Measure the curvature of the earth without leaving the ground

Ok...Ice isn't exactly ground but you can circumvent the Conspiracy by perfomring this simple experiment yourself...

102. Practical Applications, Measuring the Curvature of the Earth - Set the laser on a tripod a short distance above the ice on a large frozen lake. Collimate and aim the beam horizontally over the ice with the aid of an accurate bubble level. Several kilometers away set up a telescope to intercept the laser beam. Because of the curvature of the earth, the height of the telescope above the ice will be greater than that of the laser. By measuring the difference in height between the laser and the telescope, the size of the earth can be calculated. If there is no ice, try it using boats on a day when the water is mirror calm.

From:  101 Laser Experiments

Seems simple enough, and could be done so as to preclude any hanky-panky from "them".  How would an FE'er explain the resultant data confirming a globular earth?

Thanks - Jer.

Ok...Ice isn't exactly ground but you can circumvent the Conspiracy by perfomring this simple experiment yourself...

Quote

102. Practical Applications, Measuring the Curvature of the Earth - Set the laser on a tripod a short distance above the ice on a large frozen lake. Collimate and aim the beam horizontally over the ice with the aid of an accurate bubble level. Several kilometers away set up a telescope to intercept the laser beam. Because of the curvature of the earth, the height of the telescope above the ice will be greater than that of the laser. By measuring the difference in height between the laser and the telescope, the size of the earth can be calculated. If there is no ice, try it using boats on a day when the water is mirror calm.

From:  101 Laser Experiments

Seems simple enough, and could be done so as to preclude any hanky-panky from "them".  How would an FE'er explain the resultant data confirming a globular earth?

Thanks - Jer.

Q. How would an FE'r explain the result data... globular Earth... ?
A. They would say: a) Fake, no pics no pr00f. b) I don't believe your data/pics, they are fake. c) You're hired by The Conspiracy. And my favorite: d) The experiment is flawed, look up "x".

Q. How would an FE'r explain the result data... globular Earth... ?
A. They would say: a) Fake, no pics no pr00f. b) I don't believe your data/pics, they are fake. c) You're hired by The Conspiracy. And my favorite: d) The experiment is flawed, look up "x".

That's why I suggested they perfom the experiment themselves.....and if the expreriment is flawed, I'd like to hear how/why.  Thanks

bendy light, etc.

bendy light, etc.

I thought the theory was still in development?

Quote from: bridget on June 30, 2009, 05:57:32 PM

bendy light, etc.

I thought the theory was still in development?

It is. Indeed, the results of such an experiment may help to develop it.

Quote from: cdenley on June 30, 2009, 09:02:07 PM

Quote from: bridget on June 30, 2009, 05:57:32 PM

bendy light, etc.

I thought the theory was still in development?

It is. Indeed, the results of such an experiment may help to develop it.

Robosteve and Bridget - the bendy light theory would still explain it, even a laser at a relatively short distance of "a few kilometers"?

Quote from: cdenley on June 30, 2009, 09:02:07 PM

Quote from: bridget on June 30, 2009, 05:57:32 PM

bendy light, etc.

I thought the theory was still in development?

It is. Indeed, the results of such an experiment may help to develop it.

I think I read that you see the light bending in a secant curve. The actual shape of the curve will be easily identifiable with this experiment I think by taking accurate height measurements at regular intervals along the laser beam and plotting them on a graph.

I don't think you need ice to do the experiment. There is a 6 mile stretch of canal in England that would be ideal for such an experiment which is quite close to Cambridge, where there is a university I understand. I'm sure a letter to the University asking for help in doing this experiment would be favourably received. All it needs is for some of the bendy light proponents to be available to ensure that the experiment is conducted accurately.

The Open University may also be interested, they are not so far away either, being based in Milton Keynes. Of course it would be better if you could do the experiment yourself Robosteve but perhaps you don't have the facilities available.

