#### AATW

• 6437
##### Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« on: January 18, 2022, 01:16:47 PM »
What experiments could one do in order to distinguish FE from RE?

I would suggest that objects sinking below the horizon, the distance (and angle dip) to the horizon increasing with altitude are observations which we all agree on.
That could be explained by us living on a globe - objects disappear over the curve, as you ascend you see further over the curve. But these observations could equally be explained by EA on a flat earth.

I think we can all agree that objects fall. That could be explained by mass attracting mass, but it could equally be explained by UA.

Ah, but the weight of things, and therefore the force of gravity, varies by latitude (and in other ways) in a measurable way. That could be explained by a spinning globe, the centrifugal force being greater nearer the equator where you are spinning faster. Other variations can be explained by the mass of the earth not being distributed perfectly uniformly.
But it could also be explained by Celestial Gravitation causing local variations.

RET has explanations for all the above. If FET has hypothesised mechanisms which also explain them then what experiment can we do to help us determine the true shape of the earth?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

#### WTF_Seriously

• 1331
• Nobody Important
##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2022, 03:17:40 PM »
What experiments could one do in order to distinguish FE from RE?

You're going to find that question impossible to answer.  The reason being evidenced by just what you listed:

Quote
I would suggest that objects sinking below the horizon, the distance (and angle dip) to the horizon increasing with altitude are observations which we all agree on.
That could be explained by us living on a globe - objects disappear over the curve, as you ascend you see further over the curve. But these observations could equally be explained by EA on a flat earth.

I think we can all agree that objects fall. That could be explained by mass attracting mass, but it could equally be explained by UA.

Ah, but the weight of things, and therefore the force of gravity, varies by latitude (and in other ways) in a measurable way. That could be explained by a spinning globe, the centrifugal force being greater nearer the equator where you are spinning faster. Other variations can be explained by the mass of the earth not being distributed perfectly uniformly.
But it could also be explained by Celestial Gravitation causing local variations.

RET has explanations for all the above. If FET has hypothesised mechanisms which also explain them then what experiment can we do to help us determine the true shape of the earth?

It doesn't matter the experiment or observation, FE will simply contrive something to explain it.  There really isn't an experiment that an alternative explanation can't be created.

« Last Edit: January 18, 2022, 03:23:53 PM by WTF_Seriously »
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

#### AATW

• 6437
##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2022, 04:05:25 PM »
What experiments could one do in order to distinguish FE from RE?

You're going to find that question impossible to answer.  The reason being evidenced by just what you listed:
Well, that's why I asked the question.
One of my frustrations with FE is they seem to simultaneously claim that observations demonstrate a FE, but then hypothesise mechanisms which they claim produce equivalent effects to a globe (the page about EA pretty much makes this claim).
Hence the question, what experiment could we do - and have they done - which discriminate between the two models.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

#### WTF_Seriously

• 1331
• Nobody Important
##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2022, 04:15:24 PM »
What experiments could one do in order to distinguish FE from RE?

You're going to find that question impossible to answer.  The reason being evidenced by just what you listed:
Well, that's why I asked the question.
One of my frustrations with FE is they seem to simultaneously claim that observations demonstrate a FE, but then hypothesise mechanisms which they claim produce equivalent effects to a globe (the page about EA pretty much makes this claim).
Hence the question, what experiment could we do - and have they done - which discriminate between the two models.

I believe the following would accurately explain your frustrations:

Quote
"Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe"

Lee McIntyre, Boston University
Flat-Earthers seem to have a very low standard of evidence for what they want to believe but an impossibly high standard of evidence for what they don’t want to believe.

