#### alexbonn20075

• 1
##### Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« on: November 01, 2021, 05:46:45 PM »
Hi all,
I am a student in French physics and mechanics student (I apologize for the incoming English mistakes I'll do), and I have a science project with a group of friends, which is: Find an experiment with the help of your smartphone, camera and sensors included, to prove or disprove element of Flat Earth Theory. I read a lot about FE theory, that I didn't know before, and I am a bit lost with all the different types of maps or assumptions the theory makes.

I am really respectful with all the work FE makes in order to seek the truth, and even if I am not still convinced with it, I am asking this to get a purely scientific exchange with smart scientists or truth seekers that made research and know way more than I do.

If you have an idea for such an experiment, I would really appreciate it!

Have a good day,
Alexis Bonnafont

#### SteelyBob

##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2021, 10:18:39 PM »
Hi,

There's lots you could do. Some ideas:

1. Using an inclinometer app, measure the elevation angle of the pole star (Polaris) and note how it is almost exactly the same as the latitude reported by your phone (the compass app on an iPhone gives you a quick lat/long readout, or just use one of the mapping applications). Get a friend who lives a reasonable distance away from you, ideally north or south, to do the same exercise. Try to calculate the distance to Polaris by treating the earth as flat and using two observations to triangulate, then observe that this doesn't work for more than two observations - you get different results. Then try it with a round earth, and note that it absolutely does make sense for all latitudes in the northern hemisphere (you can't see it from the Southern Hemisphere...why?) if you assume the distance to Polaris is much larger than the earth's diameter (ie your observation lines are essentially parallel).

2. Whilst undertaking the first task, take some time to do some time lapse photography - again very possible with a mobile phone - and get your distant friend(s) to do the same. Try exposures of different times, and note that the stars blur into streaks after exposures of more than a minute or two. Note also that the stars appear to be rotating around the pole star in a circular motion. Observe the same type of photo from a different latitude, and notice that the stars are doing the same thing, ie rotating in a circle, but the centre of rotation is just higher or lower in the sky.

FE theory seems to try to explain (1) by invoking EA, or 'bendy light', but if this was actually occurring, ask yourself how the stars could move in perfect circles, observed from any location, without distorting due to EA.

3. Measure the angle travelled by any star in one of your time lapse photos compared to the time of exposure - the rate of movement will equal the earth's rotation rate.

4. If you're feeling a bit more adventurous, get flying. Get a friend to fly to Australia, while you travel to Africa. Pick locations where it is dark at the same time (check https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html) and take some photos of the night sky at the same time as each other. Notice how the stars you observe are the same as each other, other than differences caused by your respective latitudes. Each take a bearing using your phone to a particular star or constellation - I'd suggest true bearings, rather than magnetic, to avoid complication. Ask yourself how, if any of the FE maps are to be believed, you could both be looking at the same thing at the same time whilst facing in different directions. This only works if the earth is globe shaped.

5. While you're at it, each of you take a flight from your respective continents to the other continent, at the same time. Record the time of flight, from the moment you take off, to the moment you land. Look at any of the FE maps and ask how such a journey could be possible in a subsonic aircraft if the distances indicated by the map are true. And because you've done the journey both ways at roughly the same time, you know it can't be due to 'anomalous winds'.

Just a few to get started with - there are many others. Hope that helps

#### Trillion

##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2021, 10:44:21 PM »
The concept of electromagnetic acceleration does exist in physics but not exactly in the context that FE seems to refer to it. Certainly nothing to do with the 'bending' of star light.

So my take on that is that FE have simply found the term and decided to borrow it and then re-invent their own alternative meaning for it so it appears to be something that can explain anything from the phases of the Moon to sunset and sunrise to the different appearance of the constellations between the northern and southern skies. Their version of EA is that it is a 'mechanism' which causes light to bend by just the right amount to produce the effects we observe. Ain't that clever!

In other words apply it to anything that they cannot otherwise explain so they don't have to admit that the Earth simply is not flat.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2021, 10:46:20 PM by Trillion »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10543
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2021, 10:56:38 PM »
FE theory seems to try to explain (1) by invoking EA, or 'bendy light', but if this was actually occurring, ask yourself how the stars could move in perfect circles, observed from any location, without distorting due to EA.

