Ultimate and easyily doable EA experiment.

2 mirrors, 1 laser, one pinhole. 

Mount inside cylinder as shown, construction must be totally ridged.  I've depicted it inside a cylinder as that would make it easier to rotate the apparatus and ensure ridgidity.  When the light is traveling in upwards and downwards direction, net effect of EA will be zero, as every deflection on an upwards path will be countered by an opposite deflection on a downwards path. 

The light reflects between the mirrors and is aimed to pass through a pinhole to a detector of some sort (this could just be a screen)

When Apparatus is tilted so light is traveling close to horizontal, upwards deflection will alter its path to proceed upwards at a faster rate than in the horizontal alignment and so the beam will be high of the pinhole.


On real earth of course, the light would travel a straight path in both instances. 


Figure 1 horizontal alignment, light passes through hole
Figure 2  The expected result with straight light
Figure 3  Exaggerated diagram of deflection from the straight path expected with EA. 

You are correct, this would demonstrate it.  I wish I was at a place where I could do that.  Oh the lack of a laser pointer.

This does look promising.

I have another one that is directly analogous to the sinking ship experiment.  It is infact even easier to do, it doesn't require any robust construction either.  It's a bit harder to do a diagram of tho.  I'll post detail later.

Any progress on this? I dont want to see this thread disappear. I would like to see the experiment done.

Kind of my idea in the thread about the wire and the trees.. Although its dangerous proposing someting, then you have to go out and actually perform the expirement. So, just do it(tm)!

I dont think this one is doable though, not with hobby equipment and layman knowledge. The errors would be to great because the bending is quite modest compared to the scale of the apparatus.

Maybe this one could be simplified even further though?

Here's a shit diagram of an alternate set up.  It's a top view.  using 2metre full length mirrors, 1 metre apart, if you have a reflection every 1cm thats 200 reflections >200m, every 5mm, thats 400 >400m.

The mirrors can be aligned during operation, and it's stationary so no need to worry about misalingning due to movement.

The blue line is a piece of graph paper, the grey square is a flat surface teh laser is just above, a negative result would be unabiguous, if the lowest spot possible for the laser to hit is the same after 400 reflections is the same as with no reflections then thier is no EA.  if however it can't hit the same spot, then either there is an EA or the equipment in not well enough aligned. 

In the other experiment, there is ambiguity both ways, as there is the posibilty of the mirrors shifting when it is moved. With this tho, a negative result would be conclusive. 


in the side view the red line is the laser with no EA and the green is it with an EA. 


for a mirror 1m apart

100 reflections give 1mm deflection.
300 reflections is 5mm
400 reflections is 1cm
500 reflections is 2cm

of course the more reflections the more accurate it needs to be to get the result. 

Or

Take two mirrors. Bounce a laser between them, and while the lasers on, adjust one mirror so the laser bounces back and forth in one place. Then, measure the distance between the edges of the mirrors to see if they are aligned or not. That could also be measured with laser, even if its bent its bent equal at both edges.

Basically the same but from the other way around.. Less error?

Sounds good.
Make sure you get a sufficiently powerful laser.


You will still find the FEs won't post their concrete opinions on the experiment. Just like the sinking ship one I did. I asked for input for more than a month and they didn't speak up in order to leave themselves room to wriggle.
Post the proof and prepare for more magical physics

2 mirrors, 1 laser, one pinhole. 

Mount inside cylinder as shown, construction must be totally ridged.  I've depicted it inside a cylinder as that would make it easier to rotate the apparatus and ensure ridgidity.  When the light is traveling in upwards and downwards direction, net effect of EA will be zero, as every deflection on an upwards path will be countered by an opposite deflection on a downwards path. 

The light reflects between the mirrors and is aimed to pass through a pinhole to a detector of some sort (this could just be a screen)

When Apparatus is tilted so light is traveling close to horizontal, upwards deflection will alter its path to proceed upwards at a faster rate than in the horizontal alignment and so the beam will be high of the pinhole.


On real earth of course, the light would travel a straight path in both instances. 


Figure 1 horizontal alignment, light passes through hole
Figure 2  The expected result with straight light
Figure 3  Exaggerated diagram of deflection from the straight path expected with EA. 

Gravitation affects light exactly as acceleration does. Sorry. It wouldn't work.

So light follows a straight line?

Light follows a completely straight line.

I can't believe noone has spotted the flaw in the second experiment.  I realised it a few minuites after posting it. 

Or maybe they are saving it up till later. 

Raist clearly has fucking no clue what the purpose of the experiment is. 

I can't believe noone has spotted the flaw in the second experiment.  I realised it a few minuites after posting it. 

Or maybe they are saving it up till later. 