Lee McIntyre, Boston University

#### RonJ

• 2589
• ACTA NON VERBA
##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2022, 04:26:11 PM »
There’s the gyroscope experiment.  It would be very difficult and expensive but indicates in a non-ambiguous way that the earth is a sphere.  Bob Knodel gave it a try and was surprised at the outcome however he was only trying to confirm that the earth was not rotating.  What he didn’t or couldn’t do was take the gyroscope on a trip around the world.  When I was working on cargo ships, we had multiple gyroscopes and I had the maintenance software on my computer.  If I logged the gyro readings at precisely noon (GMT) everyday I could see a progression of changes in the Z axis that you wouldn’t ever expect to see on a flat earth. The gyros in question were the large mechanical types.  These types of gyros were also used on submarines to allow them to navigate while underwater and out of contact with any other electronic navigation facilities.  It would be interesting to see what other explanations the FET has for what indicates a spherical earth when observing gyro readings.
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

#### SteelyBob

##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2022, 01:13:36 PM »
There’s the gyroscope experiment.  It would be very difficult and expensive but indicates in a non-ambiguous way that the earth is a sphere.  Bob Knodel gave it a try and was surprised at the outcome however he was only trying to confirm that the earth was not rotating.  What he didn’t or couldn’t do was take the gyroscope on a trip around the world.  When I was working on cargo ships, we had multiple gyroscopes and I had the maintenance software on my computer.  If I logged the gyro readings at precisely noon (GMT) everyday I could see a progression of changes in the Z axis that you wouldn’t ever expect to see on a flat earth. The gyros in question were the large mechanical types.  These types of gyros were also used on submarines to allow them to navigate while underwater and out of contact with any other electronic navigation facilities.  It would be interesting to see what other explanations the FET has for what indicates a spherical earth when observing gyro readings.

It doesn’t have to be that difficult - there’s no need to move. All you need is a ring laser gyro system and the ability to change and measure the angle between the measurement axis (or axes, depending on the design)and local gravity - ie ‘level’. If you tilt the gyro you will observe changes in the measured earth rate - varying between a maximum when aligned with the earth’s spin axis , and zero when at 90 degrees to it. The angle between ‘level’ and the spin axis will tell you your latitude.

That wouldn’t happen on a flat earth, even if it was rotating, as the maximum value would always be achieved at the same angle regardless of your position on the earth.

#### RonJ

• 2589
• ACTA NON VERBA
##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2022, 04:05:47 PM »
Your experiment would work but would assume that the earth was rotating.  My experiment would have to compensate for a rotating earth but also shows unambiguously that the earth is spherical because of the changes in the z axis during the trip.  If the trip is reversed and you return back to the original destination the changes in the z axis also reverse and you return to nearly the same readings.  I say ‘nearly’ because the earth is also rotating around the Sun so you would expect to see a small change in readings do to that.  A change back to the original readings wouldn’t be expected unless you waited a full year before you returned.
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

#### SteelyBob

##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2022, 04:34:44 PM »
Your experiment would work but would assume that the earth was rotating.  My experiment would have to compensate for a rotating earth but also shows unambiguously that the earth is spherical because of the changes in the z axis during the trip.  If the trip is reversed and you return back to the original destination the changes in the z axis also reverse and you return to nearly the same readings.  I say ‘nearly’ because the earth is also rotating around the Sun so you would expect to see a small change in readings do to that.  A change back to the original readings wouldn’t be expected unless you waited a full year before you returned.

But if the earth isn't rotating, then why would the gyro show a rotation?!

The last FE answer I got for this was that the 'aether' is rotating, causing the gyro to measure that, rather than the earth's rotation. However, that falls down when you introduce the latitude / angle issue, because if it was the 'aether' doing the rotating, and the gyro was somehow capable of measuring that, then the axis of rotation wouldn't change with latitude.

#### RonJ

• 2589
• ACTA NON VERBA
##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2022, 04:54:34 PM »
The problem that Bob Knodel had was the unexpected reading of a rotating earth from the ring laser gyro that was purchased.  It was hypothesized that there was some external force causing this, not the rotation of the earth.  I don’t know if they ever fabricated a metal cylinder to house the gyro and buried it to see if they could do some shielding to eliminate the unexpected readings they got, but I wouldn’t expect that to be published if they did because if it was done in an honest manner the results wouldn’t change.  In any event, I’ve personally seen large, heavy, mechanical gyros do the same thing and I wouldn’t expect  ‘aether’ to have any measurable influence on a heavy rotating metal disk.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2022, 04:56:05 PM by RonJ »
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

#### SteelyBob

##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2022, 05:05:26 PM »
The problem that Bob Knodel had was the unexpected reading of a rotating earth from the ring laser gyro that was purchased.  It was hypothesized that there was some external force causing this, not the rotation of the earth.  I don’t know if they ever fabricated a metal cylinder to house the gyro and buried it to see if they could do some shielding to eliminate the unexpected readings they got, but I wouldn’t expect that to be published if they did because if it was done in an honest manner the results wouldn’t change.  In any event, I’ve personally seen large, heavy, mechanical gyros do the same thing and I wouldn’t expect  ‘aether’ to have any measurable influence on a heavy rotating metal disk.

