The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Ofcourseitsnotflat on August 29, 2018, 08:09:48 AM
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
... 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?
-
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.
-
... 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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
.... 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?
(https://i.imgur.com/RqrYjKQ.jpg)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 (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?
-
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 (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.
-
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 (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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
Why do you find it "very unlikely"?
-
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.
Why do you find it "very unlikely"?
Just analysis on other areas, when compared as overall models FET is substantially preferrable to the alternatives, specifically the model I hold to which predicts the discontinuity referred to. For an easy, relevant example, the non-linear decrease in gravity with respect to altitude is justified in this case, whereas under RET there's no actual reason for it to even approximate the inverse square law. That law normally applies when some tangible thing is being spread out over a wider area, but the RE model of gravity is not a thing, it's supposed to be a result of the curvature of spacetime and as such has no reason to reduce in that fashion.
-
...whereas under RET there's no actual reason for it to even approximate the inverse square law. That law normally applies when some tangible thing is being spread out over a wider area, but the RE model of gravity is not a thing, it's supposed to be a result of the curvature of spacetime and as such has no reason to reduce in that fashion.
JRowe, it was Newton who concluded that gravity is a force and observed that it follows the inverse square law long before Einstein thought up curved spacetime.
-
...whereas under RET there's no actual reason for it to even approximate the inverse square law. That law normally applies when some tangible thing is being spread out over a wider area, but the RE model of gravity is not a thing, it's supposed to be a result of the curvature of spacetime and as such has no reason to reduce in that fashion.
JRowe, it was Newton who concluded that gravity is a force and observed that it follows the inverse square law long before Einstein thought up curved spacetime.
Newton barely had a theory behind gravity, he just had the observed fact of things falling, and as such no predictions and so nothing that could be called a theory. But if you want to go by Newton's view of gravity:
That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.
And either way, so what? I don't care about your model as it was a few centuries ago, I care about how it is now, how you have developed it in answer to the challenges presented to it. If you just want to pretend huge chunks of your model don't exist in order to defend it, then you're doing my work for me.
-
...whereas under RET there's no actual reason for it to even approximate the inverse square law. That law normally applies when some tangible thing is being spread out over a wider area, but the RE model of gravity is not a thing, it's supposed to be a result of the curvature of spacetime and as such has no reason to reduce in that fashion.
JRowe, it was Newton who concluded that gravity is a force and observed that it follows the inverse square law long before Einstein thought up curved spacetime.
Newton barely had a theory behind gravity, he just had the observed fact of things falling, and as such no predictions and so nothing that could be called a theory.
Predictions are made by using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
(http://astronomyonline.org/Science/Images/Mathematics/UniversalGravitation.gif)
But if you want to go by Newton's view of gravity:
That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance, through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.
Sure, Newton admitted that he didn't know what caused gravity, but he was able to observed and document its effects.
And either way, so what? I don't care about your model as it was a few centuries ago, I care about how it is now, how you have developed it in answer to the challenges presented to it. If you just want to pretend huge chunks of your model don't exist in order to defend it, then you're doing my work for me.
If you don't want me to bring up Newton's version of gravity (which is still in wide use today), then don't bring up inverse square which Newton's version of gravity uses. In strong fields where relativistic effects become significant, GR does not use the inverse square law.
-
Measuring the gravity field of earth is a scientifically admirable approach but why hasn't anyone mentioned something more basic?
Madman Mike Hughes was on the right track even if his rocket design was so grossly ineffective that it was doomed. Using energy to create steam then using that steam for thrust wastes a lot of energy. Just use your energy for thrust.
Model rockets, weather balloons and personal rockets could be used to get a good pic of the flat earth, assuming it doesn't hit some dome first.
-
If you don't want me to bring up Newton's version of gravity (which is still in wide use today), then don't bring up inverse square which Newton's version of gravity uses. In strong fields where relativistic effects become significant, GR does not use the inverse square law.
What I don't want is for you to act as though Newton had any actual theory of gravity. My problem is that your model cannot explain why gravity follows that law, and that stands whether or not you want to go by the old version or the new; Newton didn't even try to expxlain it.
assuming it doesn't hit some dome first.
When your plan ends with 'assuming it works,' it ain't a good plan.
High altitude travel is impossible. Things ascending or descending through the increased discontinuities get torn apart.
-
If Mike Hughes achieved the altitude he was hoping for and crashed into a dome or was torn apart by gravimetric distortions, it would have been a tragedy. However, it would have also been a huge victory for flat earth. Imagine what we would have seen in the final moments of his GoPro recording.
