#### Mothra

• 12
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #120 on: March 16, 2021, 11:26:21 PM »
I can stay silent on this no longer.

Like the moon tilt illusion, the pointing spheres illusion is just that, an illusion.  It only works when one views it in a single plane.  Like the string, once Little Mothra joins the picture the illusion is broken.

The only object seen in the correct orientation, pointing in a straight line at the source, by red, white, and bug at the same time is the orange cone.

#### WTF_Seriously

• 328
• When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #121 on: March 22, 2021, 02:51:10 PM »
The moon tilt exchange has been interesting. I believe the RE explanation for what we see has been exhausted.  What no one has yet to do is fully examine the FE explanation for moon tilt.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion
So, let’s examine how EA and moon tilt would actually work on FE.  We can then compare Tom’s ball experiment to what we expect.
Here’s a slight modification of the WIKI page with the moon shown as it would be at the 3rd quarter. I only did this to line up the sun direction arrow accurately with the moon’s tilt.

Below the WIKI side view, I have drawn (at the suggestion of a previous poster) what we would see looking down at the sun and moon from above them.   In reality, two simple things determine moon tilt under FE and EA.  First, whichever side of the moon’s terminator line a viewer is on, that side of the moon will appear facing up.  This is what the WIKI side view successfully depicts.  Second, whichever side of an observer the sun’s direct path line falls on as a viewer looks at the moon will be the direction which the upper side of the moon will face. So, in the illustration, observer A would see the dark side up facing right.  Observer B would see the lit side up facing left. Observer C would see the lit side up facing right.  Observer D would see the dark side up facing left.
The other things to mention are first, anytime a viewer is on the direct path line of the sun and moon the moon terminator will be horizontal.  Second, anytime a viewer is on the terminator line the terminator will be vertical.  These facts are independent of the distance to the moon and sun of the viewer.  Distance only changes altitude angle, not moon tilt, in the FE-EA model.
The WIKI does a good job of explaining how moon tilt would change depending on a viewer’s orientation to the moon.  However, there is an equally important element to moon tilt which it doesn’t specifically address.  That is the sun’s relation to the moon.  I’ve illustrated the effect below.

You can see that an observer with the same orientation to the moon will see a different moon tilt depending on the position of the sun.  This becomes an important factor to the EA moon tilt discussion as the sun and moon rotate around the observer in the FE model.
With this in mind, let’s examine Tom’s ball experiment.  Tom presents his own picture of the moon taken from the bay area, Feb. 21, 2021 around 5:27 PM. The lit side of the moon is clearly facing up and to Tom's right.

https://i.imgur.com/eSmtd9N.jpg

Here is a diagram of the locations of the sun and moon as they orbit the north pole in relation to the bay area at that time.

The N-S line is centered near Santa Clara There are actually two horizontal lines showing the limits of Concord and Santa Cruz to the north and south.  If pressed, I’ll detail the drawing but I won’t take the space up here.  The intersection of the sunlight path to the moon occurs at about 45 deg. N.  That’s roughly Salem, Oregon. What this clearly shows is that that Tom would be in quadrant B above (lit side facing Tom with sun line passing over left shoulder.) Based on what I detailed in the quadrants above the lit side of the moon should be facing up and left of Tom at the time the photo was taken if the FE-EA model is correct.
Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"
That is a desperate argument from a losing position. An argument from a position of strength would have positive evidence for that position.

#### Tumeni

• 2658
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #122 on: March 22, 2021, 05:02:03 PM »
I want to know what is the simplest experiment that one can do in their neighborhood or community without expensive  equipment or a lot of commitment. ...

Using the principles of Bedford Canal experiment, outlined in the Wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#The_Bedford_Canal_Experiments), find yourself a location where you can look out from land over a body of water with objects of known height on or beyond the water.

Confirm your own observation height with reliable terrain maps, GPS elevation apps on phone, established benchmarks on hills, and such, and match your observation height to a selected object; a bridge tower, lighthouse, island, lighthouse on an island, etc.

Determine if all objects of the same height as you present themselves at the same height, are in the same sightline, or if they fall below this as per Rowbotham's second illustration.

Illus 1

Illus 2

I have examples.

If you can find a situation where you look out from height A at a 'flag' of height A, and that 'flag' appears to be higher in your sightline than the higher 'flag' which is beyond it ... then you would appear to be mirroring Rowbotham's round earth illustration.

