[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

What would you do, experimentally, to establish whether or not the Earth is flat, round, oblate spheroid, or whatever?

Assume you have an unlimited budget, and access to any technology currently available, anywhere in the world (no time-travel, teleportation, or other Star Trek variants allowed).

What would you want to do, in order to satisfy yourself?

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

Three days, and not a single FE-er has anything that they want to share on how they would move things along?

Really? No thoughts at all?

[Tom Bishop]

What would you do, experimentally, to establish whether or not the Earth is flat, round, oblate spheroid, or whatever?

Assume you have an unlimited budget, and access to any technology currently available, anywhere in the world (no time-travel, teleportation, or other Star Trek variants allowed).

What would you want to do, in order to satisfy yourself?

I haven't answered because I'm already satisfied that the earth is flat.

[JRowe]

I'm already satisfied that FET is the scientifically preferrable option, but if I could run any experiment to confirm a prediction and prove beyond any reasonable doubt something that RET would not be able to explain, I'd like a sensitive portable gravimeter, a hot air balloon, and a high quality video camera to record. Gravity decreases discontinuously with altitude.

[inquisitive]

I'm already satisfied that FET is the scientifically preferrable option, but if I could run any experiment to confirm a prediction and prove beyond any reasonable doubt something that RET would not be able to explain, I'd like a sensitive portable gravimeter, a hot air balloon, and a high quality video camera to record. Gravity decreases discontinuously with altitude.

Surely measured distances prove the shape of the earth?

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

... if I could run any experiment to confirm a prediction and prove beyond any reasonable doubt something that RET would not be able to explain  ...

Gravity decreases discontinuously with altitude.

Is the bold statement the prediction?

[AATW]

I haven't answered because I'm already satisfied that the earth is flat.

Is that because you blindly believe Rowbotham or because of your own experiments? Aside from the Bishop experiment, what have you done to determine the shape of the earth?
I’m a bit sceptical that you have done much experimenting given your reluctance to test things like horizon dip when shown multiple ways of doing so. Other experiments have been outlined to test other parts of your theory and I’m not aware you’ve tried those either, so what exactly have you done?

My answer to the original question is rocket into orbit. I’d say that is the most definitive way of determining the earth’s shape. As it happens I don’t have to as hundreds of other people already have, including 7 space tourists who have paid for the privilege.

[JRowe]

... if I could run any experiment to confirm a prediction and prove beyond any reasonable doubt something that RET would not be able to explain  ...

Gravity decreases discontinuously with altitude.

Is the bold statement the prediction?

Yes.

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

Gravity decreases discontinuously with altitude.

Is the bold statement the prediction?

Yes.

Well ... I think mainstream science will readily accept that gravity decreases with distance; otherwise, we might see tidal effects based on the orbit of Jupiter or Saturn.

So is it the "discontinuous" aspect that you predict?  If so, could you elaborate? If you don't expect it to drop at a linear, predictable rate, do you think it varies at random?

[JRowe]

Well ... I think mainstream science will readily accept that gravity decreases with distance; otherwise, we might see tidal effects based on the orbit of Jupiter or Saturn.

So is it the "discontinuous" aspect that you predict?  If so, could you elaborate? If you don't expect it to drop at a linear, predictable rate, do you think it varies at random?

No, it decreases discontinuously rather than in a smooth curve. I don't know how you got randomness from that. It decreases in sharp, sudden jumps (though those jumps are fairly close together at lower altitudes). For example, if you had a ludicrously sensitive gravimeter and could measure the change from, say, the basement of your house to the roof, you'd find that the rate was more or less constant throughout your house except for one spike at, say, the top of your stairs where it closes basically the whole distance from the basement value to the roof value.

[stack]

Well ... I think mainstream science will readily accept that gravity decreases with distance; otherwise, we might see tidal effects based on the orbit of Jupiter or Saturn.

So is it the "discontinuous" aspect that you predict?  If so, could you elaborate? If you don't expect it to drop at a linear, predictable rate, do you think it varies at random?

