Flat Earth Claim: "The Greatest Laser Experiment In History" - FECORE

[Rodoxag]

Hello all!

Recently I stumbled upon this video, which claims to be the most precise experiment performed with lasers to date, supposedly demonstrating that the Earth is effectively flat. Roughly speaking it consists of 2 experiments (one at Lake Balaton, and the other at Lake Ijssel) and a total of 7 observations conducted in 2018.



If anyone is interested, I post the timestamps below:

26:21 = Lake Balaton, first measurement. 12 km.
30:08 = Lake Balaton, second measurement. 12 km.
39:08 = Lake Ijssel, third measurement. 21.26 km.
43:12 = Lake Ijssel, fourth measurement. 28.68 km.
46:09 = Lake Ijssel, fifth measurement. 18.73 km.
48:09 = Lake Ijssel, sixth measurement. 40 km
51:45 = Lake Ijssel, seventh measurement. 40 km.

The highlight of this set of observations is that they observed a laser located 40 km away from the observer, being the height of laser 2.92 meters above the water, and the observer 1.5 meters above the water. They described the settings and the observations at 48:09 and 51:45 (6th and 7th measurements). Here I post the images of the reported observations:

They claim that refraction wasn't significative, but they method by which they arrived at that conclusion is fuzzy at best. Basically, they measured the temperature and humidity of the air above the lake (without specifying the height of measurement) both at the location of the laser and the observer, and then calculated the refractive index. Since they didn't find a significative difference in refractive index, they then concluded that refraction was negligible. The thing is, this method of comparing refractive indexes at two locations doesn't make sense to me at all. From the minute 31:30 onward you can find the description of this method

In my opinion, another huge problem is that they didn't measure the vertical temperature profile. They claim that the temperature descreased above the lake, and if this was true then the lapse rate would have been negative, but they didn't show these measurements.

I've been playing around with Mick's refraction simulator, and it seems to me that a pretty common temperature inversion lapse rate could easily explain these observations. I'd also expect this temperature inversion to be a common event given the extremely cold weather and the hour at which the measurements were carried out.

Observer height = 5 feet
Laser height = 9.6 feet
Distance = 25 miles

What do you think?

 

[Rory]

Have you seen the dedicated Lake Balaton thread @Rodoxag?

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/la...rmine-the-curvature-of-the-earth-if-any.7780/

26 pages of discussion, much of it involving Sandor Szekely, taking place before, during and after their 2016 'experiment'.

 

[Ravi]

I am thinking about a possible way of trying do this laser experiment correctly. I think the aim is to use large size diameter optics, and create a kind of auto-collimation setup. This setup involves 2 (or only 1) telescopes aimed and aligned with respect to each other , at x meter height. Let's say you then simultaneously (accurately) lower both of the telescopes, while maintaining the alignment, until alignment is lost due to curvature.

Of course this interesting experiment will not get any cheaper.

 

[Mick West]

I am thinking about a possible way of trying do this laser experiment correctly.

The only way of doing this experiment correctly is to set up multiple vertical arrays of data recording temperature probes along the path. Refraction is by far the biggest complicating factor. See:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ookTfBP5sUU

 

[Ravi]

Thanks Mick, indeed this is of course completely true (that refraction screws it up). I was too focussed on the technical optical/hardware part, should have mentioned the refraction.

To get around the refraction problem, you would need to use wavelengths that are less affected by refraction. Thus, higher frequencies (smaller wavelengths.. X rays?)

 

[Mick West]

To get around the refraction problem, you would need to use wavelengths that are less affected by refraction. Thus, higher frequencies (smaller wavelengths.. X rays?)

It's FAR simpler to just use visible light, and rise up above the worst of the refraction by using large objects like mountains. Or even just something like a Wallace experiment where refraction is accounted for by using multiple times and observations. Like this one:
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=The+Rainy+Lake+Experiment

The Rainy Lake Experiment was designed to show, how we can figure out the shape of the earth, Flat or a Globe, by observing and measuring a clever arrangement of targets over a distance of 10 km, taking terrestrial refraction into account and using modern equipment. The experiment is an advanced version of the Bedford Level experiment executed in 1838. The Experiment leads to the conclusion that the earth must be a Globe with a radius of 6371 km.

Lasers are utterly pointless. They just give you one light path, and it's trivial to sometimes squeeze it into a horizon skimming path. A daylight photo gives you ALL the light paths.

 

[JMartJr]

Plus, I am not sure I want a bunch of Flat Earthers armed with X-ray lasers...

 

[Ravi]

Lol. True, of course I would not recommend them to use them (or anyone).

@Mick, thanks, interesting read!

 

[Mendel]

I'm thinking: is it possible to reverse the experiment? Use a laser and a small obstacle such that from behind the obstacle, you can't see the laser = the obstacle throws a "laser shadow"; and then use a quadcopter drone with a camera to track the path of that shadow. This eliminates any problems with scattering and diffraction: if these phenomena eliminate the shadow, measurements can no longer be taken = no errors. Over here, a drone can be flown to an altitude of 100m, which ought to give enough leeway for a horizontal path of ~30km.

 

[Mick West]

I'm thinking: is it possible to reverse the experiment? Use a laser and a small obstacle such that from behind the obstacle, you can't see the laser = the obstacle throws a "laser shadow"; and then use a quadcopter drone with a camera to track the path of that shadow. This eliminates any problems with scattering and diffraction: if these phenomena eliminate the shadow, measurements can no longer be taken = no errors. Over here, a drone can be flown to an altitude of 100m, which ought to give enough leeway for a horizontal path of ~30km.

Interesting idea. I don't think the laser shadow would work well, as the width of the beam increases to several feel after just a few km.

But I think it must be possible to devise an experiment along those lines that would allow you to trace the path of the laser with a drone. Possible equipment on the drone itself could detect the laser, and then attempt to generate a 3D model of the beam's path (and divergence) by flying in some kind of helical path, in and out of the beam, like a 3d scanner. It would record the beam intensity, allowing a 3d model to be later re-created.

 

[FatPhil]

Interesting idea. I don't think the laser shadow would work well, as the width of the beam increases to several feel after just a few km.

But I think it must be possible to devise an experiment along those lines that would allow you to trace the path of the laser with a drone. Possible equipment on the drone itself could detect the laser, and then attempt to generate a 3D model of the beam's path (and divergence) by flying in some kind of helical path, in and out of the beam, like a 3d scanner. It would record the beam intensity, allowing a 3d model to be later re-created.

It would only be able to build a model based on the laws of geometry it was programmed with (such as trusting coordinates from GPS). Which are probably based on postulates FE-ers seem not to share. It's bootstrapping problems all the way down.

 

[Mick West]

It would only be able to build a model based on the laws of geometry it was programmed with (such as trusting coordinates from GPS). Which are probably based on postulates FE-ers seem not to share. It's bootstrapping problems all the way down.

I was thinking you could use sonar to measure the altitude,