[model 29]

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?

No.  With an oblate spheroid (slight flattening at the poles) a laser will not touch the surface again if the beam is exactly level at it's point of origin.

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

No one else bothered as there was no need to.  Would there be a tiny difference in the rate of curvature depending on what part of the globe? Yes.  Would the beam intersect the surface again?  No.

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.

No, it's not possible (unless there is an actual rise in elevation of a surface feature), because regardless weather the laser is near one of the poles, or aimed across the equator, the curvature is still 'dropping' away from the beam (given a beam that is exactly level at it's point of origin).

[Theguru]

I get what you are saying Model and I agree.

The only point of difference is that if you draw a tangent to the radius on an ellipse then, by definition, it will only be parallel to the surface of the ellipse at 4 points, the apices of the ellipse.

I think this is what Neptune is referring to.

Ultimately, in the globe earth model, given that the relative size difference of the maximum radius versus the minimum radius in comparison to the average radius is so small, a horizontal laser beam can be said to be parallel to the  earth's surface anywhere on the globe.

Of course, all entirely irrelevant if the earth is flat.


Tom, having reread your answer and looked on the Wiki, I have noticed you have conducted the Bishop experiment.

Essentially, my suggestion is a higher tech version of that, with quantitative measurement of the curvature (or lack thereof) of the lake with an attempt to take into account the issue of refraction of light when viewed close to the water's surface.

Your experiment and others before it are impressive but here's the catch: the FES will not be taken seriously until an experiment is performed that satisfies conventional scientific robustness (i.e. published in a reputable journal and subject to peer review) and in my opinion performed in conjunction with an outside body, such as a university
Such an experiment, like the one I have described, will undoubtedly be expensive and a logistical challenge.

But what else are you going to do?
Just keep talking about it and relying on non-published, non-peer reviewed experiments as well as historical experiments from 100+ years ago?

That will not achieve anything in terms of convincing the greater population of the world because a couple of pretty massive obstacles stand in your way: 1, the photos of earth from outer space and 2, the landing on the moon.

Both of these things may well be very elaborate hoaxes and grand conspiracies but they have certainly got 99.99% of the population convinced that the world is a globe.

So again, if you can think of a better experiment than mine which accounts for the shortcomings of previous experiments, will be publishable and will stand up to the scrutiny of peer review then I would love to hear it.

If not, this whole thing will just be a talk fest…


So obviously the question is to how serious are you about convincing the population the earth is flat.
Publication and peer review is your only hope for that unfortunately, sorry to be the one who breaks it to you