Since EA wraps the plane of the sky onto the equivalent of a personal dome, it is not inconceivable that the star trails may appear circular. While not a simulation of EA, there is a simulation of upwardly bending light with an atmospheric refraction model where the star trails looked fairly circular as they faced the observer:

There is some distortion at the horizon which is unaccounted for, but we can clearly see that the plane of the stars is wrapped around the observer's personal dome to face the observer without significant distortion to the circular shape.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2021, 09:39:17 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### SteelyBob

##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2021, 11:18:52 PM »
There is some distortion at the horizon which is unaccounted for, but we can clearly see that the plane of the stars is wrapped around the observer's personal dome to face the observer without significant distortion to the circular shape.

There is distortion all over the place. The horizon is nothing like what we see for real, and the circles made by the stars aren’t concentric - this is visible in the video at elevations way up past that of the pole. Just look at it. It’s just not even close. And that’s before you look to see what happens at different latitudes and longitudes at the same time.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10543
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2021, 11:38:56 PM »
There is some distortion at the horizon which is unaccounted for, but we can clearly see that the plane of the stars is wrapped around the observer's personal dome to face the observer without significant distortion to the circular shape.

There is distortion all over the place. The horizon is nothing like what we see for real, and the circles made by the stars aren’t concentric - this is visible in the video at elevations way up past that of the pole. Just look at it. It’s just not even close. And that’s before you look to see what happens at different latitudes and longitudes at the same time.

Your original criticism was that the stars wouldn't make circles. Since you are drifting into other areas we can see that your idea was without merit and that you do not actually know how the stars would appear. The video is a simulation of a strong upwards refraction, not necessarily EA, since the gradient of the atmosphere maybe not be as uniform in the sim, but we can see that the state of the simulation is enough to cause the star trails to look generally circular to the observer.

You are also apparently unaware of the fact that the sky and horizon actually are distorted in reality. The stars slow down as they approach the horizon.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2021, 09:45:03 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### Trillion

##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2021, 11:47:58 PM »
Quote
Since EA wraps the plane of the sky onto the equivalent of a personal dome, it is not inconceivable that the star trails may appear circular. While not a simulation of EA, there is a simulation of upwardly bending light where the star trails looked fairly circular as they faced the observer:
Does it really Tom... and how exactly does EA do this then? Explain please. EA is mentioned in mainstream physics but that has nothing whatsoever to do with this magical bending of starlight you keep on about. So that seems to be a pure fantasy on your part to keep your beliefs alive. Anything to avoid having to admit that the Earth is actually a globe. Let's just reinvent the laws of physics to suit what we believe. If you accept that the Earth is simply a spinning globe then everything we observe is explained very logically and therefore much more naturally.

BTW have you come up with any alternative explanations for your claims about why equatorial mounts can supposedly only track the stars accurately for just a few minutes? That doesn't agree with my real world experience.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2021, 11:54:30 PM by Trillion »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10543
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #7 on: November 02, 2021, 12:19:30 AM »
The sky near the horizon is distorted in reality: In one assessment of star speed at the 1m 17s mark Mick West says: "As you can see the stars get significantly closer together as they get closer to the horizon"

Quote from: Trillion
Does it really Tom... and how exactly does EA do this then? Explain please.

How the sky appears to be wrapped around a dome around the observer is described in the Celestial Sphere section of the EA page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Celestial_Sphere

Quote
Celestial Sphere

Electromagnetic Acceleration predicts that our observations would appear as if we were inside of a dome. And indeed, this is what we experience. Straight line geometry stops working in the distance. When looking out over large distances it appears as if we are on the inside of a planetarium where straight lines become curved on a dome surface. Astronomers acknowledge this effect and attribute the phenomena to the Celestial Sphere, which posits that our celestial observations act as if they are projected onto a sphere around the observer.

Projected onto a Dome

As points in space recede from the observer they will lower in altitude due to the effect of Electromagnetic Acceleration, like how the Sun lowers as it recedes from the observer, causing celestial lines in space to generally appear as if they are being projected onto a curved surface. As an example, consider a straight line suspended high over and in front of an observer. From the observer's vantage point the points receding from the center of the line will appear to dip towards the ground due to EA, since those points are becoming more distant in relation to the observer. The straight line will appear curved on a 'celestial dome'.

This effect applies to celestial phenomena of sufficient length or duration. The tails of comets, meteors, Aurora borialis, Milky Way, path of the Moon and Sun, and direction of the Moon's illuminated area, are all affected and warped upon the Celestial Sphere. See the Celestial Sphere page for citations regarding astronomical phenomena.

Quote from: Trillion
So that seems to be a pure fantasy on your part to keep your beliefs alive. Anything to avoid having to admit that the Earth is actually a globe.

