[Raslok]

Hi,

Just thought I would post on here to see if anyone's got any ideas for experiments I could try to help prove/disprove RET/FET?

I'm going to be flying from the UK to New Zealand via Singapore next month so thought this might provide a good opportunity to test some theories. By a happy coincidence (or because my mates an idiot and booked himself on the wrong flight), one of our party will be flying out via Los Angeles on the same day.

So we'll have 2 flights leaving the UK on the same day (think within 4 hours of each other), 1 going to New Zealand via Singapore and the other going to New Zealand via Los Angeles. I think we end up landing within 8 hours of each other.

So anyone got any thoughts on experiments we could try? It's not every day you get to try travelling such long distances and in different directions.

Any thoughts welcome,

Thanks
Steve

[robinofloxley]

We went as a family from the UK to New Zealand 20 years ago. When we were booking flights, I remember how surprised I was at the wide choice of routes available. Then it dawned on me - because the UK and New Zealand are virtually opposite each other (globe model), you can in theory pick any point of the compass and any great circle route will get you there just as quickly as any other, so the choice comes down to where you want to change planes. We considered LA, Tokyo, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai and in the end plumped for Hong Kong. Various members of the family have been back since and taken different routes and my son is out there now - he went via Manilla a few weeks back.

This all makes perfect sense on a globe, but I'm struggling to see how it would work out on a flat earth.

As far as experiments go, unless you have window seats, can't think of any, but if you do, I believe android phones will allow you to use GPS in airplane mode, so perhaps some kind of GPS tracking app might allow to you at least confirm your ground speed and roughly where you are (see if it agrees with what you see on the in-flight route map and through the window). My understanding is that the fuselage will act like a Faraday cage so you'll have to rely on whatever limited signal gets through the window, so don't expect great accuracy. Altitude data will probably be useless. Time in the air should be similar for the two routes (give or take a bit for wind).

What you really want here is a proper flat earth believer to suggest some achievable test you could do which, depending on the result, could change their mind - good luck with that.

Enjoy New Zealand - great place to visit.

[timterroo]

I can't think of any experiments you could do while in the air, but I've been curious about how the moon will look to two observers who are thousands of miles apart and looking at the moon at the same time.

If the moon happens to follow a path that will allow you (while in New Zealand), and someone else (while back in the UK) to see it at the same time, you could snap some photographs and then compare what it looks like. You might be able to form some relative angles to determine if you both see the same surface of the moon, or if you each see something slightly different?

Edit: Since we should be able to calculate the theoretical "difference" based on both RE and FE, if you can get two photos, you might be able to calculate what you are actually seeing and compare to what you 'should' be seeing according to both theories.

[robinofloxley]

In theory if I were to go outside in an hour and a half (18:50 UK time) and look ESE I might just make out the moon rising - assuming I could find an unobstructed view and no clouds(not from where I am right now).

If I ask my son to do the same from where he is (but look WSW instead), he might be able to make out the moon just setting, although it will be 05:50 his time.

I can't honestly think that it's going to be easy to get a photo at all, let alone a good one with the moon so low on the horizon and at sunrise/sunset.

But assuming we could, what would be the point. What is FET predicting here that contradicts RET?

I'm expecting to see the moon "the right way up" and my son will see it "upside down" (relative terms obviously), beyond that, can't think of anything unusual I would expect to see and I assume that FET will also predict the same for my son and I.

[Bobby Shafto]

We had a long debate about this this past summer, about how the "tilt" of the moon might help distinguish between a round earth and a flat earth, either when viewed simultaneously by two observers from different locations, or by the same observer at different times.

The problem with this is that there are a couple different influences on what can caused the perceived differences in orientation, and where flat earth skeptics say that some characteristic of tilt shouldn't be evident if the earth is flat, flat earth proponents disagree and say it IS consistent with a flat earth.

Personally, I think the apparent orientation of the moon does distinguish between flat and convex earth topography and an observational experiment would work; but only if you can agree on the premise, which you won't likely get based on past experience.

[timterroo]

If your talking strictly about angles, RE should see only about 1 - 2 degrees difference, while FE should see about 105 degrees difference. I think this should be a noticeable difference that can be calculated. Assuming both observers can get a good photo at the same time and assuming there is a way to cslculate the observed difference from comparing two photographs.

It would be difficult to test, but it seems like there should be enough of a difference between FE and RE theory that you could determine if the actual viewable difference is closer to what FE predicts or closer to what RE predicts.

