3 ms·
That's too prone to terrain irregularities, and I can't imagine that there's a single area of land on earth that's remotely as smooth as the surface of an spher
by dalmo3 5y ago
That's too prone to terrain irregularities, and I can't imagine that there's a single area of land on earth that's remotely as smooth as the surface of an sphere. Further, even if you assume perfect instrumentation, how would one account for gravity?
- zimpenfish 5y ago> I can't imagine that there's a single area of land on earth that's remotely as smooth as the surface of an sphere Salar de Uyuni - "As a result, the variation in the surface elevation over the 10,582-square-kilometer (4,086 sq mi) area of Salar de Uyuni is less than 1 meter (3 ft 3 in) normal to the Earth's circumference". That's less than 1 in 6371000 - pretty smooth, no? > That's too prone to terrain irregularities Nah, it's still doable, especially on that^ salt flat - if you have two close holes and a 3rd one 55km away, a flat earth will let you line up the laser through all three with less than 2m of adjustment. By my rough calculations, on a spherical earth, the laser will be ~250m above ground at 55km - pretty obviously proving the hypothesis incorrect, no?
- dalmo3 5y agoThat's a great example, thanks!
- GTP 5y agoSorry, I fail to see what would be the problem with gravity here. Do you mean we should consider that gravity curves the laser beam?