[Pete Svarrior]

Umm,  no that's what you did.   You just jumped in the middle of a discussion and contributed nothing of substance.   Try reading properly next time.

Classic round-earth thought process: "I made a mistake? N-no, actually you made the exact same mistake!!!"

[Rayzor]

Umm,  no that's what you did.   You just jumped in the middle of a discussion and contributed nothing of substance.   Try reading properly next time.

Classic round-earth thought process: "I made a mistake? N-no, actually you made the exact same mistake!!!"

Care to explain,  because if you read the thread, and followed the logical progression,  you would have understood that Pongo's comment was out of step with the discussion.

The entire premise of the thread is a discussion on an experimental method for determining if the earth is curved or flat.   Now re-read Pongo's statement...   

[Theguru]

For what it's worth, I am nobody's enemy in the FES.

In these forums there are a lot of intelligent, passionate people making genuine contributions.
I have also seen the YouTube videos showing various structures seen at incredible lengths across bodies of water that seemingly defy the mathematical calculations of the curvature of the earth.

So what would it take to convince the population of the world that the earth is flat?

Answer: confirm that standing bodies of water are horizontal and not curved via legitimate analysis and publishable results.
The experiment I have described can potentially achieve that and I think everyone here knows it.


If the FES wants legitimacy then it should endeavour to conduct such a study.
No need for squabbling amongst yourself, you know what you need to do

[Pete Svarrior]

Care to explain,  because if you read the thread, and followed the logical progression,  you would have understood that Pongo's comment was out of step with the discussion.

It may be out of step (I disagree that it is, but I can see why someone like you might think otherwise), but that doesn't change much. He made a very specific point with a very clear meaning, and you erroneously tried tying it to something other than the post he clearly quoted as the one he's responding to.

It's okay. We all make mistakes. Own up and move on.

[Rayzor]

Care to explain,  because if you read the thread, and followed the logical progression,  you would have understood that Pongo's comment was out of step with the discussion.

It may be out of step (I disagree that it is, but I can see why someone like you might think otherwise), but that doesn't change much. He made a very specific point with a very clear meaning, and you erroneously tried tying it to something other than the post he clearly quoted as the one he's responding to.

It's okay. We all make mistakes. Own up and move on.

Pongo took one line of a post out of context and twisted it into a false generalization about round earthers,  I am sure you can read English well enough to understand at least that much. 

"Own up and move on"?  yes you should.   All you've done is derail an interesting discussion about an experiment,   but maybe that was your intent. 

The post that Pongo responded to was this

I think the earth is a sphere so why would I want to prove it's flat?

However, I have devised an experiment that attempts to quantify the degree of curvature of the lake.
If it has flaws then I'm keen to hear them...but as you can see, nobody seems to have come up with any, and I'm confident they won't.

So therefore if the FES are serious, as a society, they should make an attempt to conduct the experiment.
It could give them all the evidence they are looking for.
If they choose not, then maybe they're not so serious about proving the earth flat after all

His response ..

I think the earth is a sphere so why would I want to prove it's flat?

Classic round-earth thought process. "I've been told that the earth is a sphere so why would I ever do anything whatsoever to verify what I've been told?"

Imagine if this applied to all fields of study:
"I think leeches cure diseases so why would I want to prove they don't?"
"I think cars are safe enough without airbags so why would I want to prove they aren't?"
"I think that lead is safe to consume so why would I want to prove that it isn't?"

And you don't see the glaring dishonesty?

[Pete Svarrior]

Pongo's observation strikes me as accurate. Round Earthers have a strange sense of entitlement, and him pointing it out was both timely and humorous.

As a side note, you might want to avoid personal insults on this forum. They're not okay here.

[Rayzor]

Pongo's observation strikes me as accurate. Round Earthers have a strange sense of entitlement, and him pointing it out was both timely and humorous.

As a side note, you might want to avoid personal insults on this forum. They're not okay here.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't trying to be humorous.   I'm getting the strong impression that flat earthers don't like putting their ideas to independent experiment.

If you would care to point out where I've used a personal insult,  that was not my intent.  I'll happily apologize. 