[robinofloxley]

We had a long debate about this this past summer, about how the "tilt" of the moon might help distinguish between a round earth and a flat earth, either when viewed simultaneously by two observers from different locations, or by the same observer at different times.

I read through some of this and I think the difficulty with that particular thread is that the OP muddied the waters somewhat by stating at the outset what they believed FET would predict, without actually asking anyone and from there on it all seemed to go downhill and as you say, by the end it was clear that nobody was going to agree on the premise, so I'd say no point in re-hashing that debate, trying to convince anyone of anything based on rotation angle of the moon is a non-starter.

I am however still interested to hear anyone's explanation as to how it is possible to choose pretty much any route you like to travel to NZ and take the same time/travel the same distance (more or less) under FET, or if this has been discussed before, if someone could point me to the right thread topic.

In this case, the OP and his mate are setting off (from the UK) in almost completely opposite directions (one via Singapore the other via LA), presumably by the shortest route (within reason) and yet they end up at the same destination (NZ) having been in the air for a similar amount of time. This makes complete sense under RET, you just pick a direction and follow a great circle route, but I can't visualize this in a flat earth model.

[sleepybadger]

A simple experiment would be to take pictures of the moon in both the UK and New Zealand and compare the images to the different models.

On a globe earth you would expect to see the exact same face of the moon, except it would be inverted - as you're looking at a distant object, but upside down relative to each other.

On a flat earth you would expect to see different faces of the moon, as you would be looking at a close object, but from different directions.

[Pete Svarrior]

On a flat earth you would expect to see different faces of the moon, as you would be looking at a close object, but from different directions.

This is not the case.

[timterroo]

On a flat earth you would expect to see different faces of the moon, as you would be looking at a close object, but from different directions.

This is not the case.

Indeed, you should still see at least 75 degrees of the same face. On a 180 degree surface (half of the moon), that calculates to about 42 percent of the side that faces the earth.

This image is not to scale by any means, it was created in "paint", so forgive the crude design. However, the location the arrow points to is the overlap that each observer would see. That is the 42 percent that should remain viewable by both observers. The rest of the side would be different for each observer. This is what I want to test. In RE there should be much less difference, and much more overlap as the moon is much further away.

[Curious Squirrel]

On a flat earth you would expect to see different faces of the moon, as you would be looking at a close object, but from different directions.

This is not the case.

Indeed, you should still see at least 75 degrees of the same face. On a 180 degree surface (half of the moon), that calculates to about 42 percent of the side that faces the earth.

This image is not to scale by any means, it was created in "paint", so forgive the crude design. However, the location the arrow points to is the overlap that each observer would see. That is the 42 percent that should remain viewable by both observers. The rest of the side would be different for each observer. This is what I want to test. In RE there should be much less difference, and much more overlap as the moon is much further away.

Still incorrect. FE asserts essentially the same thing as RE, simply through different mechanisms. Two most common are "perspective" and electromagnetic acceleration I believe.

[timterroo]

Still incorrect. FE asserts essentially the same thing as RE, simply through different mechanisms. Two most common are "perspective" and electromagnetic acceleration I believe.

You telling me I am incorrect, does not make it so.

FE asserts that the moon is roughly 3000 miles above the earth. RE asserts that the moon is 238,900 miles above the earth. How is this the same thing?

How does perspective and electromagnetic acceleration change what we are seeing in this case? Perspective doesn't change the viewing angle that you are from the moon. What does electromagnetic acceleration have to do with this?

Here is an illustration of my calculations for a FE.



The 52.8 degrees is only half of the angular difference between observers, so by doubling it, you get approx. 105 degrees. If you use the same method to calculate this for RE, theta in this figure become .9 degrees. Double it and you get 1.8.

There is a big difference between 1.8 and 105. Shouldn't this be noticeable?

P.S. - I can diagram this for RE if you want, it's just harder to do it in paint when there are curves and arcs to draw and try to keep aligned and to a relative scale.

P.P.S. - Are you claiming there is a perspective effect similar to that which affects how we see the sun and moon set on FE?

[Curious Squirrel]

Per your P.P.S. Yes, that is somewhat related to my understanding. Toms 'example explanation' goes about like this as I recall:

"Put a Rubik's cube 30 feet up and move it side to side by 30 feet. There's a lot of change in what you see right? Put it 1 mile up and move it side to side 30 feet. Almost no change. This is evidence for how perspective changes things at long distances."

