General Forum

General Forum

  1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52781
    19 Jul '16 15:151 edit
    This is a Sonhouse test I just devised:

    You could dig a trench say 20 km long and have a laser shine a light on the edge of the cutter to make a straight as an arrow cut but there is an easier way:

    Go to some big lake, on a day with little wind, flat surface, put a waterproof laser capable of being detected at 20 km distance underwater.

    Shine the laser in a straight line as best you can, say one inch under water. Then go 20 km away down the path of the laser, it should be seen 1 inch under water.

    Now go to the center of the path, 10 km from the laser, put a detector down till you run into the laser beam. It should be 2.54 meters or 8 feet 4 inches underwater at that point.

    Earth is curved not flat.

    This test can be done with a small boat, a strong laser and a couple of laser beam detectors. No drilling machines required, very simple test. This should refute ALL the flat Earth conspiracies.
  2. SubscriberPonderable
    chemist
    Linkenheim
    Joined
    22 Apr '05
    Moves
    526294
    19 Jul '16 15:20
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    This is a Sonhouse test I just devised:

    You could dig a trench say 20 km long and have a laser shine a light on the edge of the cutter to make a straight as an arrow cut but there is an easier way:

    Go to some big lake, on a day with little wind, flat surface, put a waterproof laser capable of being detected at 20 km distance underwater.

    Shine the ...[text shortened]... rilling machines required, very simple test. This should refute ALL the flat Earth conspiracies.
    Nice work, sonhouse.

    You probably won't habe a lake which is flat enough for this Kind of measurement. And you Need a quite strong laser for 20km water. Why not taking the air above the lake which is much more transparent.
    If you take two People one adjusting the laer and one adjusting the detctor. Built the laser Level on the ground and look at what heights the detector finds the laser beam. (first result) then adjust the angle of the laser to go "down"😉 in direction ofthe mounting Position of the laser) until it vanishes, which should happen earlier than the height of the Intsllation due to the Point you described earlier.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52781
    19 Jul '16 15:232 edits
    Originally posted by Ponderable
    Nice work, sonhouse.

    You probably won't habe a lake which is flat enough for this Kind of measurement. And you Need a quite strong laser for 20km water. Why not taking the air above the lake which is much more transparent.
    If you take two People one adjusting the laer and one adjusting the detctor. Built the laser Level on the ground and look at what ...[text shortened]... should happen earlier than the height of the Intsllation due to the Point you described earlier.
    I thought about that but there is a problem with that kind of measurement:

    Atmospheric refractions can bend the laser beam from a perfectly straight path so that is a variable.

    I put the laser underwater to eliminate atmosheric refractions. Of course underwater can do its own refractions so that would have to be taken into account but I think it might be less refractive than atmospheric refractions, if the temperature of the water is about the same at the surface and at 10 feet down.

    From some sources it looks like the best bet would be a blue or ultraviolet laser. Maybe you would be limited to 2 km, if so the depth at 1 km would be about 10 inches.

    So it all boils down to how far can a laser light be detected underwater. Note that does not have to be visible, only to be able to have a detector that can show the presence of the beam where the peak intensity is.

    Dr. Jones from the US Naval research lab is doing that kind of work. Unfortunately they only get a beam to go 20 meters at this point in time, not sure what wavelength the laser is or the power, he says 'smaller than a desk' so they must be using a very high power laser, like those used for metal working, about 1 kw.

    If so, my whole scheme falls apart. 20 meters would go off a straight path by only 1/10th of an inch, probably not measurable in the real world.

    Oh well. Back to the drawing board.

    If we could focus sound waves well enough it could be done with sonar but sonar as it stands causes a pretty much spherical wavefront, not very useful for this experiment.

    It can be focussed though.

    So maybe the on top of the water is more feasable if you can eliminate atmospheric refractions and diffractions.
  4. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    19 Jul '16 15:33
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I thought about that but there is a problem with that kind of measurement:

    Atmospheric refractions can bend the laser beam from a perfectly straight path so that is a variable.

    I put the laser underwater to eliminate atmosheric refractions. Of course underwater can do its own refractions so that would have to be taken into account but I think it might ...[text shortened]... o be able to have a detector that can show the presence of the beam where the peak intensity is.
    What is the formula used for atmospheric refraction, exactly?
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52781
    19 Jul '16 15:412 edits
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    What is the formula used for atmospheric refraction, exactly?
    I don't think there is any one formula because it depends on the temperature differentials from the surface and up to some arbitrary height. Sometimes the differential is lower temp on ground level and higher temps up higher but sometimes the opposite. I suppose the above ground version could do the job but you could not depend on one measurement, you would have to do dozens of measurements at different times of the day and maybe different locations around the planet.

    My guess is you would have to do that 100 times to lower those atmospheric variables to reasonable levels of confidence.

    Maybe you could do it in one location, say a windless day on a large lake but doing the measurments at say 10 minute intervals throughout the day or some variation on that theme.

    That would do two things, tell the true curvature of Earth but also give data on the atmospheric refractions and diffractions of light over a surface and that would change depending on how well heat is absorbed into the surface. Water would absorb in a thicker layer so may have less diffraction, which is just a guess.

    So for that version you would say have a laser at some height, say 8 feet and send the beam out, say 2 km or so and then see how high above the surface the laser beam is in the middle of the distance, whatever that is.

