Wonder if they are going to make the same mistakes (not including the atmospheric refraction) or if they will recreate Wallace's experiment as well -- clearly showing earth's curvature.So this is happening this weekend...
In a nutshell: flat earthers of the UK - including Dave Murphy - are off to the Bedford Levels to recreate Rowbotham's famous experiment. Will be interesting to see what they come up with.
No, it can be worked backwards accounting for the height of eye.Rowbotham's formula (8 inches per mile squared) is only useful at surface level.
Jeranism's new formula is to divide the distance to the object by pi. Or as he states it, "multiply by 0.318". Because "the total curvature" is equal to the diameter of the Earth divided by the circumference.Apparently the earth is now no bigger than an asteroid.
"only good up to a quarter of the globe"? How far away do they think the kayak is?
FE fans unanimously confuse curvature "dropoff," with bulge height, as they only cling to the simple "8 inches per mile squared" as the be-all and end-all of bulge calculation. I use this diagram to clearly illustrate their mistake without going into the trig they have no patience for, which has been working wonders for getting thru to them.
Yes.A slope?
This calculator will calculate the radius of a circle given arc length and height (sagitta). The arc length will be double the distance of the kayak (5.5 miles) and the height will be the drop claimed by the FRer in the video (1.7 miles)Apparently the earth is now no bigger than an asteroid.
Well, you know, GOOD ON THEM for trying. I wish they would listen to reason before they waste their time.In a nutshell: flat earthers of the UK - including Dave Murphy - are off to the Bedford Levels to recreate Rowbotham's famous experiment. Will be interesting to see what they come up with.
(PS I'm aware of https://www.metabunk.org/curve/ but it doesn't allow you to factor in refraction )How can you guys so thoroughly do the wrong experiment and use the wrong math?
#1 you did not even reproduce Rowbotham - he shot at 8" over the water and THAT was PROVEN by Wallace to neglect refraction and thus is wrong
#2 wrong experiment - you need to reproduce Wallace's experiment of shooting at 13 + feet over the water looking at CAREFULLY CALIBRATED survey posts placed half-way and then at the end so you can MEASURE exactly how much is obscured.
#3 use the correct equations and don't ignore refraction. The height of a distant object obscured by the curvature of the Earth is given by:
h₁ = √[(d₀ - (√h₀ √[h₀ + 2 R]))² + R²] - R
The geometry behind this is very simple - two right triangles: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CncAmBKUIAApAip.jpg
Let's say observer elevation is 3m, we want to know what we can see 9659m (6 miles) away, and estimating 20% Earth curvature for refraction (VERY common over water)
√[(d - (√h √[h + 2 R]))² + R²] - R, d=9659, h=3, R=6371000*1.20 = only half a meter would be expected to be obscured at the base of the distant bridge - which is less than the visual acuity of your optics I'll wager.
Your experiment was a complete bust.
If you want to do it right:
Hire some professional surveyors with professional equipment
Don't wait for some dude to ROW all the way down, that was utterly useless
Have them place leveling posts at BOTH ends and one in the middle (professionally calibrated)
AT LEAST do one pair of sightings above 13 feet over the water -- Ideally ALSO do one at 8" and one up higher and compare & contrast
Get the Closure Error by sighting BOTH directions
http://www.aboutcivil.org/errors-in-levelling.html
http://www.aboutcivil.org/curvature-and-refraction.html
And watch them laugh at you for wanting a 6 mile long sighting but just keep promising you aren't a crackpot?