[Desmondo]

So, I've been thinking a bit about FET, and it seems to me as if it has become a topic that is almost impossible to resolve. Any sort of earth-based abstract experimental evidence, like the Bedford Canal experiment or ships sinking below the horizon, is always highly debatable. Any sort of definitive proof would only really come from pictures of earth from space or going up there and seeing it for yourself.

However, any sort pictures from space or first hand accounts (from astronauts and the like) will have inevitably come through government bodies or other institutions, and so FET'ers will never accept them (on the basis that the evidence could have been tampered with or even fabricated altogether). However, I don't see anyone in TFES sending up their own satellite or going into space themselves anytime soon, so any sort of direct unsourced evidence that couldn't have been altered for the FET'ers to use seems unlikely to come about. So, a seemingly intractable dilemma then....

Well, I was just pontificating, and thought of two possible experiments that wouldn't seem too tricky to do which might help. I have dubbed them:

1) The lego man Experiment

2) The night shadow experiment

They might take a bit of explaining, so I'll go through them in later posts. It is probably also worth mentioning that I am far from an expert on this topic, so feel free to tell me if I'm spouting complete nonsense 

[Ghost of V]

However, I don't see anyone in TFES sending up their own satellite or going into space themselves anytime soon, so any sort of direct unsourced evidence that couldn't have been altered for the FET'ers to use seems unlikely to come about. So, a seemingly intractable dilemma then....

Once we find a way to counter UA and escape the flatmosphere, we'll let you know.


Of course we'll need money to do this, so if you're willing to donate to this cause then that would be great.

[Desmondo]

Okay, so: The lego man experiment.

First things first, I saw this clip on youtube:
There are multiple moments when you can see curvature of the earth fairly clearly, and the equipment looks pretty low tech. So I found this article ( http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/teens-send-lego-man-into-near-space-20120128-1qn02.html ) which says that the overall cost was about $C400 (I don't know where you are, but that's about £226 where I live). Which may be kind of steep in terms of cost, but certainly doable and not anywhere near satellite- or trip-into-space-steep. And then if you did this kind of thing yourself, and it got high enough, you'd have your own clear proof either way.

Although, I'm sure people would manage to argue about it afterwards anyway....

[Desmondo]

Once we find a way to counter UA and escape the flatmosphere, we'll let you know.


Of course we'll need money to do this, so if you're willing to donate to this cause then that would be great.

Should I bother asking what UA and the flatmosphere are, or should I not get myself into it?

Also, I probably should have mentioned - even though I'm suggesting all these ideas, I'm kind of good not to donate. Sorry. Just not much money to spare at the moment. Plus I don't know anyone here.

But I reckon that wasn't a serious comment about donating anyway.

[Ghost of V]

No, I was completely serious, but I wasn't expecting you to donate. It's just that many people come here suggesting that we go to space and get pictures of the Earth and whatnot, not knowing what that entails. It's a very serious endeavor, and not many of us have that kind of money to blow on a project of that magnitude.

UA is Universal Acceleration. This pretty much makes space travel and satellites impossible. Now some of us believe that satelittes are actually up there, but not at the official given altitudes. We call these "stratellites", or sometimes "pseudollites".

[Desmondo]

Ugh, this website. It literally just deleted an entire essay-length post I had written. To be honest, I probably pressed something wrong, but either way I have to write the whole thing out again.

So, the night shadow experiment. Hmmm, I really should have taken a bit more time to think up of a better-sounding name for that.

Anyway, another link for your perusal:



The main point here is not the aircraft, but the shadow of night as it engulfs the earth. Compare it to this link:

http://wiki.tfes.org/File:SunAnimation.gif

I haven't analysed it closely, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 'night shadows' don't correlate - i.e. the shadow of night in clip 1 doesn't go over the same countries at the same time as it does in animation 2.

So, if any FET'ers ever find themselves in various foreign countries at the same time, surely it might be a thought to get on the phone/email/mind-link [delete as applicable] to each other and see the time difference between when night arrives in one country compared to when it does in another. Then, it would be easy enough to see which model it fits in with. Obviously, the more people involved the more accurate it becomes.

Simples (hopefully!)

[Desmondo]

No, I was completely serious, but I wasn't expecting you to donate. It's just that many people come here suggesting that we go to space and get pictures of the Earth and whatnot, not knowing what that entails. It's a very serious endeavor, and not many of us have that kind of money to blow on a project of that magnitude.