« Last Edit: March 22, 2021, 05:21:34 PM by Tumeni »
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

#### scomato

• 65
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #123 on: March 22, 2021, 05:02:09 PM »
@Tom

NASA recently took a photo from the 'other angle' that you hypothesized in your sun-ball photo demonstration. This photo was taken by the Deep Space Climate Observatory, that sits at Earth's L1 point. As you can very clearly see, as the Moon and the Earth are both illuminated by the same Sun, that they are illuminated in the same phase as one another. This is consistent with the fact that the Earth is a planet. This is exactly the same as the Ping Pong experiment.

Is there any rational explanation for the above photo that does not strawman into NASA being a fraudulent organization?
« Last Edit: March 22, 2021, 05:04:14 PM by scomato »

#### daniil_sedov

• 3
• Not Flat.
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #124 on: April 20, 2021, 08:20:39 AM »
Cavendish experiment
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

#### fisherman

• 200
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #125 on: April 20, 2021, 12:48:46 PM »
Fill a water bottle and punch holes along the sides so that water pours from them.  Drop the bottle at some height.

According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.  But that's not what happens.

The water stops pouring from the holes while the bottle is in free fall.

#### Mothra

• 12
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #126 on: April 20, 2021, 10:33:28 PM »
According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.

The Shobijin have summoned me here.  Please explain.  How does UA make this so?

#### fisherman

• 200
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #127 on: April 20, 2021, 11:02:17 PM »
According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.

The Shobijin have summoned me here.  Please explain.  How does UA make this so?

The way UA works, as I understand it is that if I jump off a chair I wouldn't fall because there is no gravity to pull me down.  I'd just hang there and the floor would rise up to meet me.  Why would a dropped water bottle be any different?

#### stevecanuck

• 255
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #128 on: April 21, 2021, 12:59:48 AM »
According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.

The Shobijin have summoned me here.  Please explain.  How does UA make this so?

The way UA works, as I understand it is that if I jump off a chair I wouldn't fall because there is no gravity to pull me down.  I'd just hang there and the floor would rise up to meet me.  Why would a dropped water bottle be any different?

In my young and foolish days I was a skydiver. When I stepped out of an airplane at, say 5000 feet above ground level, why is air not immediately rushing by me?

#### DuncanDoenitz

• 108
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #129 on: April 21, 2021, 08:21:28 AM »
Aerodynamic lift is maintaining the aircraft at a constant altitude, so it (and its occupants) are supported by the atmosphere (atmosplane - yuk!), which is supported by the Earth.  Thus, the aircraft and its occupants, by implication, have identical acceleration and instantaneous velocity as the Earth, so are accelerating upward at 9.81 m/s/s due to UA (also yuk!).

When you leave the aircraft you have the same instantaneous velocity as Earth and atmosphere, hence feel no windrush.  However, as you are now not being accelerated, the earth continues to accelerate towards you at 9.81m/s/s.  In a vacuum, you would remain at constant velocity until the Earth (because it is still accelerating) hits you.

In practice because you are in the, still accelerating, atmosphere you start to accelerate upwards again and begin to feel windrush as aerodynamic drag takes effect, until you reach terminal velocity. (And that's terminal velocity downwards in RE, but terminal velocity upwards in FE!).

At this point your body's acceleration is identical to Earth's but, because of the period when you had reduced acceleration, your velocity is less than Earth's so it still hits you.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2021, 08:26:27 AM by DuncanDoenitz »

#### stevecanuck

• 255
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #130 on: April 21, 2021, 02:43:00 PM »
Aerodynamic lift is maintaining the aircraft at a constant altitude, so it (and its occupants) are supported by the atmosphere (atmosplane - yuk!), which is supported by the Earth.  Thus, the aircraft and its occupants, by implication, have identical acceleration and instantaneous velocity as the Earth, so are accelerating upward at 9.81 m/s/s due to UA (also yuk!).

When you leave the aircraft you have the same instantaneous velocity as Earth and atmosphere, hence feel no windrush.  However, as you are now not being accelerated, the earth continues to accelerate towards you at 9.81m/s/s.  In a vacuum, you would remain at constant velocity until the Earth (because it is still accelerating) hits you.