    I am sure there will be variations in that measurment depending on temperature gradients, wind and so forth so you want to lessen the variables, like doing the measurements with no wind or very little wind and humidity changes, that sort of thing.
  6. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    19 Jul '16 15:56
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I don't think there is any one formula because it depends on the temperature differentials from the surface and up to some arbitrary height. Sometimes the differential is lower temp on ground level and higher temps up higher but sometimes the opposite. I suppose the above ground version could do the job but you could not depend on one measurement, you woul ...[text shortened]... oing the measurements with no wind or very little wind and humidity changes, that sort of thing.
    And yet we are able to see those distant objects regardless of atmospheric conditions.
    That's all the proof you need.
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52781
    19 Jul '16 16:021 edit
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    And yet we are able to see those distant objects regardless of atmospheric conditions.
    That's all the proof you need.
    So prove it. Go to some place with no atmosphere and see how far over the horizon you can see.

    That will be ZERO. The horizon there, like on the moon, will be EXACTLY as far as you can see.

    On Earth the atmosphere changes the rules. That's a fact jac.

    That is why the casual experiment with lasers fail. They do one experiment and find the laser beam is not where physics says it should be and instead of looking at the physics of laser travel in atmosphere, they immediately jump to the conclusion Earth is flat because that is their built in bias. They jump on ANY data that seems to prove their point.

    Which is not science, that is getting in the realm of politics.
  8. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    19 Jul '16 16:56
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    So prove it. Go to some place with no atmosphere and see how far over the horizon you can see.

    That will be ZERO. The horizon there, like on the moon, will be EXACTLY as far as you can see.

    On Earth the atmosphere changes the rules. That's a fact jac.

    That is why the casual experiment with lasers fail. They do one experiment and find the laser bea ...[text shortened]... t seems to prove their point.

    Which is not science, that is getting in the realm of politics.
    This is where you continue to miss the point.
    If atmospheric conditions were impacting the view of distant objects --- not light, not lasers, but objects--- then we would see all manner of variables within that scenario.
    We would see the objects appear to be closer, perhaps even larger than their actual position or dimensions.
    We would also expect seasonal temperature swings altering the visibility.
    We would also expect to see time of day altering the visibility.
    And yet... we don't.
    Night or day, spring, summer, winter or fall: the objects are ON THE HORIZON, exactly where they should be according to the distances calculated.
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52781
    19 Jul '16 17:05
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    This is where you continue to miss the point.
    If atmospheric conditions were impacting the view of distant objects --- not light, not lasers, but objects--- then we would see all manner of variables within that scenario.
    We would see the objects appear to be closer, perhaps even larger than their actual position or dimensions.
    We would also expect se ...[text shortened]... objects are ON THE HORIZON, exactly where they should be according to the distances calculated.
    You refuse to accept that as the result of atmosphere and you cannot get to the mental state of being able to see the difference of horizon view on an airless world. This is simple phyics, it's not rocket science. Physics, optics 101 and if you ever had TAKEN a course in physics or optics you would not be in the position you are in now, namely, out on the fringe, your branch about to break.

    I know for a fact you did not independently decide to dis all of NASA, that was brainwashed into you by your association with flatassers. They have programmed you well, despite your denials and so-called personal experiments.

    I wish I had the time to do the experiments I proposed but am in too chaotic a state right now to do that kind of thing, my wife's operation is this friday and everything is up in the air.

    I would do that experiment if I could. I just wish a flat earther would do it and get surprised.
  10. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    19 Jul '16 19:201 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    You refuse to accept that as the result of atmosphere and you cannot get to the mental state of being able to see the difference of horizon view on an airless world. This is simple phyics, it's not rocket science. Physics, optics 101 and if you ever had TAKEN a course in physics or optics you would not be in the position you are in now, namely, out on the f ...[text shortened]... I would do that experiment if I could. I just wish a flat earther would do it and get surprised.
    If you had an inkling about atmospheric impact on visibility, it'd be surprised should any facts decide to actually walk into the room to join it.
    Air is nearly 800 times less dense than water, but you're attempting to commingle the two mediums and chalk visibility of OBJECTS--- not lights, not lasers--- up to refraction.
    Literally NO IDEA at all how atmospheric refraction works or how it impacts vision.
    ZERO.

    By all means, though: stick to your idiotic script.
  11. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35782
    19 Jul '16 20:10
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    If you had an inkling about atmospheric impact on visibility, it'd be surprised should any facts decide to actually walk into the room to join it.
    Air is nearly 800 times less dense than water, but you're attempting to commingle the two mediums and chalk visibility of OBJECTS--- not lights, not lasers--- up to refraction.
    Literally NO IDEA at all how a ...[text shortened]... works or how it impacts vision.
    ZERO.

    By all means, though: stick to your idiotic script.
    Is this where you claim to be an atmospheric physicist or engineer?

    I figure that's gotta be next.
  12. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    19 Jul '16 20:35
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    Is this where you claim to be an atmospheric physicist or engineer?

    I figure that's gotta be next.
    No, babe: I just happen to know far more about the topic than you do now, or likely ever will.
  13. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    19 Jul '16 20:37
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    As stated, your game is pathetically weak.
    14 year old me laughs derisively at your sorry attempts at shock.
    That was 38 years ago, so you pretty much know where you stand, son.
  14. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    19 Jul '16 20:50
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Sad, faggoty little donkey lover.
    Keep swinging, hon.
    You're bound to hit something eventually.
  15. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    19 Jul '16 21:07
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    Seriously?
    You have one?
    That's a mind blowing revelation.
    That it is large enough to have it sucked?
    Now you're just wishful thinking, micro-pepe.
    Don't get too far ahead of yourself, hon.
Back to Top