UA is Universal Acceleration. This pretty much makes space travel and satellites impossible. Now some of us believe that satelittes are actually up there, but not at the official given altitudes. We call these "stratellites", or sometimes "pseudollites".

Cool. Is there anywhere I can read up about UA?
Ever considered giving Mr Branson a ring and asking for free rides on virgin galactic? Although it seems ever more doubtful that the project (or the spacecraft for that matter) will ever get off the ground.

[Ghost of V]

No, I was completely serious, but I wasn't expecting you to donate. It's just that many people come here suggesting that we go to space and get pictures of the Earth and whatnot, not knowing what that entails. It's a very serious endeavor, and not many of us have that kind of money to blow on a project of that magnitude.

UA is Universal Acceleration. This pretty much makes space travel and satellites impossible. Now some of us believe that satelittes are actually up there, but not at the official given altitudes. We call these "stratellites", or sometimes "pseudollites".

Cool. Is there anywhere I can read up about UA?
Ever considered giving Mr Branson a ring and asking for free rides on virgin galactic? Although it seems ever more doubtful that the project (or the spacecraft for that matter) will ever get off the ground.

We have an entire wiki dedicated to Flat Earth Theory. You should really read most of it before posting.
Here's the article on Universal Acceleration: http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

Also, Virgin Galactic is a money laundering scheme.  Your suggestion is not helpful.

[Desmondo]

No, I was completely serious, but I wasn't expecting you to donate. It's just that many people come here suggesting that we go to space and get pictures of the Earth and whatnot, not knowing what that entails. It's a very serious endeavor, and not many of us have that kind of money to blow on a project of that magnitude.

UA is Universal Acceleration. This pretty much makes space travel and satellites impossible. Now some of us believe that satelittes are actually up there, but not at the official given altitudes. We call these "stratellites", or sometimes "pseudollites".

Cool. Is there anywhere I can read up about UA?
Ever considered giving Mr Branson a ring and asking for free rides on virgin galactic? Although it seems ever more doubtful that the project (or the spacecraft for that matter) will ever get off the ground.

We have an entire wiki dedicated to Flat Earth Theory. You should really read most of it before posting.
Here's the article on Universal Acceleration: http://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration

Also, Virgin Galactic is a money laundering scheme.  Your suggestion is not helpful.

mea culpa

[Tintagel]

There are multiple moments when you can see curvature of the earth fairly clearly, and the equipment looks pretty low tech. So I found this article ( http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/teens-send-lego-man-into-near-space-20120128-1qn02.html ) which says that the overall cost was about $C400 (I don't know where you are, but that's about £226 where I live). Which may be kind of steep in terms of cost, but certainly doable and not anywhere near satellite- or trip-into-space-steep. And then if you did this kind of thing yourself, and it got high enough, you'd have your own clear proof either way.

Although, I'm sure people would manage to argue about it afterwards anyway....

Imagine a camera floating high above a flat disc.  You'd see curvature there as well.  This is only one of several reasons for the apparition of curvature at high altitudes, none of which require a spherical earth.

I haven't analysed it closely, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 'night shadows' don't correlate - i.e. the shadow of night in clip 1 doesn't go over the same countries at the same time as it does in animation 2.

So, if any FET'ers ever find themselves in various foreign countries at the same time, surely it might be a thought to get on the phone/email/mind-link [delete as applicable] to each other and see the time difference between when night arrives in one country compared to when it does in another. Then, it would be easy enough to see which model it fits in with. Obviously, the more people involved the more accurate it becomes.

Simples (hopefully!)

Well, that gif is an approximation on the part of its creator,  in several respects.  It neglects the changing radius of solar orbit during changing seasons, it neglects changing altitudes which may contribute to lunar phases, etc.  (I'm sure you'll have questions about that, but that's probably a topic for another thread)

I think if you took the video and curled it around the north pole, a la the traditional flat earth map, you'd be able to clearly see the "spotlight" effect of the sun circling over the plane of the earth.

I'm late to the thread (real life has been keeping me busy the past couple of weeks!) but welcome to TFES.

