[Tom Bishop]

But physics doesn't just exist in the woo woo air, it is proven through observation. Take for example, general relativity. Yes, it's just math that Einstein put down on paper, and exists purely in the mathematical world. But it can be proved, such as in the Eddington experiment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment where Einstein correctly predicted the deflection of the position of a star as it is curved by the Sun's gravity on its path to us. Newtonian physics when applied to this problem, got it wrong.

Dr. Edward Dowdye says that the medium of the Solar Corona bends light, not gravity. And the observations further away from the edge of the sun fails to match prediction.

http://beyondmainstream.org/nasa-scientist-says-coronas-bend-light-not-gravity/

[macattack]

Wonder what he says about the shape of the Earth? 
https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/einstein-was-right-again-astronomers-watch-stars-gravity-bends-light-another-star

[Rog]

A parallel transport can distinguish curved space from flat.  Its just moving a vector, keeping it parallel to itself, along a closed path.  If the vector has to change directions to complete the path, then the surface is curved.



http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/12/27/measuring-the-curvature-of-spacetime-with-the-geodetic-effect/

You might have to use some ingenuity on the actual execution, but I'm sure it could be figured out.  Maybe a missile or rocket of some sort that is programmed to maintain a constant orientation along its trajectory.

The same concept was used to measure the curvature of spacetime using a gyroscope.  The animation is from a link describing the experiment.

[troolon]

By your own account, you say that your model is unobservable and unpredictable, so what makes it a theory and not just a fantasy?

I said it's impossible to differentiate it from the globe model. What makes it not a fantasy is that i prove equivalence with the globe. (but maybe we should continue this discussion in the other thread)

We can't define the tests, unless we have a model.
- Today FE doesn't provide a working model and then there's nothing to test.
- If someone develops a perfectly working model, then there are no tests to perform.

I believe in the other thread i have developed a perfectly working flat earth model, and there's no way to test flat earth from globe earth. The shape of the universe simply can't be known. It could not even have a shape.

[ichoosereality]

The Foucault Pendulum seems like an obvious choice.

The original was built in 1851 to show that it is the earth that is rotating not the stars.  The spherical nature of the earth was not in question any more in 1851 than it is today. But the pendulum's rate and direction of rotation clearly confirms the spherical nature of the earth as well.  The pendulum rotates once per day clockwise at the north pole (i.e. the earth rotating counterclockwise under it), slows down as the sin of the angle of latitude as you go south until it stops at the equator then picks up again but counterclockwise as you continue south until its again once per day at the south pole.  The rotation rate  formula of 24h56m/sin lat or about 31h50m for London was fully expected for the original device but is further confirmed (including the reversal in the southern hemisphere) by the many devices built all over the planet including at the south pole.

The rotation direction is from the perspective of a person standing by the device. Clearly the direction of the rotation of the earth can not reverse at the equator since its a solid object whatever shape it is. So the only explanation for the reversal is that the orientation of the device and observer reverses relative to the rotation of the earth between north and south hemispheres.  All perfectly explained by a rotating sphere but not explained at all by even a rotating disk let alone a stationary one.

Does that not fully refute the claim of a flat earth?  Of course the same could be said of many other things but the Foucault pendulum being simple, self contained and purely mechanical seems harder to wave away with some unknown magic technology or vast conspiracy.

[Tom Bishop]

Does that not fully refute the claim of a flat earth?

No. Please see the TFES Wiki on that topic - https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

[AATW]

Does that not fully refute the claim of a flat earth?

It does. The results from that experiment would not be possible on a flat earth.
The FE response is a predictable “nuh uh”, the results are simply denied. But yes I’d suggest that is a good experiment that would distinguish between the two models.

[stack]

I think the results from this contraption that Bob refers to as "extremely precise" would not be possible on a flat earth either.

[ichoosereality]

Does that not fully refute the claim of a flat earth?