I don't pretend to know or understand what he's talking about, and frankly believe it's all ad-hoc to explain observations. But your claim is just incorrect. Neither model predicts a large change in what we see of the moon from moving from one hemiplane to the other. Showing there isn't any (or very little) change does nothing to disprove FE, when they 'predict' exactly that too.

[timterroo]

Per your P.P.S. Yes, that is somewhat related to my understanding. Toms 'example explanation' goes about like this as I recall:

"Put a Rubik's cube 30 feet up and move it side to side by 30 feet. There's a lot of change in what you see right? Put it 1 mile up and move it side to side 30 feet. Almost no change. This is evidence for how perspective changes things at long distances."

I don't pretend to know or understand what he's talking about, and frankly believe it's all ad-hoc to explain observations. But your claim is just incorrect. Neither model predicts a large change in what we see of the moon from moving from one hemiplane to the other. Showing there isn't any (or very little) change does nothing to disprove FE, when they 'predict' exactly that too.

The explanation you quoted from Tom is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. As the moon gets higher up, the change becomes less and less until it is practically unnoticeable.

But you are saying that FET does not predict there is a change in what we see. If this is true, then FET is leaving out an explanation for why it does not predict a change when the math is pretty clear that there SHOULD be a difference. FE moon should be noticeably different to each observer, while RE moon should remain nearly the same.

Without a valid explanation (for why FET moon does not predict a nearly 42% difference in what is observed), you cannot say I am incorrect. I might be going against FET, but that doesn't mean I am incorrect. FET is very much still up for debate, and many aspects of it have not been fully understood or articulated. Everything we discuss is subject to falsification.

[Curious Squirrel]

Per your P.P.S. Yes, that is somewhat related to my understanding. Toms 'example explanation' goes about like this as I recall:

"Put a Rubik's cube 30 feet up and move it side to side by 30 feet. There's a lot of change in what you see right? Put it 1 mile up and move it side to side 30 feet. Almost no change. This is evidence for how perspective changes things at long distances."

I don't pretend to know or understand what he's talking about, and frankly believe it's all ad-hoc to explain observations. But your claim is just incorrect. Neither model predicts a large change in what we see of the moon from moving from one hemiplane to the other. Showing there isn't any (or very little) change does nothing to disprove FE, when they 'predict' exactly that too.

The explanation you quoted from Tom is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. As the moon gets higher up, the change becomes less and less until it is practically unnoticeable.

But you are saying that FET does not predict there is a change in what we see. If this is true, then FET is leaving out an explanation for why it does not predict a change when the math is pretty clear that there SHOULD be a difference. FE moon should be noticeably different to each observer, while RE moon should remain nearly the same.

Without a valid explanation (for why FET moon does not predict a nearly 42% difference in what is observed), you cannot say I am incorrect. I might be going against FET, but that doesn't mean I am incorrect. FET is very much still up for debate, and many aspects of it have not been fully understood or articulated. Everything we discuss is subject to falsification.

EA provides that explanation. In theory, so does perspective, but nothing about the FE perspective hypothesis makes a lick of sense once you take it and attempt to apply it to anything else. But I've never been given an explanation for how perspective functions, or what changes at long distances beyond essentially 'it clearly does' despite going over this sort of thing a number of times. If you manage to finagle any additional meaning out of those earlier conversations or what's on the wiki I'd love to hear/see it though.

[Bobby Shafto]

EA provides that explanation.

Is EA part of the flat earth model or not?

Maybe there should be two models: one without EA that explains observations with "perspective." And one with EA that rejects the perspective rationale.

But the EA model begs the question, how is a flat earth with EA distinguishable from a globe earth?

[AATW]

The explanation you quoted from Tom is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. As the moon gets higher up, the change becomes less and less until it is practically unnoticeable.

Which is fine if the moon is a quarter of a million miles away, as it is in real life.
In FE though I thought it was only a few thousand miles away at most.
If that is the case then if you move sideways a few thousand miles there should be a very noticeable difference in what part of a sphere you can see.

[timterroo]

The explanation you quoted from Tom is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. As the moon gets higher up, the change becomes less and less until it is practically unnoticeable.

Which is fine if the moon is a quarter of a million miles away, as it is in real life.
In FE though I thought it was only a few thousand miles away at most.
If that is the case then if you move sideways a few thousand miles there should be a very noticeable difference in what part of a sphere you can see.

Yes, thank you for reiterating my point!

Please see my post above for the mathematical explanation to support this claim.

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10785.msg167329#msg167329