Actually, the fact that the geometry of this light for the most part 'coincidentally' explains everything RE explains, as well as goes further to explain things RE does not explain, is evidence for its existence.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2021, 08:55:04 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### stack

• 3583
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #8 on: November 02, 2021, 05:36:20 AM »
Actually, the fact that the geometry of this light for the most part 'coincidentally' explains everything RE explains, as well as goes further to explain things RE does not explain, is evidence for its existence.

Is EA responsible for night and day as well. From your wiki:

I added the red area. Is the red area nighttime?

#### Trillion

##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #9 on: November 02, 2021, 07:25:22 AM »
Quote
Actually, the fact that the geometry of this light for the most part 'coincidentally' explains everything RE explains, as well as goes further to explain things RE does not explain, is evidence for its existence.
Does it really Tom. Such as what for example.

Can you provide any details of any experiments or investigations relating to the FE version of EA which have provided any evidence for its existence.  Apart from what is mentioned in the FE Wiki?

#### SteelyBob

##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #10 on: November 02, 2021, 09:46:17 AM »
Your original criticism was that the stars wouldn't make circles. Since you are drifting into other areas we can see that your idea was without merit and that you do not actually know how the stars would appear.

Not really. My point was that, viewed from different latitudes simultaneously, the stars move in perfect circles, by which I mean circular and concentric around the pole. If EA was actually happening the way you claim, then you would see different levels of distortion depending on your latitude and the elevation angle of the star in question. So at the North Pole, looking straight up at Polaris, the stars near the pole would be rotating in a circular fashion, but the lower down in the sky they get, the more distorted and elliptical they would get. Move to Europe, for example, and the stars around the pole would be distorted by EA.

But that's not what we see, hence my suggested experiment - we see perfect, concentric circles, regardless of latitude.

The only exception to that is the refraction we see close to the horizon, which you are desperately clinging on to as if it might come close to explaining your theory. It doesn't - just look at a time lapse photo of the stars. Make one yourself - it's easy to do and, dare I say, quite zetetic.

Quote
The video is a simulation of a strong upwards refraction, not necessarily EA since the gradient of the atmosphere maybe not be as uniform and cause gradual curves in the sim, but we can see that the state of the simulation is enough to cause the stars look generally circular when they face the observer.

The video doesn't even come close to representing what the night sky actually does. It doesn't look right, and it doesn't even purport to use the mechanism, EA, that you claim is acting on the stars. It is utterly bizarre that you would choose to use it to support your claims.

Quote
You are also apparently unaware of the fact that the sky and horizon actually are distorted in reality. The stars slow down as they approach the horizon.

Well aware of refraction, thanks. Doesn't make the sky look anything like what you claim it does.

#### Trillion

##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #11 on: November 02, 2021, 07:25:45 PM »
Quote
The video doesn't even come close to representing what the night sky actually does. It doesn't look right, and it doesn't even purport to use the mechanism, EA, that you claim is acting on the stars. It is utterly bizarre that you would choose to use it to support your claims.
Couldn't agree more.  I guess any kind of CGI is acceptable to FE if it can be made to seemingly support their claims. Never seen anything so ridiculous.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10543
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #12 on: November 02, 2021, 07:34:46 PM »
Quote
Actually, the fact that the geometry of this light for the most part 'coincidentally' explains everything RE explains, as well as goes further to explain things RE does not explain, is evidence for its existence.
Does it really Tom. Such as what for example.

Can you provide any details of any experiments or investigations relating to the FE version of EA which have provided any evidence for its existence.  Apart from what is mentioned in the FE Wiki?

We put the EA stuff in the Wiki, so your query of not to use the Wiki is ridiculous. It's all described there.

Quote from: SteelyBob
Not really. My point was that, viewed from different latitudes simultaneously, the stars move in perfect circles, by which I mean circular and concentric around the pole. If EA was actually happening the way you claim, then you would see different levels of distortion depending on your latitude and the elevation angle of the star in question. So at the North Pole, looking straight up at Polaris, the stars near the pole would be rotating in a circular fashion, but the lower down in the sky they get, the more distorted and elliptical they would get. Move to Europe, for example, and the stars around the pole would be distorted by EA.

But that's not what we see, hence my suggested experiment - we see perfect, concentric circles, regardless of latitude.

The only exception to that is the refraction we see close to the horizon, which you are desperately clinging on to as if it might come close to explaining your theory. It doesn't - just look at a time lapse photo of the stars. Make one yourself - it's easy to do and, dare I say, quite zetetic.

So you concede that there is distortion in reality in the sky, but claim that it is not like the non-EA atmospheric refraction model so EA must be false. This is a horrible leap of logic. Different curves, properties, and scales would produce different types of distortion. You have not properly assessed all possibilities to be able to conclude anything.