No. Please see the TFES Wiki on that topic - https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

I did before I posted and it doesn't invalidate this at all.   Your references are often from unrefereed papers, are very old (like 1851) or simply false.  Certainly there  are often difficulties with building such a device.  I tired to build one myself in high school but had to do it outside and the occasionally slight breeze despite he sheltered location  invalidated the effort.  From the south pole paper (emphasis mine) in contrast to your picking and choosing quotes:

"Calculations and conclusions:

If the period of the pendulum was 24 hours then it should subtend an angle of 15º every hour. Intermediate measurements and calculations were made to verify this. By measuring the lengths of 3 sides of an equilateral triangle formed by the swinging pendulum over a 20 minute period and using the Law of Cosines to calculate the angle subtended in that time period it was determined that the earth rotated in a clockwise direction, relative to looking down at the South Pole, 5º every 20 minutes as expected."

[Tom Bishop]

Does that not fully refute the claim of a flat earth?

No. Please see the TFES Wiki on that topic - https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

I did before I posted and it doesn't invalidate this at all.   Your references are often from unrefereed papers, are very old (like 1851) or simply false.  Certainly there  are often difficulties with building such a device.  I tired to build one myself in high school but had to do it outside and the occasionally slight breeze despite he sheltered location  invalidated the effort.  From the south pole paper (emphasis mine) in contrast to your picking and choosing quotes:

"Calculations and conclusions:

If the period of the pendulum was 24 hours then it should subtend an angle of 15º every hour. Intermediate measurements and calculations were made to verify this. By measuring the lengths of 3 sides of an equilateral triangle formed by the swinging pendulum over a 20 minute period and using the Law of Cosines to calculate the angle subtended in that time period it was determined that the earth rotated in a clockwise direction, relative to looking down at the South Pole, 5º every 20 minutes as expected."

Yeah, after the said they tried it many times with a variety of different techniques because they weren't getting the results they expected. 

[ichoosereality]

Yeah, after the said they tried it many times with a variety of different techniques because they weren't getting the results they expected. 

If they could not find a flaw in their setup that would be different but the DID find flaws.  This is a standard method of scientific experimentation.  If the results are not as expected you look for flaws in your technique. In this case that might be that the wire used is untwisting, or that there is air flow, or the release mechanism applies a torque. If you do NOT find any such flaws then you need to accept the results but if there ARE flaws then you need to correct them and rerun the experiment.  This is especially true if the results are not just unexpected but inconsistent or variable as they were in this case before the flaws were corrected.

[Tumeni]

What experiments could one do in order to distinguish FE from RE?

Larger/longer versions of the Bedford Level.



Rowbottom asserts he was looking straight and level along the tops of the flags. If the height of the flags is 5 feet, Rowbottom's eyes and/or optical instrument were also at 5 feet. 

If Rowbottom had a straight, unwavering sightline over the various flags, as the illustration suggests, then we can assert a straight sightline from his eye/optical instrument down to the surface of the canal, or to the base of any the flags, at zero feet above the canal. Why not?

So;

Find a spot onshore, looking outward/seaward toward boats/ships or islands of lesser height than the observer.  Let's say observer height is 100m.  Sea level is zero. Let's presume the sea to be flat, as per Rowbottom's assertion for the canal.

All straight sightlines to the sea's surface must be downward sightlines. From 100 down to 0. They cannot be upward or level. The observer cannot be looking upward or level toward the sea below him.

All sightlines must pass through all levels below 100m on their way to the sea. 100 down through 95, 90, 80, 70, 50, 25, down to zero. Cannot pass through 110, 120, or any other level above 100.

By the same token, if the observer sees any object out on the water of lesser height than his, say at 80 or 25, the sightline through the top of it must, if continued beyond the top of that object, meet the water.

The downward sightline is non-parallel to the plane of the sea, and must always meet the sea at some point. Non-parallel lines always meet.

If the observer does not see water behind and beyond the top of the lower object, the seas CANNOT be flat. If there is clear sky behind and beyond the top, the seas CANNOT be flat.

Simple right-angle triangle geometry dictates the point at which the straight sightline must meet the water, where the observer height, object height and distance between are known.

