Observations of Brighton from Worthing Pier

Regarding the slideshow of how to determine refraction, it is the bold statement at the end where he states downward refraction can not happen in the evening or night, I find that puzzling, is it valid ?.
 
Loki Thorson said:
Regarding the slideshow of how to determine refraction, it is the bold statement at the end where he states downward refraction cannot happen in the evening or night, I find that puzzling, is it valid ?.
Click to expand...

No. It depends on the temperature gradient of the air, which is not a simple thing.
 
So the claim is bogus ? - why state it, could it be a pre emptive strike prior to the Pier2Pier (ahem) experiment.


savvo said:
ll,y


As an aside, if this John D really is a doctor he surely has the skills to research geodetic survey methods and if he's so committed to the cause he could hire the requisite equipment to do this properly and debunk the whole field of surveying as well as the shape of the planet. Which is to say, I don't know why I've allowed myself to get even peripherally involved in feeding yet another troll. Why not just leave both sides to their constant bickering on Youtube?

Savvo out.
Click to expand...
Is there even such a thing as a PHD in spectrophotometry ?

Apparently he has declared the earth is flat, as per mirror of his videos on the channel by 'Bali music journey'
 
The experiment is happening today, from 1500GMT. There'll be livestreams at the following YouTube channels, which may provide an opportunity to make comments:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrV1BQhaufM-PsEtMjjehDQ
https://www.youtube.com/user/roxanne291

To summarise:
  • 6000 lumens LED torch (flashlight) placed on a tripod 1m (3 feet 3.4 inches) above water level
  • Tripod mount angled until the light can be observed at the opposite pier
  • Measure taken from spirit level attached
  • 10000mW laser pointer (Cost £60; 5-8km range) placed on tripod 1m above water level at Worthing
  • 30000mW laser (Cost £136; 20km range?) placed on tripod 1m above water level at Brighton
  • As above (angled, measured)
  • Nikon P900/P1000 placed on tripod 1m above water level at each pier, levelled and recording observations
The piers are 15.3km (9.5 miles) apart. With standard refraction of 1.17 the distant lasers, flashlights, and cameras would be 7.8 metres below the horizon, and 14.8 metres below horizontal (26 and 46 feet). With strong refraction of 1.5 I make those predicted hidden figures 5 and 11 metres respectively (16 and 36 feet) (please double check).

Predictions?
 
Last edited:
If you gmaps brighton pier you can see them to the west of the pier, even if you are on the beach to the west of the furthest one, the wreck of West Pier might interfere
 
You could of course stand on top of any of the structures but then you would be way above 1 m above sea level
 
Seems a bit odd to go that far out at that point but it looks like those points will be uncovered at that time.
 
Still no live stream on the 1st YT channel, 2nd one is broadcasting from the kitchen.

correction no-one is streaming..
 
jarlrmai said:
Seems a bit odd to go that far out at that point but it looks like those points will be uncovered at that time.
Click to expand...

If they want to be precisely one metre above the water then where they put themselves is going to be dictated by the tides.
 
https://www.seatemperature.org/europe/united-kingdom/brighton.htm
Metabunk 2019-02-02 08-27-16.jpg


https://www.metabunk.org/refraction...~nightHide~true~image~1))~localDefault~true)_
Metabunk 2019-02-02 08-31-31.jpg


The forecast is for 2-4°C, and 8°C water. If that were all there was to it then you'd expect an inferior mirage when viewed from 3 feet above the water, assuming the water warms the air directly above it, then cools at the normal lape rate.

However, we've also got 13mp winds blowing from the land to the sea, which has the potential to create all kinds of interesting temperature gradients. When you have a very narrow field of view (like the 1° x 0.75° FOV of the P900) it does not take much to bend the light very slightly and make a laser pop into visibility. Try the "night" checkbox in the above link (or just https://www.metabunk.org/refraction/?~(p~'Pier2Pier*3a*20Laser*20at*203*20feet)_ )
 
Doesn't this just all seem mad? You can go into the i360 and literally see further as you go higher + it's inside out of the cold and 5 mins walk from the proposed observation points, nice view today as well.
 
jarlrmai said:
Doesn't this just all seem mad? You can go into the i360 and literally see further as you go higher + it's inside out of the cold and 5 mins walk from the proposed observation points, nice view today as well.
Click to expand...

It's a rather odd choice of an experiment if you want to see if the water surface is curved. It's by far the worst spot for the results to be messed up by refraction. It's also very hard to correct for those effects if you don't know what the temperature gradient is out to sea (where most of the light path is).

I'd suggested a much better experiment for that location in this post: https://www.metabunk.org/posts/227192/
 
They appear to be quite high up on the beach, right by the i360. They were supposed to be no more than 1 meter above the water line. They are also surrounded by a blaze of lights.


Metabunk 2019-02-02 10-57-15.jpg
 
Mick West said:
The forecast is for 2-4°C, and 8°C water. If that were all there was to it then you'd expect an inferior mirage when viewed from 3 feet above the water, assuming the water warms the air directly above it, then cools at the normal lape rate.
Click to expand...

They just showed the image from a P900 or P1000 (from quite high on the beach), and you see the refraction, as expected for cold air over warm ocean.

