Brian Mullin - Force the Line - 1
Dear Brian Mullin,
Fact check = You Fail
At time mark 3:25 you state, 'People argue that when you are looking at things in a distance, you are actually looking down, and that this isn't right. But I think my views level when I'm standing here, upright and looking out, I think, my view is pretty uhmm level. And I view things across the water, and I'm not looking down at them.
Your error - unless your eye is exactly at surface water level, or looking "perfectly" parallel to the ground, of course you are looking DOWN at all things.
Your error - Lining your vision up with the horizon does not mean you are looking parallel to the ground.
(see picture 2 below)
What effect does looking down have on how far away the horizon is for you? It's simple math...
While standing in the same place....
At zero eye elevation, Distance to the horizon is 0 Miles
At 3 feet elevation above the ground, Distance to the horizon 2.1 Miles
At 6 feet elevation above the ground, Distance to the horizon 3 Miles
At 12 feet elevation above the ground , Distance to the horizon 4.2 Miles
At 50 feet elevation above the ground, Distance to the horizon 8.7 Miles
At 1,000 feet elevation above the ground, Distance to the horizon 38.7 Miles
So the higher you stand, the farther you see - which is only possible when standing on a globe.
When I stand on a California beach, why can't I see Tokyo or Mr. Everest off on the distance. With a powerful enough telescope I should see them both - but I don't.
Using this calculator...
(http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm)
Conclusion:
You are looking down (albeit a very small angle) at the horizon line - Period.
- - -
Engineer George Hnatiuk does a great evalution of the "Force the Line" experiment.
Salvaging Mullin's "Force the Line"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nJXn9_9Cfc
George's conclusion:
The "Force the Line" experiment cannot realistically be done. The machining accuracy needed to create the experiment with metal beams say 4.88-meters long (6.01 feet in length) with thickness 10-cm (3.94-inches) - is a right angle end bend accuracy of 76.6-nanometers which is 1/7-th the wavelength of green light, or the width of 766 atoms...
You need 100 of those beams to go just 1/4 of a mile. For the experiment you would need thousands of those beams.
Machining to that accuracy cannot be done cost effectively - if it could even be done.
- - -
Published on - April 4, 2017
Posts at - https://plus.google.com/112395025400327394667/posts
Discussion at - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7ipUKERU0tzYFxALJBli4A/discussion
his deleted Video at..
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSdo1lo8T5Q)
Live mirror video currently at..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG5q2PbjoEk&list=PLYI8318YYdkD_VW7u3EMBq-MeNIuHRnb4&index=12
kind regards, JonahTheScientist
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
(http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26427/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-the-earth-is-round) 