The odd thing about Knodel's experiment was that the documentary wasn't clear on what exactly he was using, and how exactly it was set up. If you simply take a single axis gyro and lay it flat on the ground it will measure earth rate multiplied by the sine of your latitude - I would therefore have expected Knodel to have had a result some way under 15 degrees per hour. If they wanted to make it read zero all they'd need to do was tilt it a bit.

#### troolon

• 101
##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #10 on: January 29, 2022, 12:14:42 AM »
It's impossible. FE and RE can never be distinguished.

If a complete flat earth model is ever found, it should be able to explain anything physics can explain.
And as both models model reality, both should give the exact same answer for every possible test.

In fact a fully functional flat earth model has actually already been developed, and it has been proven that it's indistinguishable from the globe model.
So not test can ever be found.
In the fully functional model, the gyro aligns with space and returns the same drift the globe model predicts.
BTW: details about the fully functional flat earth model can be found at https://troolon.com.

kind regards
Troolon
« Last Edit: January 29, 2022, 10:57:40 AM by troolon »

#### inquisitive

• 1093
##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #11 on: January 29, 2022, 08:40:20 PM »
It's impossible. FE and RE can never be distinguished.

If a complete flat earth model is ever found, it should be able to explain anything physics can explain.
And as both models model reality, both should give the exact same answer for every possible test.

In fact a fully functional flat earth model has actually already been developed, and it has been proven that it's indistinguishable from the globe model.
So not test can ever be found.
In the fully functional model, the gyro aligns with space and returns the same drift the globe model predicts.
BTW: details about the fully functional flat earth model can be found at https://troolon.com.

kind regards
Troolon
Apart from FE distances being incorrect.

#### troolon

• 101
##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2022, 11:36:15 PM »
Apart from FE distances being incorrect.
Not if your distance metric compensates for it.

#### stack

• 3583
##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2022, 02:06:37 AM »
Apart from FE distances being incorrect.
Not if your distance metric compensates for it.

How does one compensate a distance metric?

#### troolon

• 101
##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2022, 06:54:03 AM »
How does one compensate a distance metric?

You're probably used to calculating distances as sqrt(xx+yy+zz).
On the AE map this is no longer the formula.
In math distance is nothing but a formula, it's up to you to choose a meaningful one.

On the AE map, distances are calculated with this algorithm:
You have 2 points in AE space expressed with coordinates (lat1, long1, distance1)  and (lat2, long2, distance2).
- convert (lat1, long1, d1) to (x,y,z)  using globe math
- convert (lat2, long2, d2) to (x,y,z) using globe math
- returns sqrt(xx+yy+zz)

The above algorithm can also be written as a single large ugly formula: the flat earth distance formula.
And the distance for any 2 points in space, will give the same answer as the globe distance.

#### AATW

• 6437
##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2022, 08:49:52 AM »
How does one compensate a distance metric?

You're probably used to calculating distances as sqrt(xx+yy+zz).
On the AE map this is no longer the formula.
In math distance is nothing but a formula, it's up to you to choose a meaningful one.

On the AE map, distances are calculated with this algorithm:
You have 2 points in AE space expressed with coordinates (lat1, long1, distance1)  and (lat2, long2, distance2).
- convert (lat1, long1, d1) to (x,y,z)  using globe math
- convert (lat2, long2, d2) to (x,y,z) using globe math
- returns sqrt(xx+yy+zz)

The above algorithm can also be written as a single large ugly formula: the flat earth distance formula.
And the distance for any 2 points in space, will give the same answer as the globe distance.
Tbh I am struggling to understand this. Can you give some practical examples?
I have yet to see a FE map where land mass sizes, distances between places match reality and flight routes make sense
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

#### Kangaroony

• 85
##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2022, 01:04:17 PM »
...In fact a fully functional flat earth model has actually already been developed, and it has been proven that it's indistinguishable from the globe model.

