A simple and relatively inexpensive flat-earth/spherical Earth proof.
0 2017-10-11 by Tunderbar1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
Find a slow draining drainage ditch long enough. Minimum 5 miles. Or a lake with an island or a point that can be used for the center point.
Not hard to find. I have an 8 mile drainage ditch within an hours drive of my home town. And a huge lake that would also suffice not that much farther.
Get a high powered laser:
http://www.megalaseruk.com/laser01.htm
Not hard to find. 50 mile range for 135 USD. 70 mile range for 150 USD. 100 mile range for 195 USD.
Set up the laser on a solid tripod on one end of the ditch and point it at the target at the other end of the ditch. Find it's exact elevation in relation to the water level in the ditch.
Set up a large white target. Maybe a sheet of 4X8' plywood painted white. With an X marked at the exact same level relative to the water in the ditch as the laser.
Make sure the laser light hits the target at the exact same elevation as the laser. Measure the elevation in relation to the surface of the water. Intercept the laser light beam at the exact center point between the laser and the target. Measure it's elevation against the level of the water. The beam should be feet lower than the elevation of the laser and the target.
If you set up a middle marker measured to the exact same elevation as the laser, the marker should be a few feet above the laser beam.
If it doesn't meet the mathematical expectations, there may be something wrong with the spherical Earth model as it currently stands.
You can easily measure reasonable elevations with a simple laser and an accurate measuring stick"
http://www.ebay.com/bhp/construction-laser
Could be crowd-funded.
edit: downvotes? really? Must be close to the truth.
edit 2:
This is a very rough mock up showing that the laser will be well away from the waters surface. The refraction issue will be taken out of the equation.
53 comments
1 birdman5000 2017-10-11
yes. also the bedford thing has never really been accurately done. consider that it took 50+ years before a refutation of the work could be made - and this came in the form of the refraction argument. so to test this, one would need to make air density measurements along the length of the run to validate this "scientific explanation". nobody's done that.
we've not yet seen an experiment that demonstrates curvature using the refraction /bedford level experiment design. it's all "take my word for it".
1 Tunderbar1 2017-10-11
The equipment can be put well above the level of the water. Where refraction would be minimal. On the sides of the ditch. Not above the water.
1 ridestraight 2017-10-11
Jeran of Jeranisim on youtube is supposed to be doing this type of test sometime this month. He's found a long canal in California to do his Bedford test.
1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-10-11
Thats not true.
The guy who setup the bet was actually taken to court because a guy was able to show curvature.
He put floating discs on the water and used a telescope to show that the disc in the middle was higher than the ones at either end.
1 birdman5000 2017-10-11
find an experimental example of localized measurements of density along the route. there aren't any. thus the explanation of refraction has never been validated experimentally.
1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-10-11
I mean... You can test refraction right now with a cup of water.
What kind of test are you asking for?
1 birdman5000 2017-10-11
oh come on already. i'm not arguing whether refraction exists. i'm arguing that an experiment to validate refraction as the reason light travels farther than it should than curvature alone would predict has not been done.
1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-10-11
...Really? When was the last time you hit pubmed or other technical documents hosting sites?
https://www.asprs.org/wp-content/uploads/pers/1966journal/feb/1966_jan_76.pdf
http://www.if.pwr.wroc.pl/~optappl/pdf/2007/no3/optappl_3703p219.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/ytc/www/HLMA/report.pdf
Those took me like 5 minutes to find...
http://web.mit.edu/ytc/www/HLMA/Ref/1-s2.0-S0097849306001026-main.pdf
1 birdman5000 2017-10-11
way to misdirect. nobody's arguing whether refraction exists.
1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-10-11
I... I just gave you 4 sourced reviewed papers about how refraction works. What are you talking about?
So you acknowledge refraction exists but you dont think it affects light?
There is a disconnect between what you are saying and what you are trying to say.
Can you refine your thought a little more?
