Why Flat Earth Laser Tests are Misleading

Mick West

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


When you shine a laser beam across the surface of a lake, it is very prone to refraction, but often this is ignored, and the result is declared a victory. Laser tests are a very poor choice of a test of curvature, when much clearer (and easier) tests are available, such as looking at large objects (like mountains) over water.

In the video above, I describe the problem, and answer this question:
Metabunk 2019-04-07 11-50-51.jpg

With a resounding "YES, OF COURSE". It's actually really common for conditions to exist where a low-level laser is visible to a low-level camera many miles away. In fact, we are generally seeing this type of curvature most of the time during the day when the ocean is cooler than the air. We just don't really notice the very thin strip of compression near the horizon. The laser makes it stand out.
 

Bryan Olson

New Member
Great, but I do not see how a constant angle of beam divergence helps get over the curve. With one milliradian divergence, if only the bottom of the beam reaches the camera, we could just aim the laser half a milliradian lower and the middle of the beam would then reach the camera.
Would more divergence help get over the curve? A light bulb has the full 2 pi radians, but I don't think it's any more visible given the same positions.
Refraction is certainly a factor, and perhaps could increase the angle of beam divergence with distance, or even the diffraction effect from being partly blocked by water could, but I don't think the constant angle helps.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Great, but I do not see how a constant angle of beam divergence helps get over the curve.

The main contribution it has to the results being misleading is that it extends the beam downward. So if they have a beam that is parallel to the ground, there's always going to be a light path that goes directly to just skimming the horizon, the region of greatest refraction. The yellow line in the video
Metabunk 2019-04-09 08-07-11.jpg

This misleads because they think the center beam should not be visible because not only is the laser hidden by the hidden value, the center of the beam is the "drop" above the surface - which is even more.

The Brighton test folk say:
Metabunk 2019-04-09 08-11-55.jpg

Since their laser is at 1.5 m and "level", they (seemingly) are not considering the air below 0.5m. However, the beam WILL spread down to that region, and their temperature reading show a quite significant temperature gradient, with the air above the water 0.5°C cooler than the air at 1.0m.

Of course this effect is less if you have a less divergent beam. But the Brighton tests use a standard $15 green laser, like mine, which has a 1.0 mrad divergence.

Having LESS divergence will not make it impossible to see the laser, it just makes it more dependant on the angle.

For example, here I've reduced the divergence to 0.05 mrad. The beam still diverges, but now I have to tilt it down from level by 0.026° to make it visible. Notice it's a lot brighter too, as it diverges less.
Metabunk 2019-04-09 08-18-25.jpg


(I accidentally put the boat with the laser at 7 miles here, but still no problem seeing it)
 

Bryan Olson

New Member
Did the Brighton testers claim to precisely level the laser? I thought they were testing solely for visibility over the curve, and were free to play with the aim.

Having LESS divergence will not make it impossible to see the laser, it just makes it more dependant on the angle.​

O.K. From how the video named beam divergence along with refraction I had thought you were suggesting that divergence helps get around a curve as refraction does.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Did the Brighton testers claim to precisely level the laser?

Not directly, but note they say: "between 0.5m and 1.5m there was no density gradient measurably", so they are not considering the air below 0.5m, which would indicate they don't think the beam goes into that air. They had the lasers and cameras at 1.0m.
Metabunk 2019-04-09 14-08-16.jpg
 

JohnP

New Member
With reference to the second video:
Why should what happens in the troposphere have any effect on a horizontal laser beam (particularly in a Flat-Earth model)? Many of the sources (e.g. Wikipedia) that tell you about the temperature rising in the troposphere will also tell you what is happening to the density of the air. (Hint: it is the air density that is mostly reponsible for changes in refractive index.)
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Hey Mr. West!

I've found two objections to your explanation.

mod Deirdre edit: first ex removed. unclear and impolite.

And secondly, it has been claimed that at night, the air is usually colder than the water which means that the laser should bend in an upward direction. Many flatearthers claim that there is no footage of laser beams bending downwards.

Cf. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPlCnbOhBRg
time stamp: 10:28
I'm going to give you a chance to fix this. You state:
Do not paraphrase. Where is it claimed?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hepper

New Member
I'm going to give you a chance to fix this. You state:
Do not paraphrase. Where is it claimed?

It is claimed at 10:28 in the second video that I posted. It states:

What we need in order for West's idea to work is the opposite: Dense air immediately above the body of water.

And at 6:44, the maker of the video states:

Of course, this last sentence is sarcastic.
 

Laser

Member
@Hepper - There are a couple problems with Dr.JohnD's claims about the air above the water. One is that, although it is true that all else being equal, colder air is denser, for air of increasing altitude above the water, all else is not equal. The altitude is increasing and therefore the pressure is dropping. The density decrease due to pressure drop usually dominates the density increase due to temperature drop. This is obvious when you consider the very low densities and very cold temperatures at very high altitudes, and how the warmer air at sea level is more dense. But that's probably not the main problem with Dr.JohnD's theory. He fails to establish that the water is actually warmer than the air over his entire laser or observation path. Indeed just the opposite. Mick West showed that some of Dr.JohnD's own videos showed height compression of the lower floors of the distant sky scrapers, betraying the downward bending of light. Dr.JohnD made a rebuttal video but failed to produce a valid refutation.

