|
Post by DavidOrJohn on Mar 1, 2018 21:43:44 GMT
How does DET address the issue of boats being observed to shrink below the horizon.
|
|
|
Post by LeoXR on Mar 1, 2018 21:57:51 GMT
This was addressed in the FAQ: dualearththeory.proboards.com/thread/4/dual-earth-theory-faq"This is simply to do with the downwards flow of aether. Light can be modelled as travelling in straight lines. However, when the space these lines move in shifts, the light itself will. Relative to aether, the movement is still straight (and so the image will appear to be viewed head-on), but there is a downwards curve. The light from the sea has to go up to reach your eyes. From a ship, however, the light from the lower part of the ship will, over long distances, be drawn down into the sea. The higher part of the ship has much further to go before it would be rendered unseen, and so can be viewed slowly descending into the sea. This also explains how altitude allows you to see more: at a high point, you're seeing the light waves that went higher. There's less obstruction." Though this brings up a good point to be clarified, that being, if this was the case, then if we level a long distance laser measure over a body of water or some level surface, it would follow aether into the ground and hence be observed to descend into the ground. We do not see this happen, and many people have done laser measurements for themselves, they tend to either stay at similar distances above the ground or gradually increase height above the surface, depending on initial conditions, set-up, etc. So, I believe that this part needs revision.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 1, 2018 22:48:14 GMT
Though this brings up a good point to be clarified, that being, if this was the case, then if we level a long distance laser measure over a body of water or some level surface, it would follow aether into the ground and hence be observed to descend into the ground. We do not see this happen, and many people have done laser measurements for themselves, they tend to either stay at similar distances above the ground or gradually increase height above the surface, depending on initial conditions, set-up, etc. So, I believe that this part needs revision. That kind of experiment I personally put in the same category as those people that claim to show water draining down a plughole in different directions depending on which side of the equator you are. You can find all kinds of videos of that on youtube, one memorable one I saw was someone carrying around a giant bowl and pulling a plug out of the bottom and recording it in both locations. While the coriolis effect is real, it is too minor to have an effect in that situation, factors like the shape of the bowl and brownian motion are going to dominate. It's people demonstrating an effect they believe in by purposefully fudging the experiment; not out of malice, just providing an easier to visualise example. There's a reason the plughole urban legend has persisted. Similarly with lasers, the most important factor is going to be the angle it's oriented at. Even being 0.1 degrees off of horizontal would give you 2km worth of error (from 20km away, using the first figure I found on google for the visible range of a laser). I'm getting different exact figures from googling how much curvature would be expected, but the general amount of drop for that 20km seems to be 30m. You can more than likely find a more powerful laser, though you will run into the issue of visibility through the air, and the error problem persists. In this case, it's the same principle as the plughole. The laser experiment isn't used to prove the curvature of the Earth because it's done by people who already believe that it's curved. If they find the laser points into the sea, their assumption will be that they've oriented the laser wrong. Indeed, chances are they will have oriented it wrong, you saw the effect that 0.1 degrees would have. A human simply does not have the dexterity needed to carry out this experiment reliably.
|
|
|
Post by LeoXR on Mar 2, 2018 1:14:50 GMT
But if leveled, the lasers would constantly have a tendency to move downward in the DE model you presented. This doesn't seem to match any marked results, and we know that the aether would have the light travel to the Earth within several miles because we see ships seem to dip below the horizon, hence, a light sent a distance at some altitude will move towards the ground, and if lower, it may reach the ground nearby. But that is one clear testable prediction of this model as presented. Also, how does something like shipborne radar work here? If you are higher up, you can get a radar signal farther away. So, if it follows the aether downwards, being higher wouldn't make a difference, the radar would just descend into the ground either way, but being higher does increase range. It would actually work better for it if the light bent up instead, because then a signal can keep on travelling and be better for taller objects.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 2, 2018 1:43:17 GMT
Light curving downwards is well within the error of the laser results mentioned. It would curve downwards, but the lasers are oriented to point upwards simply because that's the result they expect and they would assume human error if they got anything else. Theoretically, yes, you could test this, but you would need the means to not only find to an absurd degree of accuracy a level orientation for the laser, but be able to set the laser into an also 100% level base and hold it at that angle. It just isn't possible to do; small error really adds up on the relevant scales.