1 birdman5000 2017-10-11
there's no disconnect only you avoiding the argument. there are localized changes in air density. if you have an experiment using refraction over a long distance you'll have to account for those. that means you'll have to measure them. that's not been done in a bedford type experiment as proof of curvature. find one and prove me wrong.
1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-10-11
You literally said:
So you accept that refraction exists, so how do you not understand how it works?
Thats where Im having the issue following you..
So we know air density can affect how light travels, right? We agree here.
So if the earth is a globe then the air would follow this curve, right?
So if the air is curved over the surface and the density patterns are just right (many of these laser experiments are not reproducible over the course of the day, they only work at very specific times or atmospheric conditions) then the light would follow the curve of that refractive index, right?
This metabunk link does an adequate job of answering these questions.
https://www.metabunk.org/lake-balaton-laser-experiment-to-determine-the-curvature-of-the-earth-if-any.t7780/
You have all the info you need to figure this out.
1 birdman5000 2017-10-11
localized changes guy. you have to measure them. show me where that's been done over a long distance.
1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-10-11
What do those two sentences mean to you?
Localized changes... like with refraction as evidenced by the fact that you believe refraction to exist?
You have nothing to say to any of the other shit I brought up? No?
1 birdman5000 2017-10-11
thank god the record of this conv may live effectively forever. you could go down in history.
if you can't understand the experiment design issues i've stated then this conv is pointless and you'll just continue to serially misstate the problem referencing irrelevant points indefinitely. have fun with that.
1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-10-11
You are purposely obfuscating.
You know how refraction works so you should be able to apply that knowledge to how it would affect light.
1 birdman5000 2017-10-11
you're absurd. here's a thought experiment for you. you hang a cord for 5 miles from 2 poles. you want to validate that the cord hangs in a catenary curve. you can pick a couple of data points and say hey yes it fits the catenary. or you could pick more than a few data points and know with more validation.
now let's move to refraction over a distance and apply the same approach. the only difference is that refraction will have a cumulative effect on how the light travels. since you're dealing with a long distance, you're most likely dealing with a setup that's outdoors. that means the environment is different. that means there are local changes in temperature along the route where your test runs. and those local changes affect, like a narrative, the next portion of the run. so you have to measure that. step by step. that's how you'd validate it. if you don't do those local measurements you'll have no guarantee that that you've accounted for local variations in air density and thus refractive index. period.
no experiments have done this.
ergo no experiments with this design have validated refraction as the cause of whatever the observed results are. in fact, you could never validate this model without it. you could provide other predictors and models, sure. but we're talking about refraction here. and refraction isn't going away. if you had a hot spot somewhere in the line of sight of the experiment you'd have a skewed result. period. there's nothing to argue. that's just the reality.
now go ahead and find an experiment that has done this.
prove to me that local atmospheric conditions have been accounted for in an outdoors experiment ala bedford. go for it. i dare you.
that i had to explain this to you and you had a mental block in understanding this can be explained by 2 answers. 1. you have a cognition issue. 2. you're intentionally being ignorant.
kthx
1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-10-11
And here is your response:
I understand everything about what you just said but I refuse to believe it or entertain that experiment until you show me that exact experiment recreated.
I get it but you did say you were familiar with refraction then you refuse to accept that refraction is the mechanism as to which this works.
You see the issue, right?
Now thats absurd.
You are moving the goalposts. We know exactly how refraction works I GAVE YOU DOCUMENTS THAT SHOW YOU EXACTLY HOW THIS WORKS AND YOU IGNORE THEM.
Now you want the experiment to be done to your specs or you dont believe it?
That is absurd to the extreme and not at all scientific or applicable. You have to prove to me that what we are seeing is not a result of refraction, can you?
What? Seriously, are you trolling me?
Bedford was proved with floating discs. Look it up.
Put discs on the water, get telescope, look over water. Boom you will see the discs in the middle are higher than those at the ends.
