Light Refraction in the Bedford Level Experiment

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. 


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.

Quote from: Tausami on January 31, 2013, 10:22:20 AM

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.

Quote from: JackASCII on January 30, 2013, 02:31:19 PM

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.

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.

Quote from: JackASCII on January 30, 2013, 02:10:31 PM

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

Pictures of the experiment and its results

Here is Daniel's thread about his experiment but I'm unable to find any further information.

If anyone else has any other links to previous experiments let me know.