-
I think it is easy to prove if the Earth is flat. Just fly in a plane to the edge of the world. Take a video. Why has no one done this yet? Its much less expensive than flying a rocket into space.
The spherical version of the Earth is easy to prove because it means if you keep flying in one direction you will come back to your starting point. It would be very easy to prove this wrong. For example fly from the US to Japan by going East. And then try by going West. One way would fail if the Earth was flat and both ways would succeed if the Earth was round. If the Earth is flat it means that airlines are lying to us and charging us too much for certain journeys!
-
If you don't want me to bring up Newton's version of gravity (which is still in wide use today), then don't bring up inverse square which Newton's version of gravity uses. In strong fields where relativistic effects become significant, GR does not use the inverse square law.
What I don't want is for you to act as though Newton had any actual theory of gravity. My problem is that your model cannot explain why gravity follows that law, and that stands whether or not you want to go by the old version or the new; Newton didn't even try to expxlain it.
Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is a theory that describes the effects of gravity (in non-relativistic conditions). The fact that he couldn't describe the mechanism of gravity does not make it any less of a theory of take away from the validity of his description of its effects.
-
If you don't want me to bring up Newton's version of gravity (which is still in wide use today), then don't bring up inverse square which Newton's version of gravity uses. In strong fields where relativistic effects become significant, GR does not use the inverse square law.
What I don't want is for you to act as though Newton had any actual theory of gravity. My problem is that your model cannot explain why gravity follows that law, and that stands whether or not you want to go by the old version or the new; Newton didn't even try to expxlain it.
Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is a theory that describes the effects of gravity (in non-relativistic conditions). The fact that he couldn't describe the mechanism of gravity does not make it any less of a theory of take away from the validity of his description of its effects.
But it does make it meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Describing effects is trivial. Describing why and how those effects arise is science.
-
If you don't want me to bring up Newton's version of gravity (which is still in wide use today), then don't bring up inverse square which Newton's version of gravity uses. In strong fields where relativistic effects become significant, GR does not use the inverse square law.
What I don't want is for you to act as though Newton had any actual theory of gravity. My problem is that your model cannot explain why gravity follows that law, and that stands whether or not you want to go by the old version or the new; Newton didn't even try to expxlain it.
Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is a theory that describes the effects of gravity (in non-relativistic conditions). The fact that he couldn't describe the mechanism of gravity does not make it any less of a theory of take away from the validity of his description of its effects.
But it does make it meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Describing effects is trivial. Describing why and how those effects arise is science.
Believe it or not, accurately describing the effects of an unknown force is still a quite useful science. After all, you need to understand what something is doing before you can figure out how it does it, don't you think?
-
If you don't want me to bring up Newton's version of gravity (which is still in wide use today), then don't bring up inverse square which Newton's version of gravity uses. In strong fields where relativistic effects become significant, GR does not use the inverse square law.
What I don't want is for you to act as though Newton had any actual theory of gravity. My problem is that your model cannot explain why gravity follows that law, and that stands whether or not you want to go by the old version or the new; Newton didn't even try to expxlain it.
Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is a theory that describes the effects of gravity (in non-relativistic conditions). The fact that he couldn't describe the mechanism of gravity does not make it any less of a theory of take away from the validity of his description of its effects.
But it does make it meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Describing effects is trivial. Describing why and how those effects arise is science.
Believe it or not, accurately describing the effects of an unknown force is still a quite useful science. After all, you need to understand what something is doing before you can figure out how it does it, don't you think?
And it is still irrelevant when my objection is the explanation of the why. Bypassing that question entirely doesn't help. Why are you still debating this?
-
If you don't want me to bring up Newton's version of gravity (which is still in wide use today), then don't bring up inverse square which Newton's version of gravity uses. In strong fields where relativistic effects become significant, GR does not use the inverse square law.
What I don't want is for you to act as though Newton had any actual theory of gravity. My problem is that your model cannot explain why gravity follows that law, and that stands whether or not you want to go by the old version or the new; Newton didn't even try to expxlain it.
Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is a theory that describes the effects of gravity (in non-relativistic conditions). The fact that he couldn't describe the mechanism of gravity does not make it any less of a theory of take away from the validity of his description of its effects.
But it does make it meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Describing effects is trivial. Describing why and how those effects arise is science.
Believe it or not, accurately describing the effects of an unknown force is still a quite useful science. After all, you need to understand what something is doing before you can figure out how it does it, don't you think?
And it is still irrelevant when my objection is the explanation of the why. Bypassing that question entirely doesn't help. Why are you still debating this?
Is the why of your DET equivalent of gravity explained any better than Newton's gravity or GR? And by better, I mean with a firm mathematical foundation.
-
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?