As for the lack of pictures of downward bending lasers, that is due in part to the many miles of distance needed to show noticeable laser bending, and the spreading out and dimming over long distance of even very well columnated lasers. Also, remember that not only will the laser be bent down, but the light scattered from the beam that allows you to see the beam, will also be bent down on its way to the eye/camera, and therefore the distant parts of the beam will appear higher than they really are, instead of you seeing the true shape of the beam curvature.
 

Hepper

New Member
@Hepper - There are a couple problems with Dr.JohnD's claims about the air above the water. One is that, although it is true that all else being equal, colder air is denser, for air of increasing altitude above the water, all else is not equal. The altitude is increasing and therefore the pressure is dropping. The density decrease due to pressure drop usually dominates the density increase due to temperature drop. This is obvious when you consider the very low densities and very cold temperatures at very high altitudes, and how the warmer air at sea level is more dense. But that's probably not the main problem with Dr.JohnD's theory. He fails to establish that the water is actually warmer than the air over his entire laser or observation path. Indeed just the opposite. Mick West showed that some of Dr.JohnD's own videos showed height compression of the lower floors of the distant sky scrapers, betraying the downward bending of light. Dr.JohnD made a rebuttal video but failed to produce a valid refutation.

As for the lack of pictures of downward bending lasers, that is due in part to the many miles of distance needed to show noticeable laser bending, and the spreading out and dimming over long distance of even very well columnated lasers. Also, remember that not only will the laser be bent down, but the light scattered from the beam that allows you to see the beam, will also be bent down on its way to the eye/camera, and therefore the distant parts of the beam will appear higher than they really are, instead of you seeing the true shape of the beam curvature.

Do you have a link to the corresponding videos? Another criticism that I think is worth mentioning is the brightness of the laser. It decreases over long distances. According to Mr West, what we see when we observe the green/blue flashes of light is actually the edge of the bottom radius of the laser beam, not the intense central axis. However, this portion of the laser should be barely visible due to the decrease in brightness (at least according to the critics). But most flat earthers clearly observe a very intense and bright flash of light as soon as they spot the laser.

Moderator deirdre
mod edit: video example removed due to impolite thumbnail and it isn't a video example just a photo, which is here:
upload_2019-10-20_11-33-25.png


So how could this be? Is it because the diverging beam directly enters the eye of the observer?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
According to Mr West, what we see when we observe the green/blue flashes of light is actually the edge of the bottom radius of the laser beam, not the intense central axis.
That's not what I'm saying at all. The spread of the beam simply makes it a bit easier to aim. Any part of the beam can be visible based on what angle the laser is initially at.
 

Hepper

New Member
Thanks for the clarification. Something that I (and many flat earthers) still don't understand about refraction is the following: Why does refraction only affect distant objects? Why does the laser appear to be elevated (due to the change in the angle of the incoming laser beam) but not the bulge of water behind which the source of the laser is located?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why does refraction only affect distant objects?
The longer the distance, the more refraction. This is because the refraction is very gradual, caused by the slight vertical gradient in the air. This is very different from the sudden transition between air and water. So nearby objects are affected, just not enough to see. Kind of like how haze is in all the air, but nearby objects don't look hazy, because you are not looking through much air.

Why does the laser appear to be elevated (due to the change in the angle of the incoming laser beam) but not the bulge of water behind which the source of the laser is located?
Both are elevated. But since the laser is further away than the horizon, it is elevated more than the horizon.
 

Hepper

New Member
And I also don't fully understand how a vertical gradient can affect the path of the laser. This is much more easy to imagine when considering atmospheric refraction of sun light (which makes the sun itself appear elevated), because in this case, the light rays from the sun are moving through all the air layers of the atmosphere. But how is a horizontal laser beam affected by a vertical gradient?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But how is a horizontal laser beam affected by a vertical gradient?
The horizontal beam is still made up of vertically oriented waves of light. The bottom of each wave is in denser air than the top (even over 1mm), so it travels slower, turning the direction of travel of the wave downwards.
 

FatPhil

Active Member
The horizontal beam is still made up of vertically oriented waves of light. The bottom of each wave is in denser air than the top (even over 1mm), so it travels slower, turning the direction of travel of the wave downwards.

This is one of those cases where simplifications help make the effect make sense to those unfamiliar with the concept, but alas is more an "as if" than a "because". The "light travels slower in denser air" part is accurate, and fortunately that's all you need to explain refraction (as long as you accept Maxwell's equations). It's best to keep the "tops" and "bottoms" of the waves out of the explanation. As soon as you start introducing concepts such as polarisation, that explanation breaks down.

