Hey all. If you'd like to disprove, easily, in a way that RE-ers will accept, the premise of a round earth, then tomorrow's the day to do it.

On March 20th, 2016 (it's even a weekend, so most people should have the day available) - when the sun is due south of you (or north, for those few in the southern hemisphere), measure the angle to the sun from the vertical.

If the angle is NOT your latitude, then post here (a photo of your setup would probably help), and no Round Earther will be able to refute the proof. Obviously, some indication of your latitude and proof that the sun was due south/north (i.e. probably not exactly at 12:00 noon, depending on your location) when the measurement was taken would be required.

If you miss the day, you can plan ahead and try again on September 22nd.

I look forward to seeing the simple, irrefutable proof that the round-earth model is wrong. Of course, if your measurements do show that the angle is equal to your latitude, then I'd be fascinated to hear about a non-RE model that accounts for the geometry. I'm guessing some sort of atmospheric lensing, distorting the position of the sun?

Offline model 29

  • *
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
I forgot it's the equinox.  It's cloudy here today, but if I'm still at home at noon and there's a break in the clouds, I'll give it a try.

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
Hey all. If you'd like to disprove, easily, in a way that RE-ers will accept, the premise of a round earth, then tomorrow's the day to do it.

On March 20th, 2016 (it's even a weekend, so most people should have the day available) - when the sun is due south of you (or north, for those few in the southern hemisphere), measure the angle to the sun from the vertical.

If the angle is NOT your latitude, then post here (a photo of your setup would probably help), and no Round Earther will be able to refute the proof. Obviously, some indication of your latitude and proof that the sun was due south/north (i.e. probably not exactly at 12:00 noon, depending on your location) when the measurement was taken would be required.

If you miss the day, you can plan ahead and try again on September 22nd.

I look forward to seeing the simple, irrefutable proof that the round-earth model is wrong. Of course, if your measurements do show that the angle is equal to your latitude, then I'd be fascinated to hear about a non-RE model that accounts for the geometry. I'm guessing some sort of atmospheric lensing, distorting the position of the sun?
I wasn't able to check the sun's position at noon (and I probably wouldn't if I was able), but I used Stellarium and found the sun's inclination to be 51.7° at culmination.  This makes sense, as my latitude is 38.53 N.  If we are to trust Stellarium (and we absolutely are) then we haven't disproven RET at all. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

Rama Set

Did the OP do the experiment?

Offline CableDawg

  • *
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
Simple, irrefutable, proof that the round Earth model is wrong would be for the FE supporters to travel to and document the ice wall.

Unfortunately they don't put any value in proof as it would, ultimately, prove them wrong.

*

Offline Pongo

  • Most Educated Flat-Earther
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 754
    • View Profile
Simple, irrefutable, proof that the round Earth model is wrong would be for the FE supporters to travel to and document the ice wall.

Unfortunately they don't put any value in proof as it would, ultimately, prove them wrong.

Traveling to Antarctica to conduct an expedition isn't as "simple" as most people think. There is the matter of equipment, transportation, experts, crew, and above all else, the funding to pay for it all. If it's so simple, CableDawg, perhaps you can supply the funding for such a trip?

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
Simple, irrefutable, proof that the round Earth model is wrong would be for the FE supporters to travel to and document the ice wall.

Unfortunately they don't put any value in proof as it would, ultimately, prove them wrong.

Traveling to Antarctica to conduct an expedition isn't as "simple" as most people think. There is the matter of equipment, transportation, experts, crew, and above all else, the funding to pay for it all. If it's so simple, CableDawg, perhaps you can supply the funding for such a trip?
I think that the fact that people can go there if they choose is evidence enough for me.  Same with space tourism. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
I don't see how this would ultimately disprove the premise of a round Earth anyway.  At most it would force it to need a little tweaking, but that seems to be something you guys are good at, tweaking your theories to explain why they don't always match observation.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
I don't see how this would ultimately disprove the premise of a round Earth anyway.  At most it would force it to need a little tweaking, but that seems to be something you guys are good at, tweaking your theories to explain why they don't always match observation.
Please explain how at either equinox the sun rises (almost) due east everywhere on earth, except close to the poles where they have 24 daylight.
And, no I have not seen it everywhere, but all evidence I have seen indicates that it does!

I know it does here at 27.680°S 153.049° - I have checked it!

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
I don't see how this would ultimately disprove the premise of a round Earth anyway.  At most it would force it to need a little tweaking, but that seems to be something you guys are good at, tweaking your theories to explain why they don't always match observation.
Please explain how at either equinox the sun rises (almost) due east everywhere on earth, except close to the poles where they have 24 daylight.
And, no I have not seen it everywhere, but all evidence I have seen indicates that it does!

I know it does here at 27.680°S 153.049° - I have checked it!

I think you're confused again, rabinoz.  This thread was supposed to be about an alleged refutation of RET.  If you have something to add to the discussion feel free, but I won't be baited into responding to your random musings.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
I don't see how this would ultimately disprove the premise of a round Earth anyway.  At most it would force it to need a little tweaking, but that seems to be something you guys are good at, tweaking your theories to explain why they don't always match observation.
Please explain how at either equinox the sun rises (almost) due east everywhere on earth, except close to the poles where they have 24 daylight.
And, no I have not seen it everywhere, but all evidence I have seen indicates that it does!

I know it does here at 27.680°S 153.049° - I have checked it!