[Theguru]

Don't let minor points of difference over who said or meant what...the key point is to determine a way to accurately measure the curvature (or lack thereof) of standing bodies of water.
Prove that water surfaces are horizontal and you'll prove your theory...no need to thank me

[Bookish Neptune]

...no need to thank me

Classic RE entitlement behavior...

You choose to visit and participate on a forum of which goes against your personal beliefs. Then ASSERT that your experiment is the only way to prove "once and for all" if the world if flat or round.

Perhaps we should all bow to your excellency?

Here are your flaws you have asked us to point out in your experiment.

1. Your experiment is incomplete. To start, you have not said what direction we are facing during your experiment. Are we looking North to South or South to North. This is YOUR experiment. So you must have a hypothesis for us.

Quoting the RE model there is a bulge at the equator. So that means we should get different results depending upon what direction we are facing. If facing South, towards the equator, our laser would at some point hit the water correct? Have you even given this any thought per your RE model?

2. FE's only hope is to close down a part of a major causeway in the United States. Involve a very high grade laser, of which even you admit has flaws. And involve several people possibly a hundred or more. On a forum with few constant visitors.

So if the very small FE community spread out across the entire world cannot collectively come together and do your experiment then "we shouldn't bother" Bother with what I must ask? You mean bother each other with our own ideals? You forget... You are on a FE forum not a globe forum. For you to assert that we must do your experiments to prove our theory is preposterous to put it mildy.

3. You are also asking us to allow a United States university to do "our" experiment. Haven't you heard? FE's are so dumb that they think Universities and the entire education system has mislead the world for the past 500 years... and beyond.

4.The nature of you asking us to use a very large man made structure, of which isn't level and flawed and has a huge hump in it, to prove anything is once again preposterous.

5. Why must a bridge be invovled. If you remove all the brides in the world today I will still not belive the earth is round.

6. There are plenty of documented laser tests done over bodies of water. Yours isn't the first. And, no, you haven't come up with anything new or definitive by any stretch of the imagination.

The real question is where are YOUR experiments? You have not taken the time to view all of the FE experiments, yet you seem to think your experiment  is the only way to prove "once and for all".

You refer to "sea level". What is sea level? What is sea level at the supposed bulged equator on your RE model?

How does the curvature math work if looking east to west? If standing on the equator and looking east to west what curvature should we see at 10 miles? If standing on the causeway in Louisiana and looking east to west what curvature should we see at 10 miles?

Shouldn't we see a difference in the curviture given in your model is bulged at the equator?

So tell us what the equation is for the RE? Haven't been asked this one before huh?

Your bulge on the RE model blows all curviture calculations OUT OF THE WATER, especially if standing on Lake Ponchatraun...

But please by all means give us a more complete experiment along with a detailed hypothesis.

[Rayzor]

Your bulge on the RE model blows all curviture calculations OUT OF THE WATER, especially if standing on Lake Ponchatraun...

Let me try and answer one of your objections.

How does the equatorial bulge affect the curvature calculation?   

The equatorial bulge is 26.5 miles,   the diameter of the earth at the equator is 7927 miles.   At the poles it is  7900 miles.

The curvature calculation  ( for distances small relative to the diameter )   h =0.6661*miles²   for D=7927,   and   h = 0.6683*miles²  for D=7900,   h is height in ft.

So the horizon for an observers 5' above the road level,  or lake level  is  2.739 miles,  so they should be able to see the laser for at least 5.479 miles on the east west curvature
repeating the calculation for the north south curvature,  the distance to the horizon is 2.735 miles,  and the total distance the laser would be visible for is 5.470 miles  on the north south curvature.

So the difference is negligible. 

If you want to add the standard refraction correction, then add 1/7 to the curvature.

Seeing as you know so much about laser experiments over water,  can you point me to one where a level was established at multiple points  along the sight line.

Standing on the lake requires much voodoo magic.   A boat is easier.

[Theguru]

Again, I am not your enemy.
And thank you Rayzor, those calculations equate with mine.

It does beg a very interesting question though: if it is fundamentally impossible to determine the curvature of a standing body of water, how then does anyone know that it is curved...apart from photos from outer space showing a globe earth.

The inability to experimentally prove that standing bodies of water are curved must therefore conclude that they may also be flat.