No, it decreases discontinuously rather than in a smooth curve. I don't know how you got randomness from that. It decreases in sharp, sudden jumps (though those jumps are fairly close together at lower altitudes). For example, if you had a ludicrously sensitive gravimeter and could measure the change from, say, the basement of your house to the roof, you'd find that the rate was more or less constant throughout your house except for one spike at, say, the top of your stairs where it closes basically the whole distance from the basement value to the roof value.

What causes the spikes and what do the spikes indicate?

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

.... find that the rate was more or less constant throughout your house except for one spike at, say, the top of your stairs where it closes basically the whole distance from the basement value to the roof value.

I have no idea what to "close basically (a) whole distance" means, but if we were to draw two graphs, do you mean something like this?

[JRowe]

What causes the spikes and what do the spikes indicate?

Sig

I have no idea what to "close basically (a) whole distance" means, but if we were to draw two graphs, do you mean something like this?

Well it's not that linear and there's no slope at the beginning, but essentially.

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

Well it's not that linear and there's no slope at the beginning, but essentially.

OK. Why do you think this applies (as opposed to the textbook linear drop-off in gravity strength), and even if it does turn out to be that way, what bearing does that have on the shape of the Earth?

[markjo]

Well ... I think mainstream science will readily accept that gravity decreases with distance; otherwise, we might see tidal effects based on the orbit of Jupiter or Saturn.

So is it the "discontinuous" aspect that you predict?  If so, could you elaborate? If you don't expect it to drop at a linear, predictable rate, do you think it varies at random?

No, it decreases discontinuously rather than in a smooth curve. I don't know how you got randomness from that. It decreases in sharp, sudden jumps (though those jumps are fairly close together at lower altitudes). For example, if you had a ludicrously sensitive gravimeter and could measure the change from, say, the basement of your house to the roof, you'd find that the rate was more or less constant throughout your house except for one spike at, say, the top of your stairs where it closes basically the whole distance from the basement value to the roof value.

Just out of curiosity, would some of this discontinuity be the result of the changing mass and/or density of the various parts of the house?  I ask because hypersensitive gravity measurements have been affected by things like snow accumulation on the roof of the lab.

[QED]

I'm already satisfied that FET is the scientifically preferrable option, but if I could run any experiment to confirm a prediction and prove beyond any reasonable doubt something that RET would not be able to explain, I'd like a sensitive portable gravimeter, a hot air balloon, and a high quality video camera to record. Gravity decreases discontinuously with altitude.

You are in luck! NASA did just this experiment, in a much more precise way. Since the Earth is not a uniform sphere (in RET), then one should be able to measure the deviations of acceleration depending on location across its surface. Check it out!

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/k-4/features/F_Measuring_Gravity_With_Grace.html

How could this be possible in a FET? In FET, is the plane which is Earth not moving at g? How could these deviations then exist?

[JRowe]

OK. Why do you think this applies (as opposed to the textbook linear drop-off in gravity strength), and even if it does turn out to be that way, what bearing does that have on the shape of the Earth?

Sig for the full model. It is relevant because there is no way for a ball-based model to have discontinuous gravity; the only thing that makes sense for a ball is a force decreasing with distance because of the presence of the Earth as there is no room for any kind of flow that would create jumps.

Just out of curiosity, would some of this discontinuity be the result of the changing mass and/or density of the various parts of the house?  I ask because hypersensitive gravity measurements have been affected by things like snow accumulation on the roof of the lab.

Certainly that would be a factor were RET accurate, which is why my preferred experiment involved a balloon, where the local mass is essentially constant. However even in that case, the result would still be distinct from a discontinuous decrease.

You are in luck! NASA did just this experiment, in a much more precise way. Since the Earth is not a uniform sphere (in RET), then one should be able to measure the deviations of acceleration depending on location across its surface. Check it out!

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/k-4/features/F_Measuring_Gravity_With_Grace.html

How could this be possible in a FET? In FET, is the plane which is Earth not moving at g? How could these deviations then exist?

