That may be sufficient enough to invalidate the experiment but I don't care to sit down and do the math. I've done these types of experiments myself in school and can verify that the footage is either doctored or there are unaccounted for variables skewing their results.
Doing it across water with "I can see teh light!1" being the only criteria for success is shitty science because of refraction. Spectrometry isn't my field, but I know someone well versed in it.
Also, they have no link to a document with their findings that I saw. Maybe I overlooked it. But they don't seem to want anyone to really sit down and analyze their data. The hard figures are constantly moving on screen.
Well, at first blush they seem to be lying about the elevation differences between origination point and collection point.
That may be sufficient enough to invalidate the experiment but I don't care to sit down and do the math. I've done these types of experiments myself in school and can verify that the footage is either doctored or there are unaccounted for variables skewing their results.
Doing it across water with "I can see teh light!1" being the only criteria for success is shitty science because of refraction. Spectrometry isn't my field, but I know someone well versed in it.
Also, they have no link to a document with their findings that I saw. Maybe I overlooked it. But they don't seem to want anyone to really sit down and analyze their data. The hard figures are constantly moving on screen.
This is almost certainly junk science.