Easiest thing to do, and you do not need all the money in the world or any technology, take a spaceship to the space station. Or take a shuttle around the earth in earths orbit. Couple million would do.
-
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?
Easiest thing to do, and you do not need all the money in the world or any technology, take a spaceship to the space station. Or take a shuttle around the earth in earths orbit. Couple million would do.
Sure, that would be really easy. Assuming that you have a few million (actually probably closer to about $50-60 million) burning a hole in your pocket and the space tourism industry is currently sending tourists to space (it isn't).
-
If you don't want me to bring up Newton's version of gravity (which is still in wide use today), then don't bring up inverse square which Newton's version of gravity uses. In strong fields where relativistic effects become significant, GR does not use the inverse square law.
What I don't want is for you to act as though Newton had any actual theory of gravity. My problem is that your model cannot explain why gravity follows that law, and that stands whether or not you want to go by the old version or the new; Newton didn't even try to expxlain it.
Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation is a theory that describes the effects of gravity (in non-relativistic conditions). The fact that he couldn't describe the mechanism of gravity does not make it any less of a theory of take away from the validity of his description of its effects.
But it does make it meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Describing effects is trivial. Describing why and how those effects arise is science.
Believe it or not, accurately describing the effects of an unknown force is still a quite useful science. After all, you need to understand what something is doing before you can figure out how it does it, don't you think?
And it is still irrelevant when my objection is the explanation of the why. Bypassing that question entirely doesn't help. Why are you still debating this?
Is the why of your DET equivalent of gravity explained any better than Newton's gravity or GR? And by better, I mean with a firm mathematical foundation.
So you are just completely incapable of actually acknowledging a word I say.
Math tells you the what. My problem is with the how. You don't get to move the goalposts to just completely ignore my statements.
-
So you are just completely incapable of actually acknowledging a word I say.
Math tells you the what. My problem is with the how. You don't get to move the goalposts to just completely ignore my statements.
Math is the language of science. If you don't have the math, then you don't have a theory. Newton and Einstein had plenty of math to support their theories. Where's your math?
-
So you are just completely incapable of actually acknowledging a word I say.
Math tells you the what. My problem is with the how. You don't get to move the goalposts to just completely ignore my statements.
Math is the language of science. If you don't have the math, then you don't have a theory. Newton and Einstein had plenty of math to support their theories. Where's your math?
Newton provided the math, not the mechanism. His math is attributable to any theory of gravity.
-
So you are just completely incapable of actually acknowledging a word I say.
Math tells you the what. My problem is with the how. You don't get to move the goalposts to just completely ignore my statements.
Math is the language of science. If you don't have the math, then you don't have a theory. Newton and Einstein had plenty of math to support their theories. Where's your math?
Newton provided the math, not the mechanism. His math is attributable to any theory of gravity.
FE doesn't provide either the math or the mechanism for many of its ideas of course...
And while we're here, Newton's math isn't correct. In most normal cases it's close enough but Einstein provided a more complete explanation of gravity with different math - Einstein's equations reduce to Newton's for most practical purposes.
-
So you are just completely incapable of actually acknowledging a word I say.
Math tells you the what. My problem is with the how. You don't get to move the goalposts to just completely ignore my statements.
Math is the language of science. If you don't have the math, then you don't have a theory. Newton and Einstein had plenty of math to support their theories. Where's your math?
Newton provided the math, not the mechanism. His math is attributable to any theory of gravity.
Yes Tom, we all know that Newton didn't provide a mechanism. However, his math doesn't work under relativistic conditions, like the precession of Mercury's orbit, which is why Einstein developed much more sophisticated math for GR.
-
Here is how I would prove FET.
I would measure the shadow of identical objects at exactly 12:00 noon in two locations at least 100 miles apart along the (so called) prime meridian.
Since the sun is in a given point in the sky, the size of the shadow of 1 object, the height of the identical objects, and the distance between the objects can be used to calculate the size of the shadow of the 2nd object.
Since the earth is flat, the calculation of the 2nd shadow will match the measurement of the 2nd shadow.
-
Here is how I would prove FET.
I would measure the shadow of identical objects at exactly 12:00 noon in two locations at least 100 miles apart along the (so called) prime meridian.
Since the sun is in a given point in the sky, the size of the shadow of 1 object, the height of the identical objects, and the distance between the objects can be used to calculate the size of the shadow of the 2nd object.
Since the earth is flat, the calculation of the 2nd shadow will match the measurement of the 2nd shadow.
Update: the measurement of 2nd shadow was smaller than the calculation. Hmm......