Raist clearly has fucking no clue what the purpose of the experiment is. 

acceleration and gravitation are locally indistinguishable.

 ok, what is the point of the experiment? How am i completely unaware of what I am talking about?

ok, what is the point of the experiment? How am i completely unaware of what I am talking about?

Protip: EA is not the same thing as UA.

Makes the walls tiles.

You will still find the FEs won't post their concrete opinions on the experiment. Just like the sinking ship one I did. I asked for input for more than a month and they didn't speak up in order to leave themselves room to wriggle.
Post the proof and prepare for more magical physics

That's because us FEers see the obvious flaws in your amateurish experiments.

This one won't work because of Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. Remember that under relativity objects contract in the direction of motion. You have to be very careful with any experiment that involves light, because you're wandering into relativity land and intuitive Newtonian concepts just don't hold any more. Look up the Michelson-Morley experiment back in the 1800s if you don't believe me.

There is no experiment that can prove bendy light, because of course the light we see is bent, and our eye perceives it to be straight. Thus we cannot measure the deviation of light, thus the fact the you see a straight line proves that light bends.

Simple Experiments that prove Earth is Flat:

If you really want proof, you are welcome to do the following:

      Step 1. Look outside your window

      Step 2. Read the FAQ

      Step 3. Read the book "Earth Not a Globe" by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham

      Step 4. Read the book "One hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe" by William Carpenter

      Step 5. Read the back-issues of Flat Earth News Quarterly

      Step 6. Read the book "Flatland" by Edwin A. Abbott

      Step 7. Read The book "The terrestrial plane" by Frederick H. Cook

      Step 8. Read the book "Universal gravitation a universal fake" by Charles S. DeFord

      Step 9. Read the book "Does the earth rotate?" by William Edgell

      Step 10. Read the book "Earth not a globe: scientifically, geometrically, philosophically demonstrated" by Henry J. Goudey

      Step 11. Read the book "The book of light" by Gilbert Johnson

      Step 12. Read the book "Unpopular truth against popular error in reference to the shape of the earth." by Charles W. Morse

      Step 13. Read the book "A challenge from the earth-flattening society" by Richard A. Proctor

      Step 14. Read the book "The Earth: A Plane" by John E. Quinlan

      Step 15. Read the book "He knew earth is round, but his proof fell flat" by Robert J Schadewald

      Step 16. Read the book "The view from the edge; on the necessity of the flat earth" by John P. Sisk

      Step 17. Read the book "Is the earth a whirling globe?" by Carl Albert Smith

      Step 18. Read the book "Answers to the common 'proofs' that the earth is a globe" by Chester M. Shippey

      Step 19. Read the book "In defense of the square peg." by Irving Wallace

      Step 20. Read the book "The shape of the earth; some proofs for the spherical shape of the earth given in astronomical and geographical text-books examined, and shown to be unsound" by Arthur V. White

      Step 21. Read the book "The Flat Earth and her moulder" by Ossipoff H. Woofson

      Step 22. Come to the conclusion of a Flat Earth

Step 1. Look outside your window

Repeat this quote out loud, and hear how stupid you actually sound.

Simple Experiments that prove Earth is Flat:

If you really want proof, you are welcome to do the following:

      Step 1. Look outside your window

      Step 2. Read the FAQ

      Step 3. Read the book "Earth Not a Globe" by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham

      Step 4. Read the book "One hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe" by William Carpenter

      Step 5. Read the back-issues of Flat Earth News Quarterly

      Step 6. Read the book "Flatland" by Edwin A. Abbott

      Step 7. Read The book "The terrestrial plane" by Frederick H. Cook

      Step 8. Read the book "Universal gravitation a universal fake" by Charles S. DeFord

      Step 9. Read the book "Does the earth rotate?" by William Edgell

      Step 10. Read the book "Earth not a globe: scientifically, geometrically, philosophically demonstrated" by Henry J. Goudey

      Step 11. Read the book "The book of light" by Gilbert Johnson

      Step 12. Read the book "Unpopular truth against popular error in reference to the shape of the earth." by Charles W. Morse

      Step 13. Read the book "A challenge from the earth-flattening society" by Richard A. Proctor

      Step 14. Read the book "The Earth: A Plane" by John E. Quinlan

      Step 15. Read the book "He knew earth is round, but his proof fell flat" by Robert J Schadewald

      Step 16. Read the book "The view from the edge; on the necessity of the flat earth" by John P. Sisk

      Step 17. Read the book "Is the earth a whirling globe?" by Carl Albert Smith

      Step 18. Read the book "Answers to the common 'proofs' that the earth is a globe" by Chester M. Shippey

      Step 19. Read the book "In defense of the square peg." by Irving Wallace

      Step 20. Read the book "The shape of the earth; some proofs for the spherical shape of the earth given in astronomical and geographical text-books examined, and shown to be unsound" by Arthur V. White

      Step 21. Read the book "The Flat Earth and her moulder" by Ossipoff H. Woofson

      Step 22. Come to the conclusion of a Flat Earth

Step 23. Don't be skeptic, swallow everything and don't ask for further responses.

