Jump to content

The Greatest Laser Experiment In History - FECORE


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, sandor said:

Curvature of a ball is deviating from the level line of the starting position with distance squared. Otherwise it would be a straight line, not a curve!

First mile is 8 inches, than second mile 32 inches, third mile 72 inches and so on.

Actually, that's the parabolic approximation to the curve.
But it's not the point.

Do you accept that the air is thinner at altitude and will therefore have a lower refractive index?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sandor said:

Curvature of a ball is deviating from the level line of the starting position with distance squared. Otherwise it would be a straight line, not a curve!

First mile is 8 inches, than second mile 32 inches, third mile 72 inches and so on.

Utter mathematical rubbish.

It is devaiting with every single micrometre, picometre or attometre.

Did you not read or not understand the formula I gave and subsequently worked out for you ?

The deviation is measured in length units not area units.

That is all there is to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, studiot said:

Utter mathematical rubbish.

It is devaiting with every single micrometre, picometre or attometre.

Did you not read or not understand the formula I gave and subsequently worked out for you ?

The deviation is measured in length units not area units.

That is all there is to it.

Al they are saying is that, to a rough approximation, the deviation is roughly proportional to the square of the distance over which the light travels. They are approximating the curvature by a parabola. It's not a desperately  bad approximation.

Inches per mile squared is an odd unit, but ...

 

But their claim that air is homogeneous is ,wrong, only slightly, but nevertheless, wrong.

And by an interesting coincidence, the effect almost exactly cancels out the curvature of the Earth.
Which explains their experimental results (without resorting to stupid stuff like a flat Earth).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sandor said:

 I am part of FECORE and this experiment.

It's very important to distinguish between volume density and optical density. For the optical density profile calculation and the direction of light bending, only optical density is important.

In normal conditions - temperature decreasing upwards - the light is bent upwards in levelling refraction (near horizontal measurement), towards the optically more dense colder air.

No it wouldn't.

Light bends at the border of mediums with different refractive indexes. Light does not bend in a homogenous medium.

Close to the surface of a large body of water, it is very common to have an inversion, whereby the cool water cools the air immediately above. So then it would not be true that the temperature decreases upwards within the layer.  The opposite would be the case. For example this explains why Chicago is sometimes visible from a point 60 miles way on the far side of Lake Michigan. It is what is called a superior mirage, and its cause is the bending of light in an inversion layer above the lake: https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline 

Edited by exchemist
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Al they are saying is that, to a rough approximation, the deviation is roughly proportional to the square of the distance over which the light travels. They are approximating the curvature by a parabola. It's not a desperately  bad approximation.

Inches per mile squared is an odd unit, but ...

 

But their claim that air is homogeneous is ,wrong, only slightly, but nevertheless, wrong.

And by an interesting coincidence, the effect almost exactly cancels out the curvature of the Earth.
Which explains their experimental results (without resorting to stupid stuff like a flat Earth).

Thank you for your explanation, which is true mathematically.

But the way that this is being presented is not, since it hides the fact that the constant of proportionality has units of its own to make the expression of proportion dimensionally correct.

Also not being made plain is the fact that this is also the correction for curvature alone.
A suitable correction for refraction also need to be made or accounted for in the methodology.
The refraction correction is of the opposite sign to the curvature correction.

We went over all this extensively in the last thread that was closed and FECORE are repeating their misunderstandings from 2016.

4 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Close to the surface of a large body of water, it is very common to have an inversion, whereby the cool water cools the air immediately above. So then it would not be true that the temperature decreases upwards within the layer.  The opposite would be the case. For example this explain why Chicago is sometimes visible from a point 60 miles way on the far side of Lake Michigan. It is what is called a superior mirage, and its cause is the bending of light in an inversion layer above the lake: https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline 

+1

I also went over effect this in the last thread, my experience in the Arabian desert being the one where two theodolites were performing reciprocal observations (observing each other) and both recorded a small positive vertical angle, thus suggesting each was 'above' the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/4/2021 at 2:43 PM, studiot said:

Thank you for your explanation, which is true mathematically.