The following observations are therefore an impossibility if the seas are flat; the first is my own, the second taken from a flat-earther's YouTube video.

Observer height 100m, ship height 52m (the one on the right with two cranes);




Observer height 210m, lighthouse on the island 73m;



Nothing to do with "ships going over the horizon", "disappearing bottom up", etc etc ...


     

[Tom Bishop]

Yeah, after the said they tried it many times with a variety of different techniques because they weren't getting the results they expected. 

If they could not find a flaw in their setup that would be different but the DID find flaws.  This is a standard method of scientific experimentation.  If the results are not as expected you look for flaws in your technique. In this case that might be that the wire used is untwisting, or that there is air flow, or the release mechanism applies a torque. If you do NOT find any such flaws then you need to accept the results but if there ARE flaws then you need to correct them and rerun the experiment.  This is especially true if the results are not just unexpected but inconsistent or variable as they were in this case before the flaws were corrected.

Considering that they don't mention replicating the result more than once, it is more likely that they did it again and again until they got the result they wanted.

[AATW]

Considering that they don't mention replicating the result more than once, it is more likely that they did it again and again until they got the result they wanted.

So why don’t you try then?
All we have from you is the Bishop experiment which you’ve provided no evidence for even having done?

This thread is about experiments which could distinguish FE from RE. What experiment would you suggest? Have you done said experiment? If so, can we see your results and the documentation of your method for review?

[ichoosereality]

Considering that they don't mention replicating the result more than once, it is more likely that they did it again and again until they got the result they wanted.

Sure Tom, all the scientists that put together the more than 30 instances of a Foucault Pendulum around the world all used bad technique or are part of some grand conspiracy and this of course includes the instances open to the public that have been running for years and your evidence for this is what you as a layman with no scientific training at all think is "likely".   Of course the Foucault Pendulum cases are only the tip of the iceberg as you have to come to this same conclusion about much of the modern world (as has been pointed out repeatedly in this forum).  With such an amazingly ability for determining what is real and what is not why are you not among the richest people on the planet, why have you not solved the worlds energy problems or cured disease etc?  I'm not trying to be condescending here.  In all seriousness why does this ability manifest itself in such limited circumstances?  Doesn't that cause you to question your view?

[Tom Bishop]

Sure Tom, all the scientists that put together the more than 30 instances of a Foucault Pendulum around the world all used bad technique or are part of some grand conspiracy

Actually it was criticized by all sides, including scientists, since its inception in the 1800's. See the references at https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

[Tumeni]

Considering that they don't mention replicating the result more than once, it is more likely that they did it again and again until they got the result they wanted.

As per the title, have you got any experiments to show, and which of them have you done?

I detailed the results of mine above. What can you show us?

[jack44556677]

Hey all!

Some of my thoughts on the matter:

Experiment is a technical vernacular of the discipline of science.  It has a rigorous and inflexible definition as a result.

We most all learn incorrect colloquial definitions of these vernaculars, and because so few of us ever have advanced scientific training, or study the history and philosophy of science, - they just let us continue being wrong and confused.  It is one of the most major reasons for the ubiquitous scientific illiteracy we suffer from.

An experiment is only a validation/refutation (ideally) of a valid hypothesis.  It has no other purpose. The shape of things is not a valid hypothesis in any way, and so naturally cannot be verified by experiment.

In fact, there is only one way to determine with certainty the shape of any physical object in reality.  It is rigorous and repeated measurement (OF THE OBJECT!)!  The earth is NO exception to this.

As it is is too large for us to tackle all in one go, it would seem that the rigorous and repeated measurement of still water's surface (barring surface tension artifacts) would be the logical place to begin. This has already been done for centuries in the discipline of hydrostatics.