I think you're confused again, rabinoz.  This thread was supposed to be about an alleged refutation of RET.  If you have something to add to the discussion feel free, but I won't be baited into responding to your random musings.
Just who is confused?
If you can prove that at either equinox the sun does not rise (close to) due east and set (close to) due west everywhere on earth[1] (except close to the poles, where they have 24 hour daylight)
you will have certainly driven a huge nail in the coffin of the Heliocentric Globe Earth.

[1]  ;D Possibly excepting in London where it probably won't be seen anyway!  ;D

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

Rama Set

The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

I wasn't able to check the sun's position at noon (and I probably wouldn't if I was able), but I used Stellarium and found the sun's inclination to be 51.7° at culmination.  This makes sense, as my latitude is 38.53 N.  If we are to trust Stellarium (and we absolutely are) then we haven't disproven RET at all. 

Anything else?

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1441
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

If you were answering my post (you may have noticed the button?),
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!

But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.
So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

I wasn't able to check the sun's position at noon (and I probably wouldn't if I was able), but I used Stellarium and found the sun's inclination to be 51.7° at culmination.  This makes sense, as my latitude is 38.53 N.  If we are to trust Stellarium (and we absolutely are) then we haven't disproven RET at all. 

Anything else?

Rama, surely you aren't that dense. Stellarium isn't experimental or observational evidence. It's a computer program.

The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

If you were answering my post (you may have noticed the button?),
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!

But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.
So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."



If you look out the window you will see evidence that the earth is flat. We have yet to see something as obvious and clear to tell us that the earth is a globe.

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

If you were answering my post (you may have noticed the button?),
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!

But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.
So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."


If you look out the window you will see evidence that the earth is flat. We have yet to see something as obvious and clear to tell us that the earth is a globe.
Only if you completely ignore:
Satellites
Planets
The sun
The moon
Orbits in general
Maps
Satellite imagery
Videos of rocket launches
Basic physics
Anything having to do with NASA
All the other space programs
Third party evidence for NASA
Geodesy
Tides
Plane flights
Astronomy
Stellarium
Neutrino astronomy
Neutrinos in general
Particle accelerator measurements
Weather
Navigation
Surveying
Every single expert in each of these fields (including myself)


But yeah, the horizon is totally the most trustworthy piece of evidence.   :P
« Last Edit: March 26, 2016, 09:23:58 PM by BlueMoon »
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

If you were answering my post (you may have noticed the button?),
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!

But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.
So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."


If you look out the window you will see evidence that the earth is flat. We have yet to see something as obvious and clear to tell us that the earth is a globe.
Only if you completely ignore:
Satellites
Planets
The sun
The moon
Orbits in general
Maps
Satellite imagery
Videos of rocket launches
Basic physics
Anything having to do with NASA
All the other space programs
Third party evidence for NASA
Geodesy
Tides
Plane flights
Astronomy
Stellarium
Neutrino astronomy
Neutrinos in general
Particle accelerator measurements
Weather
Navigation
Surveying
Every single expert in each of these fields (including myself)


But yeah, the horizon is totally the most trustworthy piece of evidence.   :P

You are merely waving your hand and assuming that those things show that the earth is a globe. You will need to present specific evidence which shows that the earth is a globe. A lot of that is addressed in Earth Not a Globe, the Wiki, and other places.

*

Offline BlueMoon

  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • NASA Defender
    • View Profile
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

If you were answering my post (you may have noticed the button?),
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!

But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.
So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."


If you look out the window you will see evidence that the earth is flat. We have yet to see something as obvious and clear to tell us that the earth is a globe.
Only if you completely ignore:
Satellites
Planets
The sun
The moon
Orbits in general
Maps
Satellite imagery
Videos of rocket launches
Basic physics
Anything having to do with NASA
All the other space programs
Third party evidence for NASA
Geodesy
Tides
Plane flights
Astronomy
Stellarium
Neutrino astronomy
Neutrinos in general
Particle accelerator measurements
Weather
Navigation
Surveying
Every single expert in each of these fields (including myself)


But yeah, the horizon is totally the most trustworthy piece of evidence.   :P

You are merely waving your hand and assuming that those things show that the earth is a globe. You will need to present specific evidence which shows that the earth is a globe. A lot of that is addressed in Earth Not a Globe, the Wiki, and other places.
Funny that you would accuse me of handwaving, considering THAT'S WHAT YOU LITERALLY JUST DID.  The things I listed are self evident, and every single one of them requires the earth to be a globe to make any sense at all.  Why do you put so much faith in the horizon? 
And no, I don't intend to delve too far into Earth Not a Globe, the Wiki, or anywhere else.  I have a strict threshold for autistic content, which that post just pushed me dangerously close to. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

Rama Set

The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

I wasn't able to check the sun's position at noon (and I probably wouldn't if I was able), but I used Stellarium and found the sun's inclination to be 51.7° at culmination.  This makes sense, as my latitude is 38.53 N.  If we are to trust Stellarium (and we absolutely are) then we haven't disproven RET at all. 

Anything else?

Rama, surely you aren't that dense. Stellarium isn't experimental or observational evidence. It's a computer program.

Simulating reality.

Quote
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.

If you were answering my post (you may have noticed the button?),
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!

But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.
So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."



If you look out the window you will see evidence that the earth is flat. We have yet to see something as obvious and clear to tell us that the earth is a globe.

Geodetic surveyors falsified this observation centuries ago. Next?

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
The things I listed are self evident, and every single one of them requires the earth to be a globe to make any sense at all. 

This may literally be the most objectively incorrect claim a round earther has ever made.