Metabunk 2019-02-02 11-12-24.jpg
 
Mick West said:
The forecast is for 2-4°C, and 8°C water. If that were all there was to it then you'd expect an inferior mirage when viewed from 3 feet above the water, assuming the water warms the air directly above it, then cools at the normal lape rate.
Click to expand...
John D posted a short video confirming that that's precisely what happened. Chalk one up for established science.

upload_2019-2-2_21-22-14.png


My own posted guess had been that the setting sun behind Worthing pier would become a problem, and after sunset the tide would be arriving.

Would it be possible to set up a time lapse in such a way that the rising tide would obscure some scenery? Basically, the result should be a steadily shrinking horizon.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    116.8 KB · Views: 458
Last edited by a moderator:
i might be stupid but what is the flat earth reasoning behind not just getting in the i360 and seeing more as you go up?

apologies for my typing but i only have use of one arm at the moment
 
jarlrmai said:
i might be stupid but what is the flat earth reasoning behind not just getting in the i360 and seeing more as you go up?
Click to expand...

The idea is that they want to observe if that bit of the ocean is curved. i.e. the 10 miles between Brighton and Worthing. Since it's a small bit, with only 17 feet of "bulge" in the middle (the sagitta), then you need to be low down to observe it.

Of course, then you get these massive problems with refraction.
 
So the laser went shooting off into the sky, what can we make of that. Does Dr John think that refraction would affect it so much. Why doesn't he just point his camera south, how much of France would he see.
[...impolite text removed..]

Hope I don't get accused of engaging in Scientism!!.

Seems it might be re arranged . Look forward to that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
See this link.
Metabunk 2019-02-08 07-22-02.jpg


Why is the laser beam visible? Isn't temperature gradient of air negative? So how is the laser beam seen? Why isn't it visible, even when we do the temperature gradient positive?!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
assarzadeh said:
Why is the laser beam visible? Isn't temperature gradient of air negative? So how is the laser beam seen?
Click to expand...

Uncheck the "night" box, and zoom out.
Metabunk 2019-02-08 07-25-25.jpg


Most of the image is dominated by the inferior mirage, but there's enough of a kink in the temperature gradient just above this that there's also a path to the laser.
Metabunk 2019-02-08 07-28-58.jpg


assarzadeh said:
Why isn't it visible, even when we do the temperature gradient positive?!
Click to expand...

It is.
Metabunk 2019-02-08 07-31-57.jpg


It is, although you might need to adjust the tilt angle or zoom out to see it.
 
They have released a video with some observations of it. They agree that the original setup and conditions produced a null result, however they noted they could see the lasers by moving up the beach, both teams, but they don't say how far or higher they had to go. In one of the images they show one team obviously a fair amount back up the beach and cameras at eye level on tripods. They will present their findings in a near future video once they have studied the results.

Apologies for my impoliteness, I need to curb that.

Plus I am not sure of their insistence of talking about the 'refraction zone'.
 
Loki Thorson said:
They have released a video with some observations of it.
Click to expand...
What video are you referring to?

Loki Thorson said:
Plus I am not sure of their insistence of talking about the 'refraction zone'.
Click to expand...

I think they have the idea that there's a zone for a few feet above the ocean where there's refraction, then above that there's no refraction.

That's not entirely wrong, but refraction varies continuously with altitude, it just varies a lot more close to the water. There no special "zone" though, that's an arbitrary distinction. I suppose you could say it's the altitude below which you see an inferior mirage.
 
the Video here
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgqjYJW0MYQ&t=1s
, namely putting it in context.

I don't know if he is claiming a small victory as they could then see the green laser by moving up the beach, gaining some extra height. No mention of the red laser. seems they ended up being much higher than the original setup, ie just 1 meter above water level, so a small green dot was seen. if they BOTH moved up that changes the height to a level where both parties are not hidden by the bulge.
 
He's going to try to do the same thing again? I guess he hasn't been keeping tabs on this thread, where the much easier to do and more conclusive daytime observation was suggested.

I also emailed him to suggest a place near Brighton where he could do a Wallace-style Bedford Level observation, but for some reason he wasn't open to it.

It's a curious type of 'science' that includes so much defamation.
 
Rory said:
It's a curious type of 'science' that includes so much defamation.
Click to expand...
It's a curious type of teaching that includes so much name calling and emotional input. I can just imagine my 10th grade geometry teacher calling me a buffoon because i couldn't grasp his explanation of the volumne of the cylinder.

But, how do you get the movie title off a Youtube vid? Is there a way i can hide it so i can read the text easier?
Capture.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Question: How to explain what refraction is doing to occlude this image of the sun?
Replies
16
Views
3K
AmberRobot
AmberRobot
Mick West
  • Sticky
Metabunk Tools List and Links
Replies
0
Views
1K
Mick West
Mick West
fizzBuzz
Invisibility cloaked jet?
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
Mendel
Mendel
Mick West
Harris/Walz "Missing" crowd in Reflection.
Replies
12
Views
2K
deirdre
deirdre
D
Curve on the horizon
Replies
11
Views
3K
FatPhil
FatPhil

Latest posts

Back
Top