Im not sure what triggered you so much but seriously get better educated on this subject.
1 birdman5000 2017-10-11
nobody's arguing that refraction is a phenomena. are you still misrepresenting my argument? i'm relying on it existing as a phenomena. the theory uses it to explain how you can see past what curvature alone would predict. that's the whole point.
you're arguing a theory to explain a theory. i'm arguing an experiment to validate a theory. your approach is a circle jerk. my approach is empirical. which is kinda the point of doing experiment.
and how do you know that there was no differences in air density over that run due to local density differences? you don't. you're conveniently ignoring that.
1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-10-11
You are literally arguing that. You are arguing that refraction cant explain this.
I dont get what the fuck youre saying.
So those papers I linked you to are what exactly? Made up nonsense? Bullshit?
Easy, calculate expected refraction see if it fits your model.
Or even easier
Run the test every hour for 24 hours.
1 birdman5000 2017-10-11
no i've already repeated myself on this several times. you have a cognition issue apparently.
agreed!
they're irrelevant. apples and oranges.
so you're using a model to validate a model. i'm proposing an actual experiment. do you understand the difference?
oh yeah that's scientific. just keep repeating the experiment and maybe we'll get the result we want. or...test the fucking model with experiment.
1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-10-11
This is dumb.
Try to take that question to a science sub or to anywhere else and proceed to get laughed out of the place.
If you dont understand the issues here I cant help you.
You need to read a bit more into this.
1 birdman5000 2017-10-11
shame absent an argument
more shame
and some more shame
and some more shame.
looks good on you. hey, just find me a bedford type experiment that measured local air density along the route so as to rule out localized density variation. thx!
1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-10-11
Lol
Get a second opinion I dont have the time or willpower to hold your hand through this.
Good luck!
1 birdman5000 2017-10-11
so in other words you actually have no rebuttal.
1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-10-11
I just dont have the motivation.
There is a difference.
Seriously go prompt this in a few other subs, preferably ones with a science slant and just see how well it goes.
You have clearly thought a lot about this so you might as well go have your genius verified.
Im out homie!
1 birdman5000 2017-10-11
you also don't have an actual argument. and you've failed to provide an example of a bedford experiment that measures what it's supposed to be measuring in order to validate the conclusion.
no genius agenda required. just straight up science which you have yet to provide.
1 Tunderbar1 2017-10-11
Yeah. You're trolling.
1 birdman5000 2017-10-11
oh you think this is trolling? hahahahahah! you ain't seen anything.
1 Tunderbar1 2017-10-11
You've seriously and badly conflated the concept of refraction to suit your argument.
Localized temperature differentials, especially prevalent over cooler water and/or hot pavement on a sunny day, can cause refraction. That just means that light might be redirected in some way from it's direction.
It doesn't mean that light will be caused to travel along and follow the curvature of the earth. That is ridiculous.
1 WadeWilsonforPope 2017-10-11
It means light will be redirected. Not might. I gave you plenty to dig through.
Why? We know that during certain times under certain conditions that we can see further than the horizon.
How would explain this phenomena?
1 Tunderbar1 2017-10-11
No shit.
Exactly. "during certain times under certain conditions". I don't care about the exceptions. The experiment is designed to minimize those.
Most times, under most conditions, when the line of sight is well away from the surface of water or a hot pavement, it isn't such a big concern and does not negate your ability to make a measurement.
And refraction does not equate to causing light to follow the curvature of the Earth. That is 100% grade A bullshit.
1 Tunderbar1 2017-10-11
/ ___ ______ __/ \ / \w_/ \
This is an attempt at illustrating the cross section of a drainage ditch. The "w" shows where the water is outside of flood season. the "o" shows where the equipment will go. That is the laser, the markers and the end target.
It will not be close to the waters surface. It will be well above. Something like 15 or 20 or more feet. And it can be raised even further using platforms.
The water is used as a reference only, to measure from, using a theodolite and a measuring rod.