-
The Wiki covers that. You are assuming a distant sun. If the sun is smaller and close then you'd get the same result on a flat earth:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun
Obviously if the sun were closer you'd also be able to show that by taking measurements of the angle of it from different locations and triangulating.
The angle would be measurably different if the sun is as close as FE supposes. I've seen no evidence that any FE person has done this
-
FE doesn't provide either the math or the mechanism for many of its ideas of course...
I guess I'm risking getting a beating here from Pete or junker, but I would say that FE provides neither the math or the mechanism for any of it's ideas. You can verify this by going through the wiki. Anytime 'math' is given it is not scientifically attributable to the alleged phenomenon in question. For instance the badly stated math given for EAT is just tossed out there. No derivation is given, hence no attribution can be drawn between it and EAT. EAT as an hypothesis is self defeating, but that is fodder for another thread.
Masters of their game, like Newton and Einstein get pummeled frequently on this site by folks that have no understanding of the work these men did. What they were actually trying to do. In science it is sufficient to provide a predictive model. The 'mechanism', as it is put here, is not as important a 'goal' in physics as is the predictive model. Physics is abut getting the job done. The truth is that Newton's theory of universal gravitation provides far more insight to the 'mechanism' than does QM, yet QM has afforded us the development of cell phones, computers and the networks that allow us to exchange ideas. We all accept cell phones, computers and the networks that connect them, don't we?
-
You guys have had several thousand years to figure out how reality works, and you still can't come up with a model that explains the mechanics of the solar system, galaxies, universe, or even the round earth itself since we continue to see observations and experiments which contradict the predictions.
FET is relatively new. What kind of math was provided for the round earth system a few years after it started to catch on world-wide?
-
You guys have had several thousand years to figure out how reality works, and you still can't come up with a model that explains the mechanics of the solar system, galaxies, universe, or even the round earth itself since we continue to see observations and experiments which contradict the predictions.
FET is relatively new. What kind of math was provided for the round earth system a few years after it started to catch on world-wide?
All observations and measurements prove a round earth. Why have you not provided any alternative distances?
-
You guys have had several thousand years to figure out how reality works, and you still can't come up with a model that explains the mechanics of the solar system, galaxies, universe, or even the round earth itself since we continue to see observations and experiments which contradict the predictions.
FET is relatively new. What kind of math was provided for the round earth system a few years after it started to catch on world-wide?
You need to understand that the "you guys" is "humanity". That includes you, and me. Yes, we as a species have had thousands of years to figure things out. Interesting to think about where the clock starts - when did we first start trying to figure out how reality works rather than just trying to survive - but I would certainly agree with thousands. But it should be taken into account that for much of that time we didn't have the tools necessary to understand things properly. How do you understand about pathogens if you don't have microscopes? How do you understand the universe if you don't have telescopes? In the context of those thousands of years the tools we've needed to really understand stuff have only been available for a short time. It's only in the last 60 years or so we've had the ability to launch stuff into space which has helped us explore the other planets, visit the moon, launch Hubble and learn all kinds of new things. In some ways our understanding of things is quite mature, in other ways we're just getting started.
You're right, we as a species do not have a complete model of how everything works. If we did then we wouldn't need to do science, we'd have it all worked out. The fact our model is incomplete is partly because the more we look the more complicated reality seems to be - quantum theory is a good example from the last century, how could people hundreds of years ago have had any idea that crazy stuff like that was going on. And it's partly because we've only recently had the tools to really discover what is going on. A few hundred years ago Newton thought he'd figured out gravity and how things move. His model passed a lot of tests and stood the test of time, it got us to the moon. It is still for most practical purposes a very useful model. But Einstein came along and showed that Newton wasn't quite right, Einstein's model is more complete, it works in more scenarios and has also stood the test of time and passed a lot of experimental tests - GPS wouldn't work if relatavistic effects weren't accounted for. Maybe someone will come along one day and give us an even more complete model of how things work. That is how things work in real science. Models are developed which explain things and can predict things, if the model is shown to fail then it is either modified or - in the example of the geocentric model - abandoned completely. Various ways were tried to fix the geocentric model to take account of the movement of planets, in the end the only way of fixing it so that it matched observations was to abandon it and realise that the heliocentric model was correct.
And that is also what happened with FET. It is not new, it was the model which the ancients believed. And why wouldn't you? If you just go about your day to day business why wouldn't you think that you live on a flat plane and the sun and stars go around it (by "around", most people would have assumed that the sun goes under the flat earth at night because you see the sun going down below the horizon). But then Eratosthenes came along and showed that if we're on a flat plane then the shadows would be of consistent length across it at a certain time of day, but that wasn't the case. A curved surface explains that. Things like that saw the flat earth model rejected. As you note in your Wiki, an alternative explanation is a small, near sun. But were that the case you would be able to measure the distance to it by measuring the angle of the sun in different places a known distance apart at the same time and triangulating. I have seen no evidence that FE has done this. So much for empiricism. You can't just provide an altenative explanation for the experiment result without some evidence that that explanation is correct.
