in mind that will change the height at which observations are made.

Take two ships of significant and (ideally uniform) size that they can be easily seen from a vast distance.

From the surface of the water and up one ship, hang brightly luminous lanterns at every 5-10 feet vertically.

Set watches on the second ship (or better yet from a tower on the shore of an island) such that eye level is at every 5-10 feet above the surface of the water. (telescopes and spyglasses and other magnifying devices are advisable for more accurate viewing at much greater distances)

Send the first boat away from the watch-point at a constant rate, and log for each watch point at what times you loose sight of each successive lower beacon of light until the top light is no longer visible.

For FET, all lights should disappear into the vanishing point while approaching the horizon uniformly and at approximately the same time.  They would appear to merge together first and there should not be a difference due to the different heights of the various viewpoints.

For RET, eventually the ship will rise to the top of the horizon and then appear to sink below the horizon on the other side, the lower viewpoints will lose sight of the lower beacons of light first and the higher viewpoints will lose sight of the same lights at a later time-frame.  As with FET, the lights will appear to approach each other, but with the aid of magnifying devices, you should see the incremental dropping of the lights from view sequentially from bottom to top and at different time intervals based on your different eye levels from your watch points.

I thought the whole point of using a line vs line of sight / laser was falsifiability for bendy light?

I thought the whole point of using a line vs line of sight / laser was falsifiability for bendy light?

How would using a laser provide falsifiability of bendy light over line of sight?

You would first have to show that the laser light is bending, at least some way of measuring the curvature of light due to Electromagnetic Acceleration (for the bendy light idea).  The proposed experiments have not been testing for that specifically, but instead have been assuming that the laser light will be straight and true.

Line of sight works much like laser light only in reverse, at least from a conceptual standpoint.

If you want falsifiability for bendy light, take your laser pointer up about 3000 miles and shine it downward at the perpendicular to the earth.  (or do some other relevant testing).  According to EAT/bendy light, the laser light should be visible at different angles at different positions around the surface, and appearing at different inclinations off the horizon.

If light bends, you should be able to see it bend if you observed a horizontally shone laser beam from a distance.  You should be able to see any curvature in the beam.

If light bends, you should be able to see it bend if you observed a horizontally shone laser beam from a distance.  You should be able to see any curvature in the beam.

If all light bends equally, then no, you wouldn't.  You would be comparing the light from the laser from the images you see that are brought to your sense of sight by reflected light.

You are comparing light against light, and in all likelihood, it would behave the same (light should behave like light).  You can't see a laser beam from the side unless you refract it or pass it through a semi-opaque environment (such as pass it through smoke or fog).

Quote from: Nolhekh on April 02, 2011, 11:20:00 AM

If light bends, you should be able to see it bend if you observed a horizontally shone laser beam from a distance.  You should be able to see any curvature in the beam.

If all light bends equally, then no, you wouldn't.  You would be comparing the light from the laser from the images you see that are brought to your sense of sight by reflected light.

You are comparing light against light, and in all likelihood, it would behave the same (light should behave like light).  You can't see a laser beam from the side unless you refract it or pass it through a semi-opaque environment (such as pass it through smoke or fog).

Green and blue lasers don't require a refracting medium.  They are visible from airborne dust, and a process called rayleigh scattering.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering

Quote from: Oracle on April 02, 2011, 11:35:05 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on April 02, 2011, 11:20:00 AM

If light bends, you should be able to see it bend if you observed a horizontally shone laser beam from a distance.  You should be able to see any curvature in the beam.

If all light bends equally, then no, you wouldn't.  You would be comparing the light from the laser from the images you see that are brought to your sense of sight by reflected light.

You are comparing light against light, and in all likelihood, it would behave the same (light should behave like light).  You can't see a laser beam from the side unless you refract it or pass it through a semi-opaque environment (such as pass it through smoke or fog).

Green and blue lasers don't require a refracting medium.  They are visible from airborne dust, and a process called rayleigh scattering.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering

Then you should be able to shine a level laser over, say a 10 mile stretch, observe it from a point 5 miles away at a perpendicular to the center point of the beam and at eye-level with that beam, and test for noticeable upward curvature against a straightedge.

Quote from: Nolhekh on April 02, 2011, 11:43:58 AM

Quote from: Oracle on April 02, 2011, 11:35:05 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on April 02, 2011, 11:20:00 AM

If light bends, you should be able to see it bend if you observed a horizontally shone laser beam from a distance.  You should be able to see any curvature in the beam.

If all light bends equally, then no, you wouldn't.  You would be comparing the light from the laser from the images you see that are brought to your sense of sight by reflected light.

You are comparing light against light, and in all likelihood, it would behave the same (light should behave like light).  You can't see a laser beam from the side unless you refract it or pass it through a semi-opaque environment (such as pass it through smoke or fog).

Green and blue lasers don't require a refracting medium.  They are visible from airborne dust, and a process called rayleigh scattering.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering

Then you should be able to shine a level laser over, say a 10 mile stretch, observe it from a point 5 miles away at a perpendicular to the center point of the beam and at eye-level with that beam, and test for noticeable upward curvature against a straightedge.

that's more or less what I'm trying to get at.

Quote from: Oracle on April 02, 2011, 12:14:14 PM

Quote from: Nolhekh on April 02, 2011, 11:43:58 AM

Quote from: Oracle on April 02, 2011, 11:35:05 AM

Quote from: Nolhekh on April 02, 2011, 11:20:00 AM

If light bends, you should be able to see it bend if you observed a horizontally shone laser beam from a distance.  You should be able to see any curvature in the beam.

If all light bends equally, then no, you wouldn't.  You would be comparing the light from the laser from the images you see that are brought to your sense of sight by reflected light.

You are comparing light against light, and in all likelihood, it would behave the same (light should behave like light).  You can't see a laser beam from the side unless you refract it or pass it through a semi-opaque environment (such as pass it through smoke or fog).

Green and blue lasers don't require a refracting medium.  They are visible from airborne dust, and a process called rayleigh scattering.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering

Then you should be able to shine a level laser over, say a 10 mile stretch, observe it from a point 5 miles away at a perpendicular to the center point of the beam and at eye-level with that beam, and test for noticeable upward curvature against a straightedge.

that's more or less what I'm trying to get at.

You would have to insure that the beam is both level and at eye-level at the center point tot the tangential of observation, although this should pose no problem on a FE model where EAT does not work, it could be difficult to do if the earth did happen to turn out to be globular or EAT does in fact exist.  Some careful calibration will have to be taken into consideration. 

If either EAT or a globular earth exists, you might see the endpoints of the beam being angled relative to the surface and both higher than the midpoint above sea level.  But comparison with a straightedge off to the side should be able to tell you whether or not there is a noticeable upward curvature to the beam itself (supporting EAT), or if it is either flat or a slight downward curvature (supporting a concave surface, or a globular model).

If the beam does not noticeably bend at all, on a FE model, one could expect the beam to be level with the earth at all points along the 10 mile stretch as well as at the exact same altitude above sea-level across the entirety of the beam itself.  Not conclusive of a FE, but does provide corroborating evidence against a RE with the known accepted measurements in the currently popularly accepted RE model.