The only refraction issues would be from air refraction from temperature differentials in the air above the roadway where the instruments are. But that should be minimal.
The whole purpose of this design is to get away from the waters surface and the resulting refraction. And rather than rely on the eye or optics to see long distances, the laser light will give a solid reference point to examine the entire length of the ditch.
The variance in the curvature of the Earth will be easily measured with a relatively small error factor, even including any refraction.
1 thesarl 2017-10-11
Downvotes because you think this needs proving one way or another.
Talk to a surveyor.
Hell, hire a surveyor to do this. It would cost less than $1000, probably more like $400.
1 Tunderbar1 2017-10-11
Ideally you hire several surveyors to check and verify each other's measurements.
If you were to build it into a permanent facility you could use it as a science tourism attraction. You can literally see the curvature of the Earth.
1 JoBloggs1 2017-10-11
Theodolites are designed to work from a flat stationary surface.
1 Tunderbar1 2017-10-11
Yeah. It's called a "tripod".
http://www.johnsonlevel.com/News/TheodolitesAllAboutTheodo
1 JoBloggs1 2017-10-11
A tripod on the stationary earth. Yeah sounds good to me.
1 Tunderbar1 2017-10-11
Seriously?
Relatively speaking, the Earth where the tripod will sit, is stationary. As will be the laser and tripod, the drainage ditch, the target, the measuring devices, etc.
Flesh out your argument for me. Let's see what other stupidity you can come up with. I'm intrigued.
1 JoBloggs1 2017-10-11
Prove to me that the earth is rotating.
1 Tunderbar1 2017-10-11
I've not made that claim. Why would I prove that?
1 JoBloggs1 2017-10-11
You're trying to figure out the argument right? I'm trying to show you that there is no empirical evidence supporting ball earth.
As for "Relatively speaking".. https://debunkingrelativity.com/special-relativity/
Theodolites are not meant to be used say from the back of a flatbed truck doing 60mph right?
That's what I'm on about. I can prove the earth is stationary, and I can prove it in a court of law.
Can you prove the spinning ball? Hmm?
1 Tunderbar1 2017-10-11
Why is this relevant in this thread?
I simply proposed one simple experiment measuring one data point.
1 JoBloggs1 2017-10-11
Flat Earth is already proven. Over and over again. We have hundreds of examples and proofs.
You don't even have one.
1 Tunderbar1 2017-10-11
I'm not trying to prove that the Earth is round. Dude. Relax.
1 schmickler83 2017-10-11
Jeranism is about to do exactly this test, along a 3 mile "drainage" type ditch, a laser, and several posts near the water along the way:
https://youtu.be/JImNabEzg4s
1 Tunderbar1 2017-10-11
From what I've seen of his stuff, he always seems to fall short of pulling anything definitive off.
Like 3 miles. Why not 5 or 8 or the max he can do. 3 miles will a tad short imho.
1 schmickler83 2017-10-11
3 miles is the length of the ditch, or whatever it is. If they were in England they could do it at Bedford, where the Bedford level experiment took place on 6 miles of still water. Anything more than a few miles and the laser beam starts to really spread out, making it more difficult, so shorter distances should actually be better.
No matter the length, they should be able to see a result of whether the water curves or not, even if a tiny, measurable amount.
1 Tunderbar1 2017-10-11
True.
And the thing is, with a laser, rather than eyeball and/or optics, the error factor will be small enough to not hinder the conclusions in any way.
1 justinxduff 2017-10-11
Jeranism is garbage lol
1 schmickler83 2017-10-11
Ad hominem bias? Lol
1 justinxduff 2017-10-11
Nah, he believes FE. He's scientifically ignorant.
1 schmickler83 2017-10-11
I have no interest in ad hominem bias, so I don't care about him personally one way or another, but his experiment is what science actually should be: testing and observing instead of merely defending textbook dogma and armchair science theories.