Our current model of the solar system is pretty good. I don't know what your "observations and experiments which contradict the predictions" are but looking at your posts most of your problems with mainstream science are you just not understanding things, despite repeated explanations. And you refuse to do any experiments which would help you understand things when they are suggested. So you don't learn anything. Several experiments to measure horizon dip have been outlined, you refused to do any. You lament you have no budget but nor does Bobby and he showed horizon dip very clearly. You laments about a lack of budget make as much sense as someone on a modern day alchemy forum lamenting that there is no budget for research into alchemy. No, there isn't. And for good reason. When alchemy was a big thing loads of people tried to do it and no-one succeeded. In the end it was concluded it was impossible. We now understand why it's impossible - I'm getting to the limit of my understanding here but it's something to do with the sheer amount of energy required to turn one element into another, it's something which generally only happens in stars. If someone there said "be fair, alchemy is quite new" it would be a ridiculous statement, as is yours. Alchemy isn't new, the idea of a flat earth isn't new, both were rejected when they were shown not to work.
I asked you previously in this thread on what basis you were satisfied that the earth is flat. You never replied. Care to share with the class now?
-
You guys have had several thousand years to figure out how reality works, and you still can't come up with a model that explains the mechanics of the solar system, galaxies, universe, or even the round earth itself since we continue to see observations and experiments which contradict the predictions.
FET is relatively new. What kind of math was provided for the round earth system a few years after it started to catch on world-wide?
Calculations of the circumference, carried out 80-100 years apart, by differing teams and methods, concur with each other.
The first of these was based on measurement of an arc over the surface, deriving the angle between the two ends of the arc, and extrapolating from this the length of one degree of arc, and multiplying that one degree by 360 to gain the circumference figure. This has been repeated all over the world, with consistent results.
If you measure between two points on a flat earth, what does that tell you? It's not an arc, so you can't apply any calculation of an angle to it. Where would you draw the angle?
Measurement of orbital craft, applying space geodesy to these measurements also concurs.
-
Tom thinks because we didn’t learn everything already that what we have learned must be dubious. It’s a completely erroneous assertion.
-
You guys have had several thousand years to figure out how reality works, and you still can't come up with a model that explains the mechanics of the solar system, galaxies, universe, or even the round earth itself since we continue to see observations and experiments which contradict the predictions.
FET is relatively new. What kind of math was provided for the round earth system a few years after it started to catch on world-wide?
So, maybe it takes another 1000 years, or maybe 10,000 years. We have some things as close as required for daily use. Newtonian mechanics is useful for 99.99999% of our needs. We can invoke GR or QM as required to get a few more 9s on there as required. The point is, we are going in the right direction. Getting more accurate and more precise. With each new major advancement (about every 200 years or so) we get much closer.
FE had it's day. It was gleefully left behind thousands of years ago because it explained nothing. It still explains nothing and according to a lot of FE proponents, like "The Morgile", no explanations (as in predictive models) are required. With that kind of attitude in teh FE corner, the situation is not likely to get much better.
It is well known that our eyes are easily fooled and are extremely limited in their ability to observe the universe. Basing a substitute for science on visual observation is most likely a mistake.
-
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 have personally measured the altitude of the Sun over the flat plane of the Earth and have found it to be approximately 5600 miles.
-
I have personally measured the altitude of the Sun over the flat plane of the Earth and have found it to be approximately 5600 miles.
Can you share your method of doing this and the results of your experiment where you did it?
-
I have personally measured the altitude of the Sun over the flat plane of the Earth and have found it to be approximately 5600 miles.
Can you share your method of doing this and the results of your experiment where you did it?
Yes I can.
First, you need to know the distance between you and the Sun. This can be found at timeanddate.
When I took the measurement it was at 1700 miles.
B, you need a object of known height to place between you and the Sun so that the top of the object and the top of the Sun are perceived to be the same.
III, you then measure the distance between yourself and the base of the object.
This establishes a ratio serving to derive the altitude of the observed object.
-
First, you need to know the distance between you and the Sun. This can be found at timeanddate.
OK, you're going to need to talk me through this part.
How can I use timeanddate to determine the distance between me and the sun?
-
First, you need to know the distance between you and the Sun. This can be found at timeanddate.
OK, you're going to need to talk me through this part.