Quote

Step 1. Look outside your window

Repeat this quote out loud, and hear how stupid you actually sound.

Sadly I looked out of my window and saw a curved earth, but I think this says more about me living at the top of a hill, than the earth being round.

Sadly I looked out of my window and saw a curved earth, but I think this says more about me living at the top of a hill, than the earth being round.

This is quite funny. I live on top of a hill too, and since I have always looked out of my window and saw it curved, I have deduced that the earth must have been a sphere!!

Quote

Sadly I looked out of my window and saw a curved earth, but I think this says more about me living at the top of a hill, than the earth being round.

This is quite funny. I live on top of a hill too, and since I have always looked out of my window and saw it curved, I have deduced that the earth must have been a sphere!!

Hills were installed by the government as part of the conspiracy to perpetuate the Round Earth Myth. Prior to NASA hills did not exist.

Hills were installed by the government as part of the conspiracy to perpetuate the Round Earth Myth. Prior to NASA hills did not exist.

Oh Obviously, silly me!

Btw, what happens to shuttle after they lift off? Do they land anywhere (since orbiting is not possible) --This is a serious question--

Quote from: dyno on September 01, 2008, 05:32:00 PM

You will still find the FEs won't post their concrete opinions on the experiment. Just like the sinking ship one I did. I asked for input for more than a month and they didn't speak up in order to leave themselves room to wriggle.
Post the proof and prepare for more magical physics

That's because us FEers see the obvious flaws in your amateurish experiments.

This one won't work because of Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. Remember that under relativity objects contract in the direction of motion. You have to be very careful with any experiment that involves light, because you're wandering into relativity land and intuitive Newtonian concepts just don't hold any more. Look up the Michelson-Morley experiment back in the 1800s if you don't believe me.

I just don't get this post at all.  Are you saying that it can't detect EA because it's proved EA doesn't exist?  

Fine by me, RE already won, saved me the effort.

That's because us FEers see the obvious flaws in your amateurish experiments.

So you cant reflect a laser 10 times and then make it go through a hole because things which move at close to c speeds look dimensionaly warped? O_o

And what has the effect of light traveling with a constant speed in all directions no matter how fast you are moving to do with it?



Mind to elaborate? This is getting really scary...

Wow nice experiment... good job.

Quote from: zeroply on September 03, 2008, 01:45:30 PM

Quote from: dyno on September 01, 2008, 05:32:00 PM

You will still find the FEs won't post their concrete opinions on the experiment. Just like the sinking ship one I did. I asked for input for more than a month and they didn't speak up in order to leave themselves room to wriggle.
Post the proof and prepare for more magical physics

That's because us FEers see the obvious flaws in your amateurish experiments.

This one won't work because of Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction. Remember that under relativity objects contract in the direction of motion. You have to be very careful with any experiment that involves light, because you're wandering into relativity land and intuitive Newtonian concepts just don't hold any more. Look up the Michelson-Morley experiment back in the 1800s if you don't believe me.

I just don't get this post at all.  Are you saying that it can't detect EA because it's proved EA doesn't exist?  

Fine by me, RE already won, saved me the effort.

You are assuming that your cylinder doesn't change shape when you rotate it. But in reality if there is any motion, which there would be under RE theory, the object will contract in the direction of the movement. So the distance the light travels will actually be less in one case than the other.

Obviously it's a very tiny change, but when you're dealing with measuring things using light, it makes a difference.

If you look up the Michelson-Morley experiment, you will see how they got unexpected results because they didn't know about relativity. What you are proposing is to some extent just a variant of that experiment. They were expecting light to travel at different speeds in perpendicular directions (due to Earth's movement through the aether).

I haven't worked it through, but I suspect that if you actually ran this experiment it would corroborate the FE theory, not RE. I will defer to the physics geeks on that.

If you look up the Michelson-Morley experiment, you will see how they got unexpected results because they didn't know about relativity. What you are proposing is to some extent just a variant of that experiment. They were expecting light to travel at different speeds in perpendicular directions (due to Earth's movement through the aether).

I haven't worked it through, but I suspect that if you actually ran this experiment it would corroborate the FE theory, not RE. I will defer to the physics geeks on that.

I haven't seen anything in Michelson-Morley, or any of the follow up experiments, that has suggested that light bends to the degree that is required by FE theory or the theory of electromagnetic acceleration (EA).  If light bent in the manner that they suggest it would be easily observable with the Michelson-Morley apparatus, or some derivative.