Dr. Don Lincoln at Fermilab did a couple of explanatory youtube videos that cover why bending of light happens at an air/glass interface, and the same principles apply to smoothly changing densities:
CUjt36SD3h8 Why does light slow down in water?
NLmpNM0sgYk Why does light bend when it enters glass?
(Yes, that is how I interface with youtube, with raw ids and youtube-dl, their website doesn't work in my browser at all nowadays.)
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
R Flat Earth Claim: "The Greatest Laser Experiment In History" - FECORE Flat Earth 11
Sandor Szekely Lake Balaton Laser experiment to determine the curvature of the Earth, if any. Flat Earth 1027
Agent K Geogebra tool to compare distances on a Flat Earth with a Globe Tools for Investigating and Debunking 1
V Needs debunking: flat earthers claim this reflection to show a harness in ISS video Flat Earth 10
S Help: Panorama Maker and the Curvature of the Earth Flat Earth 19
J Claim sun paths prove flat earth Flat Earth 41
J Are sun shadows only possible on a flat earth? Flat Earth 5
Mick West Flat Earth and Refraction with Oil Platforms Hillhouse and Habitat Flat Earth 5
Code-Beta 300 miles visibility on Antartica? Flat Earth 2
H Illusions of Curvature - RC Boat Hidden on Small Pond Flat Earth 10
M Bornong Flat Earth vs Oblate Spheroid: Earthquakes Flat Earth 3
Bunkmeister Cosmonaut Miroslaw Hermaczewski allegedly says earth is flat - [joke] Flat Earth 10
Mick West TFTRH #29 - Geoff: Everything is a Hoax, The Earth Might Be Flat Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Cassi O Google Maps Measure Distance Using Great Circle Flat Earth 0
Mick West TFTRH #14: Rory – Flat Earth Debunking and Spiritual Journeys Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 6
Wiggles Refraction Variations Over Water to Bell Island Flat Earth 27
Wiggles I could have spiralled into flat earth belief. Escaping The Rabbit Hole 36
Mick West Demonstrating the Curve of the Earth with observations of Beachy Head from Worthing Flat Earth 38
Qulaey Explained: 17.61 Mile Mirror Flash Supposedly Proves Flat Earth [Refraction] Flat Earth 5
Rory Calculator for viewing angles Tools for Investigating and Debunking 13
Rory Claim: footage of Great South Bay Bridge supports flat earth Flat Earth 11
Rory How can we explain perspective calculations simply? Flat Earth 39
chrono117 How to Debunk Flat Earth Without Relying on NASA or Photos Flat Earth 42
Mendel Debunked: Air Map of the World 1945 is a flat Earth map Flat Earth 0
T Observations of a Wind Farm Over the Curve of The Earth Flat Earth 0
Mendel Homemade Gyrocompass finds North by Spin Flat Earth 0
brad fuller Does the inverse-square law apply to the flat-earth debunking tool chest? Flat Earth 4
Rory Earth curve calculator for obstructions Tools for Investigating and Debunking 9
Rory Explained: How Mount Rainier helps demonstrate the shape of the globe Flat Earth 38
Rory Unidentified "space vehicle" Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 8
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
MisterB Debunked: Isle of Man from Blackpool at water level proves flat earth [refraction] Flat Earth 19
Mick West What does the Flat Earth Look Like From Space, with Perspective? Flat Earth 19
Neil Obstat Claim: zooming in on setting sun proves flat earth Flat Earth 23
Mick West Earth's Radius Calculator (from the amount a distant object is obscured) Tools for Investigating and Debunking 0
Whitebeard Quick and easy demonstration of the shape of the Earth Flat Earth 7
I Nathan Oakley's Flat Earth "Debates". Flat Earth 69
Rory Recreating the Bedford Level Experiment Flat Earth 8
danno Using a very long water level to measure Earth's curvature Flat Earth 16
qed Third of millennials NOT convinced Earth is round Flat Earth 27
Mick West Debunking Guidelines for: "Convex Earth - The Documentary" Flat Earth 0
Nth Claim: 146 Mile Microwave Transmission Proves Flat Earth Flat Earth 26
Benjamin Moore Explained: Why Earth Has A Magnetic Core Even Though the core is Molten Metal Flat Earth 2
Mick West RT Promoting Flat Earth? Flat Earth 31
R “Flat Earth” map General Discussion 2
Rory Flat Earth debunked by measuring angles to the sun Flat Earth 37
StarGazer Claim: First Image of Space Taken from V-2 Rocket Proves the Earth is Flat Flat Earth 17
M Do Ibiza and Mallorca prove a Flat Earth? [No, they demonstrate the curve of the globe] Flat Earth 24
FlightMuj Explained: NASA documents stating a flat Earth??? Linear Aircraft Models Flat Earth 7
Mick West What Happened When Engineers Forgot The Earth Was Round Flat Earth 1
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top