I'm not sure what you mean with respect to radar. It doesn't receive signals, it scans the surroundings and interprets the waves reflected back. Being higher gives it more range, the same reason that if you throw something from the top of a building it goes further than something thrown at ground level. It'll go down either way, it just takes longer to go down all the way, thus increasing range.
|
|
|
Post by LeoXR on Mar 2, 2018 2:17:02 GMT
Well, no, only if every time there was a bias towards curvature put into the experiment, which need not be there. But alright, how about this, there was a laser test at lake Zegrzynski where they had two stakes above water that had identical heights, so, if light bends down, then by measurably angling the laser up, it would reach the top of the other stake, and we can measure it to predict the angle it bends at and therefore apply it to the horizon and different altitudes. It is not impossible to do, you can quite accurately orientate the angle, like they do with dumpy levels.
As for radar, I was referring to shipborne radar, where the horizon is a sort of obstruction for it, and we can detect ships out to see if they are visually below the horizon. But if they are taller, we can for greater distance. This goes back to my main point on lasers actually, technically, on a RE, the waves would be angled down to the ship partially below the horizon, and on the DE, the waves would be angled up, since they need to be that way to reach the top of the ship as aether curves down. So, there is a difference there. A theodolite level device would help with this, since we can determine the orientation of the horizon and where our laser is with respect to it.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 2, 2018 12:54:37 GMT
Like I said, it's an experiment like the Coriolis plughole. The means to do it rigorously do not exist, it's used as one of those "Looks cool," things rather than a proof. Measuring between stakes is not so easy; dumpy levels function with light, if you find a straight line from one to another with a dumpy level you are finding the path light takes. A theoretical experiment would be if you had a totally flat surface you could lie between the stakes, so all that matters is the orientation of the surface. The problem there though, is both the difficulty of getting a surface flat to within 0.1 degrees (to begin with), and in how long it would have to go on for the curvature of light to be noticable; you've seen how long it takes for a ship to vanish.
I don't really understand your radar point. The higher up it is, the further the signals from it can go. It's no more than why you can see further from higher up, which you already seem to agree with judging by your earlier post.
From what I can tell, theodolites have an error of a little over 0.05 degrees. The vertical error that would cause (again using the 20km figure) is still over 1km, substantially more than the 30m that would even theoretically be noticable.
|
|
|
Post by LeoXR on Mar 3, 2018 2:14:39 GMT
I dropped my radar point actually, the issue was with radar reaching taller objects further away while it remains at the same altitude. Though I pointed out that you would just need to tilt the direction up a bit to reach the ship or whatever partially obscured by the horizon, following the aether bend. While on a RE, you would need to tilt down a bit relative to level. There is a margin of accuracy involved, but you can determine the orientation of your laser and if it points up around 0.05 degrees, assuming light travels in straight lines, on a flat plane that gives about a 6 foot drop over 2 kilometers. If we factor in light bending down, the laser should be a little below 6 feet over that distance, measured precisely. An experimental set-up like this could be done, and has been tried by amateurs (like with the one over lake Zegrzynski that I mentioned). I put that out wrong (with the dumpy level). Though the dumpy level or theodolite could determine the position of the horizon and be used to test the RE vs the DE by horizon drop predictions.
|
|
|
Post by JRowe on Mar 3, 2018 13:01:04 GMT
Ah I see, apologies for misreading. It does seem to be tied back to the laser point. The problem with error is that, by definition, you cannot compensate for it. You cannot notice if your light is 0.05 degrees above the horizontal if that is within the error margins of how you calculate the horizontal; what would you compare it to? Ground is rarely if ever perfectly level (especially to within a fraction of a degree), a theodolite won't give any more accuracy... You have no way of knowing if the laser is 0.05 degrees above the horizontal or 0.05 degrees below, or somewhere in between. Regardless of the shape of the world, simple logic would tell you that performing this experiment multiple times will sometimes get you a laser pointing directly at the sea, and sometimes seeming to go way up into the air over the sea. If you had the means to know how far off the angle was, it wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
Certainly, amateurs can go through the process of the set-up you describe, but it is not a scientifically rigorous experiment. The error bars of that one factor alone are orders of magnitude more than any difference we would expect to see. What does that 6 foot drop mean when, over 2km, the figures would be over 300 feet off?
|
|