How can I use timeanddate to determine the distance between me and the sun?
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html
This will show you the latitude and longitude of the Sun.
-
Without some form of 'fudge factor' I would predict nearly every latitude will locate the sun at a different height using this method. Some will be closer than others, but there will be a large variance overall (as already evidenced by Totallackey's disagreement with the height measured by the Eratosthenes experiment.)
-
Without some form of 'fudge factor' I would predict nearly every latitude will locate the sun at a different height using this method. Some will be closer than others, but there will be a large variance overall (as already evidenced by Totallackey's disagreement with the height measured by the Eratosthenes experiment.)
And your prediction would be wrong.
Every single sentence written in your post is incorrect.
Despite what the wiki claims here, the experiment performed by Eratosthenes is not legitimate for measuring altitude and is not used by surveyors at all.
The method I put forth is used by surveyors for measuring the altitude and height of objects by surveyors.
-
First, you need to know the distance between you and the Sun. This can be found at timeanddate.
OK, you're going to need to talk me through this part.
How can I use timeanddate to determine the distance between me and the sun?
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html
This will show you the latitude and longitude of the Sun.
Thank you.
The flaw in your method is you are assuming a flat earth.
So you're calculating the black dotted line when actually you can see that the sun is far more distant in reality:
(https://image.ibb.co/gcUPHK/Distance_To_Sun.jpg)
Obviously this is not to scale at all. If you imagine a far more distant sun in that diagram then you should be able to see that the error is orders of magnitude more than shown in that picture. That's why you're getting thousands of miles rather than millions.
-
Without some form of 'fudge factor' I would predict nearly every latitude will locate the sun at a different height using this method. Some will be closer than others, but there will be a large variance overall (as already evidenced by Totallackey's disagreement with the height measured by the Eratosthenes experiment.)
And your prediction would be wrong.
Every single sentence written in your post is incorrect.
Despite what the wiki claims here, the experiment performed by Eratosthenes is not legitimate for measuring altitude and is not used by surveyors at all.
The method I put forth is used by surveyors for measuring the altitude and height of objects by surveyors.
Simply declaring my prediction incorrect with nothing to show for it does nothing. It's an empty claim. Your second sentence is complete hyperbole. The Eratosthenes experiment is almost exactly what you have described doing, if you don't understand that I'm sorry.
That said I'd love to see more of these done. OR, if you accept information provided by timeanddate.com as accurate, they provide the angle of elevation to the sun as well. Which could be easily used to figure out the height of the sun for multiple locations. I'd be more than happy to do the leg work there if you would accept the results.
-
First, you need to know the distance between you and the Sun. This can be found at timeanddate.
OK, you're going to need to talk me through this part.
How can I use timeanddate to determine the distance between me and the sun?
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html
This will show you the latitude and longitude of the Sun.
Thank you.
The flaw in your method is you are assuming a flat earth.
So you're calculating the black dotted line when actually you can see that the sun is far more distant in reality:
(https://image.ibb.co/gcUPHK/Distance_To_Sun.jpg)
Obviously this is not to scale at all. If you imagine a far more distant sun in that diagram then you should be able to see that the error is orders of magnitude more than shown in that picture. That's why you're getting thousands of miles rather than millions.
There is no "flaw," as you put it.
Go ahead and assume a spherical earth and demonstrate via math (that is, post the calculations) and write the results here.
Otherwise, you have nothing.
You are the one utilizing the word "imagine." I think the use of such a word clearly indicates the instability of your thought process.
-
Without some form of 'fudge factor' I would predict nearly every latitude will locate the sun at a different height using this method. Some will be closer than others, but there will be a large variance overall (as already evidenced by Totallackey's disagreement with the height measured by the Eratosthenes experiment.)
And your prediction would be wrong.
Every single sentence written in your post is incorrect.
Despite what the wiki claims here, the experiment performed by Eratosthenes is not legitimate for measuring altitude and is not used by surveyors at all.
The method I put forth is used by surveyors for measuring the altitude and height of objects by surveyors.
Simply declaring my prediction incorrect with nothing to show for it does nothing. It's an empty claim.
My sentence is not an empty claim.
Your original offering is the empty claim.
Your second sentence is complete hyperbole. The Eratosthenes experiment is almost exactly what you have described doing, if you don't understand that I'm sorry.
No, what I propose has nothing to do with the Eratosthenes experiment.
You have zero clue about what you are writing.
That is patently obvious.
That said I'd love to see more of these done. OR, if you accept information provided by timeanddate.com as accurate, they provide the angle of elevation to the sun as well. Which could be easily used to figure out the height of the sun for multiple locations. I'd be more than happy to do the leg work there if you would accept the results.