The greater population (even if they have been deceived on a grand scale) essentially ridicule the concept of a flat earth.
If the FES want to be taken seriously then they must demonstrate with the utmost of scientific robustness that the earth is flat.

My experiment might do it, food for thought for the FES

[Wezzoid]

A proper, science-paper-worthy experiment should be done if FE people want credibility. It must not be done by roundheads because flatheads will just say it's fake. If FE people produce this to a publishable standard, others on either side can support/oppose it by analysing the data and replicating the experiment themselves. Science.

[Bookish Neptune]

You guys are asking the FE community in a whole to conduct experiments of your choosing of which you have not done yourself...

Also asking the FE community to write a "proper science paper".

First off, who on the FE side is clamoring for the entire world to "take us seriously"?

I most certainly don't care if anyone takes me "serious". We are not "serious" only in YOUR mind. If you want to continue to believe everything you read then so be it. Other men of this world have a higher intellect and perhaps even a calling.

So you want us to use your bunk science to prove our science? It's impossible. An impossible challenge.

You also want us to shut done a major causeway in the United States to perform YOUR experiment?  Millions of dollars, hundreds of people, and special equipment of which you still have not clearly defined.

Tell you what, you do it first then publish your results...

Where are all the RE believers experiments? You come here with only book knowledge and challenge us to prove that wrong.

How about you introduce yourself properly with your credentials and then supply US with YOUR experiments and THEN challenge US to refute it?

There are more FE experiments and observations being taken place than you would care research. Instead you pull your head out of a book and decide WE must prove you wrong.

No. YOU must prove YOUR science correct. You haven't and probably will not ever.

Quote books all you want. Fact is you've never done anything to prove the earth is round and again probably never will.

That is hypocrisy at its finest!

[Bookish Neptune]

So therefore if the FES are serious, as a society, they should make an attempt to conduct the experiment.
It could give them all the evidence they are looking for.
If they choose not, then maybe they're not so serious about proving the earth flat after all

That is an egotistical assertion...

If the FE wants to be taken serious we must do YOUR experiment?

You've never actually told us are we looking North or South? You can't even begin to give us a proper experiment to conduct...

You first made this thread looking for holes in your experiment. After only a few comments you assert that we must do this experiment to be taken serioulsy...

And now we know that you do not even have a hypothesis, thus no experiment can take place. We also know that you have yet to give us a proper experiment to conduct.

So by your assertion,  since we can't please you and your amazingly near impossible experiment we shouldn't be taken seriously.

Better said, you will not be taken seriously until you give us an experiment that is conductable.

P.S. "the bulge is negligible.." that's laughable. That statement makes your science negligible.

[Theguru]

I'll respond to your concerns respectfully and Tom Bishop, I would love to know where you stand on this one.

Firstly, the degree of curvature of standing bodies of water is fundamentally what the evidence for a flat earth is reliant upon...hopefully you don't disagree with that.

If anyone can quantitatively measure the degree of curvature of a large standing body of water and display, with robust technique, that the standing body of water has no curvature then this would be very good evidence that the world is flat.

So my hypothesis would be: "the earth is a globe with an equatorial radius of x".
You can pick any number you want for x but I would pick a best estimate for the latitude of the Pontchartrain Causeway.

Now, to discuss your points.
Firstly, if the earth is flat, then it will not matter which way you conduct the experiment, the laser beam and water surface will be parallel in both directions either north or south.
In fact, I would recommend it be performed in both directions in order to account for minor tidal variations.

If the earth is a globe, there will be a significant elevation of the laser beam above the water surface, well and truly above any corrections for variation of radius, tidal movements or equipment/measurement errors.
Combined, these will of the order of magnitude of 1 yard over 6 miles but the expected height difference over 6 miles will be greater than 3 yards (maybe more depending on your calculations).

So what would the results need to be in order to display a result?
+/- 1 yard of the predicted elevation for a radius of x would give a result consistent with a globe earth.