They did not measure continuity. What are you talking about? Even if you want to ignore every other issue with that, they aren't even trying to gauge the continuity or lack thereof of the rate of vertical change.

[QED]

OK. Why do you think this applies (as opposed to the textbook linear drop-off in gravity strength), and even if it does turn out to be that way, what bearing does that have on the shape of the Earth?

Sig for the full model. It is relevant because there is no way for a ball-based model to have discontinuous gravity; the only thing that makes sense for a ball is a force decreasing with distance because of the presence of the Earth as there is no room for any kind of flow that would create jumps.

Just out of curiosity, would some of this discontinuity be the result of the changing mass and/or density of the various parts of the house?  I ask because hypersensitive gravity measurements have been affected by things like snow accumulation on the roof of the lab.

Certainly that would be a factor were RET accurate, which is why my preferred experiment involved a balloon, where the local mass is essentially constant. However even in that case, the result would still be distinct from a discontinuous decrease.

You are in luck! NASA did just this experiment, in a much more precise way. Since the Earth is not a uniform sphere (in RET), then one should be able to measure the deviations of acceleration depending on location across its surface. Check it out!

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/k-4/features/F_Measuring_Gravity_With_Grace.html

How could this be possible in a FET? In FET, is the plane which is Earth not moving at g? How could these deviations then exist?

They did not measure continuity. What are you talking about? Even if you want to ignore every other issue with that, they aren't even trying to gauge the continuity or lack thereof of the rate of vertical change.

They measured the variation of "g" to a precision beyond what you wanted. Continuity? They measured the deviations of "g" based on different locations on the Earth. Since different locations are at different altitudes, they achieved what you desire. You say: Go up in balloons and measure the change across very large distances. They say: we can do better than that, we can measure the change across very minute distances.

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

It is relevant because there is no way for a ball-based model to have discontinuous gravity; the only thing that makes sense for a ball is a force decreasing with distance because of the presence of the Earth as there is no room for any kind of flow that would create jumps.

OK, so you've not done the experiment yet. You've outlined what you're looking for.

What happens if you do the experiment, but find none of these discontinuities or jumps that you predict?

[JRowe]

They measured the variation of "g" to a precision beyond what you wanted. Continuity? They measured the deviations of "g" based on different locations on the Earth. Since different locations are at different altitudes, they achieved what you desire. You say: Go up in balloons and measure the change across very large distances. They say: we can do better than that, we can measure the change across very minute distances.

Um, no, they did not do that in the slightest. Even if you want to believe them, read your own link.

The satellites are in the same orbit around Earth, one about 220 kilometers (137 miles) in front of the other at an altitude of 460 kilometers (286 miles) above the Earth's surface. Together, they measure Earth's gravity field with a precision greater than any previous instrument.
...
As the lead satellite passes over an area on Earth of slightly stronger gravity, it detects an increased gravitational pull and speeds up ever so slightly, thus increasing its distance from the trailing satellite. Conversely, the lead satellite slows down when it passes over an area of slightly weaker gravity, decreasing the distance between the two satellites.

They measured the force at a fixed altitude. It is quite literally impossible to measure vertical continuity if you don't even change altitude.

Please, tell me, how on earth do you plan to find any kind of vertical continuity when that's your set up?

It is relevant because there is no way for a ball-based model to have discontinuous gravity; the only thing that makes sense for a ball is a force decreasing with distance because of the presence of the Earth as there is no room for any kind of flow that would create jumps.

OK, so you've not done the experiment yet. You've outlined what you're looking for.

What happens if you do the experiment, but find none of these discontinuities or jumps that you predict?

No, I haven't done this experiment yet, the thread didn't ask after what experiments have been performed, they asked after hwta I would do if I had access to the resources. I never claimed to have performed the experiment.
If I don't find the jumps, that would contradict the model. Basic science, it would refute it and the model would require either refinement or replacement. However I find that very unlikely.