No it hasn't.  It'd be an impossibility simply because there can be no
such thing.  We know the earth is an oblate spheroid.  End of story.

#### troolon

• 101
##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2022, 03:01:33 PM »
In physics, there's a very big difference between the way things look, and they way they calculate.
Math doesn't care how i draw things, it only cares about the numbers, and even numbers are surprisingly flexible because you can change the formulas.
A very simple example: imagine i make the entire universe twice as big, you and your ruler included. Would you notice?
The math/physics can be tweaked so it also doesn't notice.
Have a look at https://troolon.com  It shows physics working on a variety of differently shaped earths.

- coordinate transformations can turn any shape into any other shape
- coordinate transformations don't break physics
-> physics can be made to work on any shape universe (have a look at http://troolon.com for pictures)
-> There is no test to differentiate between the shapes. In reality we can only observe/measure the physical properties, not the shape.

So have a look around you and try these two views: i'm standing on a globe and lightrays are straight,
or you could say: i'm standing on a flat plane, and light curves to exactly counteract the missing curve.
Your eyes wouldn't be able to tell the difference and there's no physical test to distinguish between the two views, it's just a matter of perception.

It's like the old question: Am i moving, or is the entire universe moving around me? It's just a matter of how you look at the world.

Also this result shouldn't be very surprising. The universe could already be a sphere, a simulation, have no shape (QM), be a restored backup from 5 minutes ago ... We will simply never know the shape of the planet. It can be flat, it can be a globe or even a velociraptor.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 15986
• (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #18 on: February 02, 2022, 04:44:06 PM »
No it hasn't.  It'd be an impossibility simply because there can be no
such thing.  We know the earth is an oblate spheroid.  End of story.
If you have nothing to say other than "wow the Earth is <x shape>!!!", say nothing.

If we are not speculating then we must assume

#### scomato

• 175
##### Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE
« Reply #19 on: February 02, 2022, 05:19:02 PM »
In physics, there's a very big difference between the way things look, and they way they calculate.
Math doesn't care how i draw things, it only cares about the numbers, and even numbers are surprisingly flexible because you can change the formulas.
A very simple example: imagine i make the entire universe twice as big, you and your ruler included. Would you notice?
The math/physics can be tweaked so it also doesn't notice.
Have a look at https://troolon.com  It shows physics working on a variety of differently shaped earths.

- coordinate transformations can turn any shape into any other shape
- coordinate transformations don't break physics
-> physics can be made to work on any shape universe (have a look at http://troolon.com for pictures)
-> There is no test to differentiate between the shapes. In reality we can only observe/measure the physical properties, not the shape.

So have a look around you and try these two views: i'm standing on a globe and lightrays are straight,
or you could say: i'm standing on a flat plane, and light curves to exactly counteract the missing curve.
Your eyes wouldn't be able to tell the difference and there's no physical test to distinguish between the two views, it's just a matter of perception.

It's like the old question: Am i moving, or is the entire universe moving around me? It's just a matter of how you look at the world.

Also this result shouldn't be very surprising. The universe could already be a sphere, a simulation, have no shape (QM), be a restored backup from 5 minutes ago ... We will simply never know the shape of the planet. It can be flat, it can be a globe or even a velociraptor.

But physics doesn't just exist in the woo woo air, it is proven through observation. Take for example, general relativity. Yes, it's just math that Einstein put down on paper, and exists purely in the mathematical world. But it can be proved, such as in the Eddington experiment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment where Einstein correctly predicted the deflection of the position of a star as it is curved by the Sun's gravity on its path to us. Newtonian physics when applied to this problem, got it wrong.

There are galaxies in the night sky that look as though they've been twisted into a ring, evidence of gravity's influence on light. Physics makes predictions, predictions that come true under the most rigorous epistemological scrutiny.

By your own account, you say that your model is unobservable and unpredictable, so what makes it a theory and not just a fantasy?