But the way that this is being presented is not, since it hides the fact that the constant of proportionality has units of its own to make the expression of proportion dimensionally correct.

Also not being made plain is the fact that this is also the correction for curvature alone.
A suitable correction for refraction also need to be made or accounted for in the methodology.
The refraction correction is of the opposite sign to the curvature correction.

We went over all this extensively in the last thread that was closed and FECORE are repeating their misunderstandings from 2016.

+1

I also went over effect this in the last thread, my experience in the Arabian desert being the one where two theodolites were performing reciprocal observations (observing each other) and both recorded a small positive vertical angle, thus suggesting each was 'above' the other.

That's interesting. In the desert I'd expect an inferior mirage, e.g. the sky being seen as at ground level, so I'd have thought you would each see the other lower than they really were. Or was this at dawn, with cold ground?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I wonder if Sandor will come back.

I was sort of hoping my example of Chicago might deter him. I have actually seen that example used by flat-earthers elsewhere, as "proof" the lake is flat. So I thought I would pop that bubble before he had a chance to refer to it. 

The psychology of these people is what intrigues me. I suppose it may just be contrariness: a determination to be agin everyone else, just for the hell of it. But it is very strange. Makes QAnon look normal - almost. But I digress.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, exchemist said:

The psychology of these people is what intrigues me. I suppose it may just be contrariness: a determination to be agin everyone else, just for the hell of it. But it is very strange. Makes QAnon look normal - almost. But I digress.......

My recollection is that back in the 50s and 60s Flat Earthers were tweed wearing, pipe smoking, avuncular and eccentric Englishmen. There was a sense that their claims were tongue in cheek and motivated by a desire to make retirement more interesting. It was all rather charming. But perhaps that is a flawed recollection. Anyone else have similar memories?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Area54 said:

My recollection is that back in the 50s and 60s Flat Earthers were tweed wearing, pipe smoking, avuncular and eccentric Englishmen. There was a sense that their claims were tongue in cheek and motivated by a desire to make retirement more interesting. It was all rather charming. But perhaps that is a flawed recollection. Anyone else have similar memories?

The first time I heard someone arguing for a FE, it was a religious argument that went beyond eccentric. From everything I've seen lately, the religious perspective has been spread by the popularity of YouTube. Like creationists before them, the FE proponents add in a slurry of misunderstood science and flat out lies to fool those who know no better.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Area54 said:

My recollection is that back in the 50s and 60s Flat Earthers were tweed wearing, pipe smoking, avuncular and eccentric Englishmen. There was a sense that their claims were tongue in cheek and motivated by a desire to make retirement more interesting. It was all rather charming. But perhaps that is a flawed recollection. Anyone else have similar memories?

I can't say I had ever come across them, until a few years ago on the internet.

Anyway, it's nice to know one can always annoy them by asking if it is true that the Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe. This seems to be a meme they can't kill off. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Anyway, it's nice to know one can always annoy them by asking if it is true that the Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe.

Nice one. (I can't believe I've never heard it before!) I imagine the remark will send the more volatile Flat Earther into orbit, leaving them with even more intense cognitive dissonance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The first time I heard someone arguing for a FE, it was a religious argument that went beyond eccentric. From everything I've seen lately, the religious perspective has been spread by the popularity of YouTube. Like creationists before them, the FE proponents add in a slurry of misunderstood science and flat out lies to fool those who know no better.

I just recently saw a video where someone examined an "experiment" done by FE proponents, Dealing with looking across a large body of water at a building. They worked out how much of the building "should" be hidden by the curve, and then pointed out that more of the building was seen than predicted by there being curvature.

The examiner pointed out two things:

1. They failed to take into account refraction( as mentioned in earlier posts).

2. The ground floor of the building was not itself at water level, but several yards above it.

Once these were taken into account, the amount of building they saw matched the predicted curvature.

But the other more interesting thing he pointed out was that, In their own video, some of the building was hidden below the horizon.   With a flat Earth, all the building should have been visible.  They never even address this and sweep it under the rug.   This is typical of the type of intellectual dishonesty they indulge in.

Some of the other stuff I've seen makes me me wonder if they just competing to be the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.