There is a damn good uni in Cambridge!  But, there'd be no point writing any time soon, as summer holidays have come around, so there'll be no students there until october.  If you managed to get hold of some physics/maths students I'm sure you could get someone to help.
I've got a couple of mates in cambridge uni, but none too physicsy or mathsy.

Well this kind of experiment has already been repeatedly performed by zetetic scientists over the last 150 years and has been a mainstay of Flat Earth evidence. The fact that you're proposing it shows how ill-read you are on our movement's history and many of our key claims.

As an aside: it is my view that nobody needs to take this absurd "bendly light" notion seriously, it has been invented by devil's advocates and is completely surplus to requirement, it does not any better explain observable evidence than the existing alternatives as far as I can see.

As an aside: it is my view that nobody needs to take this absurd "bendly light" notion seriously, it has been invented by devil's advocates and is completely surplus to requirement, it does not any better explain observable evidence than the existing alternatives as far as I can see.

Sunsets, disappearing ships, and the curved appearance of the Earth from far above are all evidence for electromagnetic acceleration.

I'll let you argue this one out yourselves.

bendy light, etc.

May as well claim magic.
None of your 'theories' are anything than other over blown illogical hypothesis that Occam's Razor utterly destroys.

Robosteve and Bridget - the bendy light theory would still explain it, even a laser at a relatively short distance of "a few kilometers"?

Yes. EA theory predicts that a curvature of electromagnetic radiation is clearly observable in any case where the expected deviation from a straight line is greater than one wavelength of the ray in question.

I think I read that you see the light bending in a secant curve. The actual shape of the curve will be easily identifiable with this experiment I think by taking accurate height measurements at regular intervals along the laser beam and plotting them on a graph.

No, a secant curve is the shape formed by projecting the RE model with a straight light ray onto a Flat Earth. This was the beginning of my thinking regarding EA theory. However, I don't think it is fair to assume a secant curve just because it agrees with RET. I am still keen on investigating the possibility of a parabolic curve.

Well this kind of experiment has already been repeatedly performed by zetetic scientists over the last 150 years and has been a mainstay of Flat Earth evidence. The fact that you're proposing it shows how ill-read you are on our movement's history and many of our key claims.

It hasn't been performed to provide evidence for 'bendy light' though has it? Or has it?

It is. Indeed, the results of such an experiment may help to develop it.

You don't need experiments to invent your hypothesis. All you need to do is to explain how the known curvature of the earth can actually be an illusion. Then, to support your hypothesis, you need experiments which show the observed curvature is indeed an illusion, not just what the observed curvature is or that it is observable.

You don't need experiments to invent your theory.

Yes I do. Theory is useless without data.

Quote from: cdenley on July 01, 2009, 08:47:43 AM

You don't need experiments to invent your theory.

Yes I do. Theory is useless without data.

You already have data: the known curvature of the earth. I just noticed that I misused the word "theory", though, so I'll fix it.

You already have data: the known curvature of the earth.

I'm not going to rely on secondary data which may have been tampered with by the Conspiracy.

Quote from: cdenley on July 01, 2009, 08:50:29 AM

You already have data: the known curvature of the earth.

I'm not going to rely on secondary data which may have been tampered with by the Conspiracy.

Fair enough. Confirm the observed curvature of the earth.

Fair enough. Confirm the observed curvature of the earth.

If I'm going to be making my own measurements, I may as well measure the curvature of light directly.

Well this kind of experiment has already been repeatedly performed by zetetic scientists over the last 150 years and has been a mainstay of Flat Earth evidence. The fact that you're proposing it shows how ill-read you are on our movement's history and many of our key claims.

Hi Dogplatter - I admit, aside from this forum, I have done only a little reading about FE theory - mostly wiki.  That said, even if I had I would probably still ask the question to find out how long-time FE'ers interperet the data, and if any have done the experiment themselves.  Thanks to anyone who would be willing to enlighten me as to the FE findings for this type of experiment.

Quote from: cdenley on July 01, 2009, 08:50:29 AM

You already have data: the known curvature of the earth.