In practice because you are in the, still accelerating, atmosphere you start to accelerate upwards again and begin to feel windrush as aerodynamic drag takes effect, until you reach terminal velocity. (And that's terminal velocity downwards in RE, but terminal velocity upwards in FE!).

At this point your body's acceleration is identical to Earth's but, because of the period when you had reduced acceleration, your velocity is less than Earth's so it still hits you.

Right. I figured that out well after I posted. Thanks.

#### fisherman

• 200
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #131 on: April 21, 2021, 04:43:23 PM »
Quote
In practice because you are in the, still accelerating, atmosphere you start to accelerate upwards again and begin to feel windrush as aerodynamic drag takes effect, until you reach terminal velocity. (And that's terminal velocity downwards in RE, but terminal velocity upwards in FE!).

This confuses me.  It seems like you'd need a completely different equation to determine TV under the FE model.  The wiki define FE TV as A: When the acceleration of the falling object is equal to the acceleration of the Earth, the object has reached terminal velocity relative to the Earth.

The equation for TV used by RE is used to determine when the falling object is no longer accelerating.

#### Mothra

• 12
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #132 on: April 21, 2021, 05:15:31 PM »
The way UA works, as I understand it is that if I jump off a chair I wouldn't fall because there is no gravity to pull me down.  I'd just hang there and the floor would rise up to meet me.  Why would a dropped water bottle be any different?

No.  This.

According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.

#### fisherman

• 200
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #133 on: April 21, 2021, 05:22:42 PM »
Quote
According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.

Why wouldn't it keep pouring out?  If the water is pouring out when you are holding onto to bottle, why would it stop when you let go, according to UA?  According to UA, the same forces are working on the water bottle when you are hold it as when you let it go.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 4297
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #134 on: April 21, 2021, 06:23:36 PM »
Quote
According to UA, the bottle should just hang there, with the water pouring from the holes until the earth reaches it.

Why wouldn't it keep pouring out?  If the water is pouring out when you are holding onto to bottle, why would it stop when you let go, according to UA?  According to UA, the same forces are working on the water bottle when you are hold it as when you let it go.
Not true.

When you are holding the bottle you are on the ground. The accelerating earth exerts a force on your feet which makes you accelerate upwards. You in turn impart that force on the bottle so it accelerates upwards too. When you let go of the bottle you are no longer exerting that force on it, the earth accelerates up towards it and hits it.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

#### fisherman

• 200
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #135 on: April 21, 2021, 08:29:58 PM »
Quote
Not true.

Well, what you say is true, but my point is that there is nothing different about holding the bottle and letting it go that would account for the water to stop pouring out when you let go.

When you are holding the bottle and it is accelerating with you, there is a continuous stream flowing from the holes.  When you let go of the bottle and it is no longer accelerating with you, the water should continue to flow from the holes and remain stationary until the earth catches up. There is no force on the bottle that would keep the water from escaping, at least at the points where the holes are. Water conforms to the shape of it’s container. Do you think the water bottles astronauts use on the ISS have holes in them?

Before you claim that it would be a violation of the EP, I remind you that the EP only applies to objects that are under constant acceleration/at rest in a gravitational field.  A body at rest in a gravitational field cannot be distinguished from an object under constant acceleration.

A freely falling water bottle is neither. It is not under the constant acceleration that would be created by a FE under UA, nor is it at rest in a gravitational field that would created by a RE.

EDIT:  Actually, now that I think about it, what you said isn't entirely true.  When you're holding the bottle, it would be accelerating with you, but the "mechanical force" that supposedly keeps us pinned to the ground wouldn't be acting on the water bottle because that is a contact force.  The bottom of the bottle isn't in contact with the ground.  Even when you are holding the bottle, the water should just leak from the holes and hang.  There's no force to make the water fall.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2021, 08:54:29 PM by fisherman »

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 4297
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #136 on: April 22, 2021, 09:41:32 AM »
There is no force on the bottle that would keep the water from escaping, at least at the points where the holes are.
Isn't it air pressure? Isn't that the force that stops the water escaping when it's in freefall under gravity?

Quote
Even when you are holding the bottle, the water should just leak from the holes and hang.  There's no force to make the water fall.
Right. There's no force. So it remains stationary and the earth accelerates and hits it. There is a force acting on the bottle which stops that happening, which is you holding it.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

#### fisherman

• 200
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #137 on: April 22, 2021, 12:54:58 PM »
Quote
Isn't it air pressure? Isn't that the force that stops the water escaping when it's in freefall under gravity?