[Gulliver]

There are multiple moments when you can see curvature of the earth fairly clearly, and the equipment looks pretty low tech. So I found this article ( http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/teens-send-lego-man-into-near-space-20120128-1qn02.html ) which says that the overall cost was about $C400 (I don't know where you are, but that's about £226 where I live). Which may be kind of steep in terms of cost, but certainly doable and not anywhere near satellite- or trip-into-space-steep. And then if you did this kind of thing yourself, and it got high enough, you'd have your own clear proof either way.

Although, I'm sure people would manage to argue about it afterwards anyway....

Imagine a camera floating high above a flat disc.  You'd see curvature there as well.  This is only one of several reasons for the apparition of curvature at high altitudes, none of which require a spherical earth.

I haven't analysed it closely, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 'night shadows' don't correlate - i.e. the shadow of night in clip 1 doesn't go over the same countries at the same time as it does in animation 2.

So, if any FET'ers ever find themselves in various foreign countries at the same time, surely it might be a thought to get on the phone/email/mind-link [delete as applicable] to each other and see the time difference between when night arrives in one country compared to when it does in another. Then, it would be easy enough to see which model it fits in with. Obviously, the more people involved the more accurate it becomes.

Simples (hopefully!)

Well, that gif is an approximation on the part of its creator,  in several respects.  It neglects the changing radius of solar orbit during changing seasons, it neglects changing altitudes which may contribute to lunar phases, etc.  (I'm sure you'll have questions about that, but that's probably a topic for another thread)

I think if you took the video and curled it around the north pole, a la the traditional flat earth map, you'd be able to clearly see the "spotlight" effect of the sun circling over the plane of the earth.

I'm late to the thread (real life has been keeping me busy the past couple of weeks!) but welcome to TFES.

So can you explain the curved terminator and the Venus belt shown in: ?

[Tintagel]

So can you explain the curved terminator and the Venus belt shown in:

Can you?  Because I don't believe it shows curvature of the earth at all, unless said curvature is rather wobbly, and even concave in parts.   I've added some lines to show you just how extreme the changes in curvature are. It seems to be lens distortion.  At any rate, it's certainly not very good evidence for a spherical earth. 

Note the timestamps, these are all within seconds of each other.  Just three examples among many, many times this happens in the video.

[Gulliver]

So can you explain the curved terminator and the Venus belt shown in:

Can you?  Because I don't believe it shows curvature of the earth at all, unless said curvature is rather wobbly, and even concave in parts.   I've added some lines to show you just how extreme the changes in curvature are. It seems to be lens distortion.  At any rate, it's certainly not very good evidence for a spherical earth. 

Note the timestamps, these are all within seconds of each other.  Just three examples among many, many times this happens in the video.
...

I refer you to my question again. Please note the word "terminator" and the phrase "Venus belt". Thanks.

[Tintagel]

I know what the terminator and venus belt are, but I'm not sure how apparent curvature of anything in this video can be trusted as evidence of anything, given how wildly it distorts.  That's what I was pointing out, and I even took screenshots and notated them for clarity.  If there's something specific you'd like me to note, perhaps you could do the same?  Because I don't see any curvature that I can be sure isn't lens distortion.

As for the Venus belt, are you expecting me to claim it doesn't happen?  Of course it does.  It happens because of the way certain wavelengths of light are scattered, I believe.  I'm not sure what it has to do with the shape of the earth, as light scattering would (and does) work just as well on a flat earth.

[Gulliver]

I know what the terminator and venus belt are, but I'm not sure how apparent curvature of anything in this video can be trusted as evidence of anything, given how wildly it distorts.  That's what I was pointing out, and I even took screenshots and notated them for clarity.  If there's something specific you'd like me to note, perhaps you could do the same?  Because I don't see any curvature that I can be sure isn't lens distortion.

As for the Venus belt, are you expecting me to claim it doesn't happen?  Of course it does.  It happens because of the way certain wavelengths of light are scattered, I believe.  I'm not sure what it has to do with the shape of the earth, as light scattering would (and does) work just as well on a flat earth.

I suspect that you're talking about curvature in the x-z plane. I'm challenging you to explain the curvature of the Venus belt in the x-y plane. It goes from the southern horizon climbs to the west and then drops to the northern horizon. Do explain your wild idea that refraction creates the Venus belt. Thanks.

Likewise the video shows the terminator bounding the shadow from south to west to north.

Thanks for finding "terminator" and "Venus belt" in my question. I appreciate your accuracy.

[Tintagel]

Do explain your wild idea that refraction creates the Venus belt. Thanks.