You do not need the angle of elevation in order to perform the calculations presented here.
Until you can actually post different results (as you claimed without supporting evidence), then your original reply is to remain vacuous and bereft of substance.
-
Without some form of 'fudge factor' I would predict nearly every latitude will locate the sun at a different height using this method. Some will be closer than others, but there will be a large variance overall (as already evidenced by Totallackey's disagreement with the height measured by the Eratosthenes experiment.)
And your prediction would be wrong.
Every single sentence written in your post is incorrect.
Despite what the wiki claims here, the experiment performed by Eratosthenes is not legitimate for measuring altitude and is not used by surveyors at all.
The method I put forth is used by surveyors for measuring the altitude and height of objects by surveyors.
Simply declaring my prediction incorrect with nothing to show for it does nothing. It's an empty claim.
My sentence is not an empty claim.
Your original offering is the empty claim.
Your second sentence is complete hyperbole. The Eratosthenes experiment is almost exactly what you have described doing, if you don't understand that I'm sorry.
No, what I propose has nothing to do with the Eratosthenes experiment.
You have zero clue about what you are writing.
That is patently obvious.
That said I'd love to see more of these done. OR, if you accept information provided by timeanddate.com as accurate, they provide the angle of elevation to the sun as well. Which could be easily used to figure out the height of the sun for multiple locations. I'd be more than happy to do the leg work there if you would accept the results.
You do not need the angle of elevation in order to perform the calculations presented here.
Until you can actually post different results (as you claimed without supporting evidence), then your original reply is to remain vacuous and bereft of substance.
The angle of elevation of the sun is not required, that is correct. But you can use it to find the altitude of the sun in the exact same manner as you have described. With the 90 degree angle from sun to Earth, and the distance to this point know, the angle of the sun up from the horizon will allow one to find the distance to the sun. Do you dispute this? If not I'd be more than happy to run some numbers, but I'm not going to waste my time if we can't agree on the base principles at work, and I have my doubts at present when you claim your experiment and the one done by Eratosthenes have 'nothing to do' with one another.
-
That's easy. Buy the balloon and suit Baumgartner used. And make sure it has a way to descend without me having to jump.
-
The angle of elevation of the sun is not required, that is correct. But you can use it to find the altitude of the sun in the exact same manner as you have described.
No, you cannot.
Surveyors have been using the method I describe for thousands of years and there is nothing required about the angles of the top of the object(s) being measured.
You have no clue about what you are writing.
Go talk with or write any surveyor and ask them if the method I propose is or is not a legitimate method for measuring the height of objects.
With the 90 degree angle from sun to Earth, and the distance to this point know, the angle of the sun up from the horizon will allow one to find the distance to the sun. Do you dispute this? If not I'd be more than happy to run some numbers, but I'm not going to waste my time if we can't agree on the base principles at work, and I have my doubts at present when you claim your experiment and the one done by Eratosthenes have 'nothing to do' with one another.
Yes, I do.
Surveyors do not use this method to determine the height of objects.
One does not need to know the angle of the hypotenuse.
One need only know the baseline distance from the object being observed to the vertex and the distance of the interceding pole to vertex.
This establishes a precise ratio of right triangles formed without any conjecture.
-
Can you show the calculations you used so that I can do the same?
-
The angle of elevation of the sun is not required, that is correct. But you can use it to find the altitude of the sun in the exact same manner as you have described.
No, you cannot.
Surveyors have been using the method I describe for thousands of years and there is nothing required about the angles of the top of the object(s) being measured.
You have no clue about what you are writing.
Go talk with or write any surveyor and ask them if the method I propose is or is not a legitimate method for measuring the height of objects.
I have never said the method you posted isn't a way to measure the height. My statement as been there are other methods for doing so. But since you suggested it, I've sent an email to a surveying company to inquire as to what methods are currently being used for measuring heights and similar.
With the 90 degree angle from sun to Earth, and the distance to this point know, the angle of the sun up from the horizon will allow one to find the distance to the sun. Do you dispute this? If not I'd be more than happy to run some numbers, but I'm not going to waste my time if we can't agree on the base principles at work, and I have my doubts at present when you claim your experiment and the one done by Eratosthenes have 'nothing to do' with one another.
Yes, I do.
Surveyors do not use this method to determine the height of objects.
One does not need to know the angle of the hypotenuse.
One need only know the baseline distance from the object being observed to the vertex and the distance of the interceding pole to vertex.
This establishes a precise ratio of right triangles formed without any conjecture.
Not even sure where to begin with this. Are you claiming that with triangle ABC, you can't figure out the height of side a by knowing angles A and C, and the length side b?