No, the water doesn't escape from the holes when it is in freefall because there is no gravity in freefall. After thinking about it, this is what I realized when I went back and made my later edit. Actually, I went and found the video I saw sometime ago and refreshed my memory. I didn't think my original response all the way through. The link to the demonstration is below. Good part starts around 3:10

In a UA environment, holding the bottle, the earth is accelerating and the bottle is accelerating with you. There is a "pinning force"...which seems to be just a "reverse normal force"...keeping you on the ground.  But that normal force isn't working on the bottle because it isn't on the ground. It isn't responsible for the water flowing down. When you let go, there is no change in the forces on the bottle that would account for the water to stop flowing down.

In an RE environment, gravity is pulling the water down from the holes, when you are holding it, but when you let go, the water stops flowing because there is no gravity.

#### WTF_Seriously

• 328
• When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #138 on: April 22, 2021, 01:43:00 PM »
No, the water doesn't escape from the holes when it is in freefall because there is no gravity in freefall.

No, there is still gravity in freefall.  If there wasn't, freefall would stop.

The water doesn't escape because as soon as you let go of the bottle, the bottle is allowed to fall at the same acceleration as the water.

Under UA this would be no different as AATW explained.  When you are holding the bottle, both you and the bottle are being pushed upward but the water is not until the earth reaches it as it hits the ground.  Therefore the water 'falls'.  Once the bottle is released, then both the bottle and water are stationary while the earth is traveling to meet them.
Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"
That is a desperate argument from a losing position. An argument from a position of strength would have positive evidence for that position.

#### fisherman

• 200
##### Re: Simple Experiments
« Reply #139 on: April 22, 2021, 04:11:45 PM »
Quote
No, there is still gravity in freefall.  If there wasn't, freefall would stop.

No, according to GR, there is no “force” of gravity during freefall.  In Newtonian physics freefall is defined as motion under the force of gravity.  In GR, it is defined as motion under no force at all. When the water bottle falls, it is just following a geodesic without any forces stopping it.  There isn’t any force on it at all. That is the whole point of the demonstration. Check out what Brian Greene says about the 4:20 mark of the video.  Paraphrase...the water is flowing because of gravity, but if Einstein is right, the water won't feel gravity and stop flowing when it is dropped.

Quote
In Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it. In the context of general relativity, where gravitation is reduced to a space-time curvature, a body in free fall has no force acting on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall#:~:text=In%20the%20context%20of%20general,no%20force%20acting%20on%20it.&text=An%20object%20moving%20upwards%20might,to%20be%20in%20free%20fall.

Quote
Under UA this would be no different as AATW explained.  When you are holding the bottle, both you and the bottle are being pushed upward but the water is not until the earth reaches it as it hits the ground.  Therefore the water 'falls'.  Once the bottle is released, then both the bottle and water are stationary while the earth is traveling to meet them

Under UA, it is true that the bottle (and the water in it) are all being accelerated while you are holding it.  But under UA, there is no force acting on the water that would account for it flowing down out of the holes while you are holding it.

Gravity doesn’t account for the water flowing down, because it doesn’t exist.  The UA “pinning” force can’t account for it because that force requires actual contact with the ground. The forces working on you as you hold the bottle are different than the forces working on the bottle.  The ground is pushing you up and there is a reaction force that pins you down to the surface of the ground.  That is not the case with the bottle.  There is no reaction force because it is not touching the ground. Nothing is "pushing" down on the bottle that would account for why the water flows.

The reason that this doesn’t violate the EP is because the reason accelerated motion without gravity is indistinguishable from being at rest in a gravitational field is because in both cases, the forces effecting an object are equivalent.  Accelerated motion pushing the floor up against your feet causes a reaction that causes your body to push against the floor and feels the same as “gravity” pulling your feet down and the floor pushing back up.  In both cases there is a reaction force that can be interpreted as a reaction to being accelerated up or to being pulled down.

Here the forces effecting the bottle as you hold it are not equivalent.  Holding it up in the air doesn't produce the equivalent effect of it being on the ground. There is no reaction force.

« Last Edit: April 22, 2021, 04:29:41 PM by fisherman »