Likewise the video shows the terminator bounding the shadow from south to west to north.

Thanks for finding "terminator" and "Venus belt" in my question. I appreciate your accuracy.

I didn't say that refraction creates the venus belt.  I didn't say anything about refraction at all.  Perhaps you're thinking of diffraction instead?  I said that rayleigh scattering causes a the pink glow, and it has nothing to do with the earth's shape and more to do with the distance that light is traveling through the atmoplane.  Rayleigh scattering is the reason the rest of the sky is blue, but at dawn and dusk red light is scattered at the horizon from our POV, because it's traveling farther through atmoplane, or atmosphere if you prefer.  This explanation is the same in RET, so I hardly believe it's a "wild" idea.  I would fully expect it to appear in the western sky at sunset, as that's where the light is coming from, and to appear to curve out of sight in the north and south... again, because there's less light coming from those directions.  I'm not sure what this should imply about the shape of earth.

Similarly, could you explain the implication you're trying to make about the shape of the terminator?  I understand it exists, and I understand what you're saying, but I'm not following you to the conclusion that because it appears, the earth must be round.

[Gulliver]

Do explain your wild idea that refraction creates the Venus belt. Thanks.

Likewise the video shows the terminator bounding the shadow from south to west to north.

Thanks for finding "terminator" and "Venus belt" in my question. I appreciate your accuracy.

I didn't say that refraction creates the venus belt.  I didn't say anything about refraction at all.  Perhaps you're thinking of diffraction instead?  I said that rayleigh scattering causes a the pink glow, and it has nothing to do with the earth's shape and more to do with the distance that light is traveling through the atmoplane.  Rayleigh scattering is the reason the rest of the sky is blue, but at dawn and dusk red light is scattered at the horizon from our POV, because it's traveling farther through atmoplane, or atmosphere if you prefer.  This explanation is the same in RET, so I hardly believe it's a "wild" idea.  I would fully expect it to appear in the western sky at sunset, as that's where the light is coming from, and to appear to curve out of sight in the north and south... again, because there's less light coming from those directions.  I'm not sure what this should imply about the shape of earth.

Similarly, could you explain the implication you're trying to make about the shape of the terminator?  I understand it exists, and I understand what you're saying, but I'm not following you to the conclusion that because it appears, the earth must be round.

Do you think that the Venus belt appears between the observer and the sun? It doesn't. The video is clearly at sunrise and the belt is to the west. The curvature of the belt is objective, verifiable evidence that the earth is a globe.

The argument that the shape of the terminator is VOE of the earth's globular shape follows from the same logic, so let's work through the belt evidence and its implication first please. Thanks.

[Tintagel]

Do you think that the Venus belt appears between the observer and the sun? It doesn't. The video is clearly at sunrise and the belt is to the west. The curvature of the belt is objective, verifiable evidence that the earth is a globe.

I'm just not sure why you'd leap to that last conclusion.  Convince me.

[Gulliver]

Do you think that the Venus belt appears between the observer and the sun? It doesn't. The video is clearly at sunrise and the belt is to the west. The curvature of the belt is objective, verifiable evidence that the earth is a globe.

I'm just not sure why you'd leap to that last conclusion.  Convince me.

A round subject cast a round shadow. The sun must be below the horizon in order for the earth to cast that shadow, so the sun does "orbit" above the earth. Everyone can see the belt during sunrise and sunset and see it move upward in the sky opposite the already set sun, so there evidence is both objective and verifiable. Only a globe could cast such a lengthy shadow, across the entire sky, at both sunrise and sunset.

[Tintagel]

Do you think that the Venus belt appears between the observer and the sun? It doesn't. The video is clearly at sunrise and the belt is to the west. The curvature of the belt is objective, verifiable evidence that the earth is a globe.

I'm just not sure why you'd leap to that last conclusion.  Convince me.

A round subject cast a round shadow. The sun must be below the horizon in order for the earth to cast that shadow, so the sun does "orbit" above the earth. Everyone can see the belt during sunrise and sunset and see it move upward in the sky opposite the already set sun, so there evidence is both objective and verifiable. Only a globe could cast such a lengthy shadow, across the entire sky, at both sunrise and sunset.

All right, I see where you're coming from.  I just don't agree that what we're seeing is the earth's shadow.  Thanks for explaining, however.