I'm not going to rely on secondary data which may have been tampered with by the Conspiracy.

Then get some data yourself, otherwise you are nothing more than a paranoid skeptic. If science says something is right, you have to show how it isn't.

Hmm measuring the curvature of the earth? Cartography has a wonderful example of this. Globes are the only accurate cartographic representations of the earth, whenever they go flat to make easy to read maps they need to distort some parts of the earth (usually greenland).

Quote from: Robosteve on July 01, 2009, 08:51:31 AM

Quote from: cdenley on July 01, 2009, 08:50:29 AM

You already have data: the known curvature of the earth.

I'm not going to rely on secondary data which may have been tampered with by the Conspiracy.

If science says something is right, you have to show how it isn't.

 That sounds a lot like an appeal to popular belief.

Quote from: Whoa Brah on July 01, 2009, 02:57:44 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on July 01, 2009, 08:51:31 AM

Quote from: cdenley on July 01, 2009, 08:50:29 AM

You already have data: the known curvature of the earth.

I'm not going to rely on secondary data which may have been tampered with by the Conspiracy.

If science says something is right, you have to show how it isn't.

 That sounds a lot like an appeal to popular belief.

It's an appeal to ideas that work.
When the facts show us that an idea is favored then that becomes the predominant idea until supplanted by an idea that better accounts for the facts of nature.

Well this kind of experiment has already been repeatedly performed by zetetic scientists over the last 150 years and has been a mainstay of Flat Earth evidence. The fact that you're proposing it shows how ill-read you are on our movement's history and many of our key claims.

As an aside: it is my view that nobody needs to take this absurd "bendly light" notion seriously, it has been invented by devil's advocates and is completely surplus to requirement, it does not any better explain observable evidence than the existing alternatives as far as I can see.

EA theory is a necessary successor to Rowbotham's theories.  Through a simple geometric calculation and knowledge of refractive properties of air, Rowbotham's perspective model is inadequate to explain sunsets.  Something to bend light beyond what refraction can do is necessary.  This is the justification for EA theory.  That it also explains the sinking ship effect and the spotlight effect is secondary. It also seems more likely to succumb to mathematical formalism, rather than Rowbotham's rather contrived perspective laws.

Quote from: Whoa Brah on July 01, 2009, 02:57:44 PM

Quote from: Robosteve on July 01, 2009, 08:51:31 AM

Quote from: cdenley on July 01, 2009, 08:50:29 AM

You already have data: the known curvature of the earth.

I'm not going to rely on secondary data which may have been tampered with by the Conspiracy.

If science says something is right, you have to show how it isn't.

 That sounds a lot like an appeal to popular belief.

No, it's called proving a theory. If science says the earth is round, while providing evidence for it, you would have to show how 1)the earth is flat, and 2)how all the evidence for a round earth is either false or misinterpreted.
That is called science.

The Open University may also be interested, they are not so far away either, being based in Milton Keynes. Of course it would be better if you could do the experiment yourself Robosteve but perhaps you don't have the facilities available.

Sorry, can't resist to mention. I guess he may have some resources and people with expertise as he is physics student at the University of Sydney. But he refuses to use them and ask his professors about FE, EA and UA theories. I guess they fail him in physics when he does that.

Quote from: Squat on June 30, 2009, 11:49:46 PM

The Open University may also be interested, they are not so far away either, being based in Milton Keynes. Of course it would be better if you could do the experiment yourself Robosteve but perhaps you don't have the facilities available.

Sorry, can't resist to mention. I guess he may have some resources and people with expertise as he is physics student at the University of Sydney. But he refuses to use them and ask his professors about FE, EA and UA theories. I guess they fail him in physics when he does that.

Ah, I meant that Milton Keynes is not too far away from the 6 mile straight canal in Bedfordshire.

Then get some data yourself, otherwise you are nothing more than a paranoid skeptic. If science says something is right, you have to show how it isn't.

Science doesn't "say" anything is right. It only makes predictions which may be tested in order to discredit or add plausibility to a hypothesis.