Your "point" of other things you think should happen under EA at different latitudes are also without merit, as you have nothing behind that except for a baseless claim without evidence. You have provided no analysis of the geometry involved. Zero. Yet you think you "know" what should happen.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2021, 08:23:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### Trillion

##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #13 on: November 02, 2021, 08:36:18 PM »
Quote
We put the EA stuff in the Wiki, so your query of not to use the Wiki is ridiculous. It's all described there.
Yes obviously the FE version of EA is described in your own FE Wiki. What I want to know is where else, outside of FE is EA explained as you believe it to be? I have read about EA elsewhere but in a completely different context and completely unrelated to how it is described in the FE Wiki.

Its almost as if you have simply taken the term Electromagnetic Acceleration and basically just reinvented what it means to suit your beliefs.

That video is a joke. Nothing more. For example the annotated screen data (very Stellariumesque I must say) which describes the diameter of the Sun as 36 miles!
« Last Edit: November 02, 2021, 08:40:29 PM by Trillion »

#### stack

• 3583
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #14 on: November 02, 2021, 08:59:13 PM »
So you concede that there is distortion in reality in the sky, but claim that it is not like the non-EA atmospheric refraction model so EA must be false. This is a horrible leap of logic. Different curves, properties, and scales would produce different types of distortion. You have not properly assessed all possibilities to be able to conclude anything.

The cause of atmospheric refraction, density, is pretty well understood and measurable. The effects of which seem to dissipate as observed from higher altitudes and/or the higher above the horizon. What is the cause of EA refraction? All I can find in the wiki is that EA is the cause, but not how EA causes it. It seems rather circular. Also, in terms of scale, the wiki proposes that the Sun is only 3000 miles above the earth and is rather small. So from a scale perspective we're not talking a lot here.

Additionally, you didn't answer my question. Is EA proposed as to what causes day and night? Or is it at least factored into the phenomenon?

#### SteelyBob

##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2021, 09:00:44 PM »
Your "point" of other things you think "should" happen under EA at different latitudes, are also without merit, as you have nothing behind that except a baseless claim without evidence.

The claims I've made are based on the wiki's assertions regarding EA. The diagram you have on the EA page provides a useful illustration of the point. I've taken the sun out, and simplified the picture to contain only three stars, arranged in a plane, as you suggest, above a monopole flat earth. The points at the edge of the diagram, where the curved light rays are close to parallel to there ground, would presumably be the equator in the FE model, although do please correct me if I've got that wrong. I've taken the curved light rays and copied them for each star.

As I suggested to our experimentally minded OP, if you observe the stars from different latitudes they still look the same - they rotate in concentric circles, and the angular distance between individual stars doesn't change with either your location or as the stars rotate over time. But the problem you have is that the curved light from the two outer stars subtends a different angle depending on the observer's location - see the red lines by the observers. Our North Pole observer would see a larger apparent distance between the stars than the observer at a mid-hemisphere latitude, as shown. As the stars rotate, this would manifest itself in non-circular motion, which is not what we observe, is it?

Those curved rays come from the wiki. This is your theory, not mine, and it doesn't work. It doesn't match what we observe. It is not correct.

[edited to clarify which two stars I'm talking about]
« Last Edit: November 02, 2021, 09:06:33 PM by SteelyBob »

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10543
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2021, 11:27:53 PM »
What you pointed out with that particular diagram is part ongoing debate about EA. The original diagram was made assuming a distance to the celestial bodies of about 3000 miles, the current listed distance to the celestial bodies for FET from the pre-internet FES.

As I have mentioned a number of times in the past, I have dispute with that distance for use with EA.

25. How big is the sun and how far away from the flat earth disc is it?

If EA is considered, the celestial bodies are possibly about 6000 miles in altitude. Assuming that the distance from the NP to the Equator is correct, it takes about 6000 miles for the North Star to set when traveling from the NP where it is overhead to the Equator where it is on the horizon. Therefore, if EA causes bodies to descend consistently, the North Star would be an equal distance above the Earth.

Some of the information is from the pre-internet Flat Earth Movement done under straight line trigonometry and is held as an informal number. For a background see: https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

Work needs to be done by the modern society before it can be updated. EAT is becoming a popular astronomical model. Building off of Voliva's 3000 miles distance for the sun at 45 degrees in the sky via straight line trigonometry, and assuming that the sun moves in the sky at around a constant pace (although I've heard that it moves slightly quicker at zenith), my own initial estimation would be that under the schema of EAT at 90 degrees zenith the Sun would be somewhere about 6000 miles in height; although this is assuming that the area of illumination is linearly related to its distance in the sky. EAT proponents can give their own ideas.