(http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/36500/36521/tri11_36521_sm.gif)
If you are not, please explain what you are actually trying to say. If you are, well....not sure there's any point in continuing this.
-
Go talk with or write any surveyor and ask them if the method I propose is or is not a legitimate method for measuring the height of objects.
There is nothing wrong with your method. But it does assume a flat earth.
If the earth isn’t flat (spoiler: it isn’t) then you will get a very different result. I don’t even know if it’s possible to calculate the distance to the sun with your method on a globe earth.
-
Go talk with or write any surveyor and ask them if the method I propose is or is not a legitimate method for measuring the height of objects.
There is nothing wrong with your method. But it does assume a flat earth.
If the earth isn’t flat (spoiler: it isn’t) then you will get a very different result. I don’t even know if it’s possible to calculate the distance to the sun with your method on a globe earth.
It definitely assumes a flat plane.
I put my calculations into an Earth Curvature Calculator. The result was that the target object (Sun), calculated at a distance of 2581 miles away and a height of 3673 feet would be hidden by the curvature of the earth by 5,383,000 feet. Yet it is above me at about a 60 degree angle.
-
Easiest thing to do, and you do not need all the money in the world or any technology, take a spaceship to the space station. Or take a shuttle around the earth in earths orbit. Couple million would do.[/quote]
Sure, that would be really easy. Assuming that you have a few million (actually probably closer to about $50-60 million) burning a hole in your pocket and the space tourism industry is currently sending tourists to space (it isn't).
[/quote]
Ok, say 1 billion $ so you have a really comfortable trip. This would prove either. A) you fly up and see the earth spinning and round. or B) You fly up and crash into a glass dome and fall to the earth like a flaming ball. or C) You actually crash through the dome where a heavenly camera crew awaits to interview you as the first person to escape the dome. or D) you crash through the dome and are murdered by aliens that want to set an example of you for any other human thinking about leaving their snowglobe.
-
Easiest thing to do, and you do not need all the money in the world or any technology, take a spaceship to the space station. Or take a shuttle around the earth in earths orbit. Couple million would do.[/quote]
Sure, that would be really easy. Assuming that you have a few million (actually probably closer to about $50-60 million) burning a hole in your pocket and the space tourism industry is currently sending tourists to space (it isn't).
[/quote]
Ok, say 1 billion $ so you have a really comfortable trip. This would prove either. A) you fly up and see the earth spinning and round. or B) You fly up and crash into a glass dome and fall to the earth like a flaming ball. or C) You actually crash through the dome where a heavenly camera crew awaits to interview you as the first person to escape the dome. or D) you crash through the dome and are murdered by aliens that want to set an example of you for any other human thinking about leaving their snowglobe.
Stop shitposting and derailing threads in the upper fora. 2nd warning.
-
i would take a boat the the edge. How much simpler can you get?
-
In order to provide proof of the shape of the earth...
I am not sure zetetic proof is possible without observation and I am unsure if trickery would be considered in a space-ship trip (CG screens instead of windows etc.).
I can think of nothing to prove the earth is any shape while relying on zetetic principles. That’s a good idea for a separate thread though. Thanks.
-
All I would need to decide would be a plum bob and a scale to weigh myself. If the earth were a disk then the gravitational field would be much different than it would be for a sphere. The gravitational force is a vector. That vector is pointed towards the center of gravity. A sphere has it's center of gravity at the center of the sphere so the gravitational vector is always normal to the surface and would be the same anywhere. Of course there are small variations on the earths surface because the density of the earth is not totally uniform, but the variations are relatively small. If the world were a flat disk, then the center of gravity would be at the center of the disk. To see the effect just take a plate and try to balance it on your finger. The only place that would happen is in the center of the plate. If the center of the earth disk happened to be in Omaha then the gravity force vector would be straight down at that point. You would expect a plum bob to hang straight down at that point as well. If you took the plum bob to near the edge, the force of gravity would fall off and the plum bob would hang at an angle to the surface of the earth an tend in the direction of Omaha. Additionally, the force would be less because you are farther from the center of mass. The gravitational force depends on the masses involved and the distance to the centers of both masses. It wouldn't be all that bad to live on a flat disk earth. If the doctor said that you needed to loose weight all you would have to do is move farther out toward the edge of the disk and you would weigh less. Of course you would also tend to walk at an angle because the force of gravity would also pull you towards the center of mass. Given enough cycles of evolution the human species could develop people with different length legs to compensate. Unfortunately that would mean some people would only be able to walk in a circle clockwise and others counter clockwise. I think that I would prefer the spherical world myself. How about you?