+/- 1 yard of the initial height of the laser beam above the water surface throughout its journey would give a result consistent with the laser beam and water being parallel. And if you believe the laser beam is free from the effects of refraction then the water surface by definition is flat.
The beauty of performing the experiment on a bridge (although logistically very difficult) is that it attempts to minimise the issue of light refraction when optical measurements are taken very near the water surface, so therefore the laser should indeed be very close to a straight line.

I am guessing that will not keep you happy so tell you what, put some thought into it and design an experiment yourself that measures the curvature of standing bodies of water.
Remembering of course the criticisms of previous experiments and accounting for them in your design.

If you can think of an easier, more robust way of doing it that's great...put it into action and prove to the world the earth is flat!

[Tom Bishop]

My opinion is that this laser experiment is really the same water convexity experiment which has been conducted time and time again since the days of Rowbotham. It ridiculous that you ask us to "prove it again" for more concrete evidence immediately after seeing such videotaped evidence of a proof, considering that we have a library with many such observations and claims.

[Rayzor]

My opinion is that this laser experiment is really the same water convexity experiment which has been conducted time and time again since the days of Rowbotham. It ridiculous that you ask us to "prove it again" for more concrete evidence immediately after seeing such videotaped evidence of a proof, considering that we have a library with many such observations and claims.

Perhaps you could help me out in that case,  I've yet to see such an experiment where care has been taken to establish a sight line with multiple intermediate points, and consideration given to refractive effects.

If you already have documentation on such an experiment, proving the Earth to be flat I'd be very interested.  I am only aware of such experiments proving the curvature.

PS.  The Definitive Bedford Level Experiment was carried by Henry Yule Oldham,  and it proved the curvature of the Earth.

[Theguru]

Thanks Tom.
I think the point of difference here, as Rayzor points out, is an attempt to remove the refractive effects.
In addition, it attempts to measure curvature in a quantitative way.

The experimental evidence you talk of appears to not address these points and perhaps this is why the greater population of the world are not convinced the world is flat.

Again, I think my suggestion is scientifically robust.
Do you agree?

[Bookish Neptune]

If the earth is a globe, there will be a significant elevation of the laser beam above the water surface,

If the earth were a globe with a supposed bulge it would most DEFINITELY matter where you are and what direction you are facing.

On your globe model, if you are standing anywhere in the northern hemisphere looking south,

YOUR LASER WOULD EVENTUALLY HIT THE WATER CORRECT?

From what I have seen no one else has made this correlation...

This is why the bulge and the round earth isn't factual.

You say it doesn't matter what direction you are facing. I think it should. Given your science claims the earth is bulged, the curviture math the RE's bring forward is bunk to say the least.

On a bulged round object, the curviture cannot be summarized by one simple equation.

Rather, the curviture would be dependant on where you are and what direction you are facing.

Understanding your own science is crucial to unlocking the key to its fraudulent claims.

To long to read?

How can we have one equation for the curviture of the earth when it is supposedly round and bulged?

[Theguru]

I understand the point you are making Neptune.

Remember, I am suggesting a laser is placed on the bridge surface horizontally which is therefore parallel to the surface of the water below it at this point.

If you believe the earth is a globe then you also acknowledge that it is not a perfect sphere.
If it was a perfect sphere then the degree of curvature over a given distance would be identical no matter which part of the sphere you were on or what direction you were facing. Hence, a laser parallel to the surface (tangential to the radius) would never touch the earth again.

On the global earth model, given that it is acknowledged that the earth is not a perfect sphere then this rate of curvature will be different on different parts of the globe. And therefore it is potentially possible that a parallel laser may eventually touch the earths surface again.

However, given that the estimated discrepancy of the radius is approximately 20 miles out of a total distance of an approximate 4000 mile radius, the resultant effects on degree of curvature will be very small.
In other worlds, in the global earth model, the earth is not a perfect sphere but pretty damn close.

A good study takes variables such as these into account and is designed so that a significant result will be obtained, even allowing for extremes of such variables.

An expected height variation of 3-6 yards at 6 miles (depending on how you calculate it) should well and truly account for discrepancies due to variation of the earths radius at different points, which should be a couple of inches max.

And I also suggested performing the experiment both directions to mainly account for tidal differences but to also satisfy what you described.

Of course, none of the above is relevant if the earth is flat. If so,  the beam will be parallel with the water along its entire path