This would not tell us the shape of the entire world of course, but it would help to determine (by establishing the local observations) if spherical is even a potentially acceptable shape for the world (considering its surface is thought +70% water)

[ichoosereality]

Sure Tom, all the scientists that put together the more than 30 instances of a Foucault Pendulum around the world all used bad technique or are part of some grand conspiracy

Actually it was criticized by all sides, including scientists, since its inception in the 1800's. See the references at https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

This is total BS.   Starting from the first (presumably the most important) counter claim

The Popular and Scientific Reception of the Foucault Pendulum in the United States
by Michael F. Conlin, Ph.D. (bio)
Full Text Link

History professor Michael Conlin gives us a historical account of the Foucault Pendulum and its reception. We read that, although the Foucault Pendulum was publicly supported by Royal Astronomer George Airy and others, it was privately rejected:

p.185
  “ In private correspondence, Airy had repeatedly dismissed the Foucault pendulum experiment as a "fraud." He regarded the latitude-dependent formula for the period of the apparent precession of the pendulum as a "mathematical curiosity having no application whatever to the soi-disant experiment." Attending no demonstrations, Airy based his conclusion on oral accounts of the experiment. Concurring with Airy, Powell accepted the theory but held that as a "practical question" the experiment was "doubtless open to every kind of doubt." After learning of successful demonstrations by British scientists, Airy conducted his own experiments. Although it was possible to conduct the experiment properly, he concluded that the "difficulty of starting a free pendulum, so as to make it vibrate at first in a plane, is extremely great."

Although Airy and Powell kept their opinions private, popular journals learned of their rejection of the experiment. Linking Airy's and Powell's doubts to recent unsuccessful popular demonstrations of the experiment, these journals questioned the validity of the Foucault pendulum. The London Literary Gazette recommended caution to those who would attempt the experiment because "persons unqualified by previous habits of research and accurate investigation" had failed. The Literary Gazette knew of several exhibitions "in which, to the horror of the spectators, the earth has been shown to turn the wrong way." The Illustrated London News expressed similar reservations, observing that the "experiment is now giving rise to much controversy, and it is hard to conceive that there is not some fallacy lurking at the bottom of it." ”\

You merely have to go on to the next page (186) to see: "Powell also noted that Airy had confirmed the experiment.  On 9 May, Airy had presented his results to the Royal Astronomical Society."

So Airy is NOT just publicly accepting the results of others, he verified it himself.  Note "his results".

The rest of your claims are all about how hard the experiment is to perform.  That is true, but does not in any way invalidate the results.

Finally you have this belly laugh

Mach's Principle

One alternative explanation that has been suggested by those who do accept the Foucault Pendulum is Mach's Principle. Mach's Principle explains that if the earth was still and the all the stars went around the Earth then the gravitational pull of the stars would pull the pendulum. As Mach said "The universe is not twice given, with an earth at rest and an earth in motion; but only once, with its relative motions alone determinable. It is accordingly, not permitted us to say how things would be if the earth did not rotate."

FEers do not accept that the stars exist right?  So how can you fall back on this?  If you are accepting that stars exist then why would the gravitational attraction do this pulling around of the pendulum, i.e. where is the math that shows this (also note that the gravitational attraction of a large star 2000 light years away would exert a few million times less gravitational force on the pendulum that a person standing in the room).

Finally all this is popular press stuff.  Who cares?  Science is done in peer-reviewed journals.  If anyone wants to make a scientific claim that the Foucault Pendulum does not work or does not show what is claimed that is where you make them. 

So no Tom, your claim that "it was criticized by all sides, including scientists, since its inception in the 1800's." is total nonsense.  This so called "criticism" changes nothing about the result of the Foucault Pendulum.

[Tumeni]

As it is is too large for us to tackle all in one go, it would seem that the rigorous and repeated measurement of still water's surface (barring surface tension artifacts) would be the logical place to begin. This has already been done for centuries in the discipline of hydrostatics. This would not tell us the shape of the entire world of course, but it would help to determine (by establishing the local observations) if spherical is even a potentially acceptable shape for the world (considering its surface is thought +70% water)

Done twice thus far. You did see reply #31 above...?

Got lots more examples if you wanna see.