I also found some correlation with distances and moon positions here on the other forum, using an altitude of 6100 miles.

If the distance to the celestial bodies is about 6000 miles and we stretch the diagram vertically to make it about twice as high then the angles will be about the same at the end cross sections.

« Last Edit: November 03, 2021, 03:25:17 AM by Tom Bishop »

#### Trillion

##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2021, 11:40:36 PM »
Quote
If the distance to the celestial bodies is about 6000 miles
By 'celestial bodies' I take it you mean stars... in which case you are just kidding with 6000 miles right?  So you are suggesting that the stars are nearer to us than the diameter of the Earth itself then.

Quote
The original diagram was made assuming a distance to the celestial bodies of about 3000 miles
In that case your assumption is wrong, and along with it all notions you have about EA.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2021, 11:48:42 AM by Trillion »

#### SteelyBob

##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #18 on: November 05, 2021, 04:49:40 PM »
What you pointed out with that particular diagram is part ongoing debate about EA. The original diagram was made assuming a distance to the celestial bodies of about 3000 miles, the current listed distance to the celestial bodies for FET from the pre-internet FES.

Well, ok, but there doesn't seem to be much debate going on about it! Maybe you should change the wiki?

As I have mentioned a number of times in the past, I have dispute with that distance for use with EA.

25. How big is the sun and how far away from the flat earth disc is it?

If EA is considered, the celestial bodies are possibly about 6000 miles in altitude. Assuming that the distance from the NP to the Equator is correct, it takes about 6000 miles for the North Star to set when traveling from the NP where it is overhead to the Equator where it is on the horizon. Therefore, if EA causes bodies to descend consistently, the North Star would be an equal distance above the Earth.

Some of the information is from the pre-internet Flat Earth Movement done under straight line trigonometry and is held as an informal number. For a background see: https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

Work needs to be done by the modern society before it can be updated. EAT is becoming a popular astronomical model. Building off of Voliva's 3000 miles distance for the sun at 45 degrees in the sky via straight line trigonometry, and assuming that the sun moves in the sky at around a constant pace (although I've heard that it moves slightly quicker at zenith), my own initial estimation would be that under the schema of EAT at 90 degrees zenith the Sun would be somewhere about 6000 miles in height; although this is assuming that the area of illumination is linearly related to its distance in the sky. EAT proponents can give their own ideas.

I also found some correlation with distances and moon positions here on the other forum, using an altitude of 6100 miles.

If the distance to the celestial bodies is about 6000 miles and we stretch the diagram vertically to make it about twice as high then the angles will be about the same at the end cross sections.

Well, that's great. You could actually improve that diagram by putting a graduated scale on it - we know that the North Star (or Sig Oct, in the Southern Hemisphere) appears at almost precisely the same elevation angle as the observer's latitude, so the angle of those rays meeting the observers' eyes, that we have both crudely drawn, is actually a precisely known quantity - 90 degrees at the pole, 80 degrees at 80 degrees north, 70 at 70 north etc.

The problem you have though, is that whilst that magics away the elevation angle problem, it doesn't address the azimuth issue - I'm curious to know how you would explain that. Back to crudely drawn stick men, this time in plan form:

We have one observer close to the pole, observing two stars moving in circles around the pole star. That observer perceives a particular angle between those stars, as shown by the red lines. Our other observer is much further away, at say 30 degrees north. That observer sees the same stars, but your model would have the observed azimuth angle, as shown by the red lines, very much less than that for the closer observer. That doesn't match observations - the angle between stars doesn't change with latitude. The generally accepted, conventional RE model would explain this by pointing out that this distance between the observers and the stars is massive compared to the size of the earth, hence no observable angle difference. Thoughts?

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 10543
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2021, 06:32:39 PM »
The answer to that query is that those are not the angles the observers would see since that diagram is an overhead two dimensional scene which inherently assumes that the stars and the observers are at the same altitude. Two points above an observer do not maintain their apparent angular displacement no matter how far they are above the observer.

If we imagine that the image you provided was a three dimensional scene starting with those stars at the same altitude as the observer, and if we then increase the altitude of the stars over the observer nearest the North Pole, the angle the observer sees between the top and bottom stars would become less and less as the stars get further and further from the observer.

If, instead, we imagine that the previous image I provided is three dimensionally sliced through the center with a copy of itself on other axis like a + when viewed from overhead, creating a symmetrical three dimensional scene with four stars instead of two, we can see that the consistent angles would also work on the other axis.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2021, 11:15:36 PM by Tom Bishop »