My desire would be to keep the tone of this discussion professional and respectful, so I will start it out in that tone and hope that participants continue to follow the same pattern of behavior.

It has become increasingly popular for high school seniors to take on the planning and implementation of an experiment that has been done countless times over the decades, and that is the experiment that uses a weather balloon to carry a payload consisting of various tracking equipment along with one or more cameras where the weather balloon takes that equipment to the edge of the stratosphere while the camera records video constantly through the entire journey up to the top and even back down during descent. The evidence that the cameras record, of course, clearly shows whether or not Earth is indeed curved.

These experiments have become INSANELY affordable. In fact, High school seniors are able to fund them by working throughout the first portion of a school year where they engage in fundraiser events like candy sales, bake sales, car washes, etc. and many of them find supplemental financial sponsorships from local businesses. I'm not 100% on the cost but I want to say that the cost of doing this experiment is somewhere around $10k or less ... certainly not difficult to source that small amount - especially when considering that the collected evidence has the potential to end this debate once and for all.

I am aware that those who invest in the Flat Earth theory reject the legitimacy of the video collected where it is generally assumed that the lenses are of a fish-eye nature thus explaining the curvature of the Earth.

I would absolutely love to see this experiment performed by a group of people who are 100% invested in the Flat Earth theory so that they could guarantee no fish eye lenses were used during the experiment and I can even think of some ways to guarantee that they are never used by doing something like mounting a camera into a structure that would then have a thin horizontal bar mounted at some distance away from the camera's lens so that the bar could be seen throughout the entire video to have not ever been curved or optically distorted in any way what so ever. If that video came back showing that bar never once curved yet behind the bar the curve of the Earth could be clearly seen ... this would be a "Case closed" finality on this issue. No other evidence could ever change the reality that such a video would define and no one could refuse to accept if they are honest.

What say you? Do you think an experiment like this would be a worthy endeavor?

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4190
    • View Profile
I don't see the point. It seems like a huge expense (you're not as successful at claiming that ten thousand dollars is chump change as you think you are) only to demonstrate something that's not really inconsistent with FET anyway. At best it shows that the Earth might actually be round, but it lacks the immediacy that observing the Earth from ground level affords.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16079
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
You'd do well to learn about the Flat Earth Theory before coming here and claiming you're ready to resolve the debate once and for all. Your idea is not original, and by acting the way you are, you're showing a lot of disrespect to both sides of the discussion.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline Rayb

  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Why don’t Flat Earthers ever make a video showing a structure or land form that shouldn’t be seen at a relative distance and elevation? For instance if a Earth curvature calculator says that the top of a tower that is 100 feet above sea level can’t be seen at 17 miles away on a calm, clear high noon with camera/telescope 6 feet above water at the beach, make a video showing the top of the tower 17+ miles away at standard atmospheric refraction - yes I know atmospheric refraction can’t be present on a Flat Earth as there is no “bulge” for light to pass through. If the Earth is flat.


My desire would be to keep the tone of this discussion professional and respectful, so I will start it out in that tone and hope that participants continue to follow the same pattern of behavior.

It has become increasingly popular for high school seniors to take on the planning and implementation of an experiment that has been done countless times over the decades, and that is the experiment that uses a weather balloon to carry a payload consisting of various tracking equipment along with one or more cameras where the weather balloon takes that equipment to the edge of the stratosphere while the camera records video constantly through the entire journey up to the top and even back down during descent. The evidence that the cameras record, of course, clearly shows whether or not Earth is indeed curved.

These experiments have become INSANELY affordable. In fact, High school seniors are able to fund them by working throughout the first portion of a school year where they engage in fundraiser events like candy sales, bake sales, car washes, etc. and many of them find supplemental financial sponsorships from local businesses. I'm not 100% on the cost but I want to say that the cost of doing this experiment is somewhere around $10k or less ... certainly not difficult to source that small amount - especially when considering that the collected evidence has the potential to end this debate once and for all.

I am aware that those who invest in the Flat Earth theory reject the legitimacy of the video collected where it is generally assumed that the lenses are of a fish-eye nature thus explaining the curvature of the Earth.

I would absolutely love to see this experiment performed by a group of people who are 100% invested in the Flat Earth theory so that they could guarantee no fish eye lenses were used during the experiment and I can even think of some ways to guarantee that they are never used by doing something like mounting a camera into a structure that would then have a thin horizontal bar mounted at some distance away from the camera's lens so that the bar could be seen throughout the entire video to have not ever been curved or optically distorted in any way what so ever. If that video came back showing that bar never once curved yet behind the bar the curve of the Earth could be clearly seen ... this would be a "Case closed" finality on this issue. No other evidence could ever change the reality that such a video would define and no one could refuse to accept if they are honest.

What say you? Do you think an experiment like this would be a worthy endeavor?


That experiment would also show a straight bar and a curved edge on an earth that was a flat circle, much like a place mat. A picture of a basketball is every bit as round looking in profile as a real basketball. The only thing that allows you to see the 3rd dimension of the ball is depth perception. Therefore your experiment would show exactly the same thing for a flat, but circular earth as it would for the ball that we all know it to be. You need to figure out how to incorporate a test for that missing 3rd dimension.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2023, 09:09:58 PM by bindardundat »

I don't see the point. It seems like a huge expense (you're not as successful at claiming that ten thousand dollars is chump change as you think you are) only to demonstrate something that's not really inconsistent with FET anyway. At best it shows that the Earth might actually be round, but it lacks the immediacy that observing the Earth from ground level affords.

When I say "affordable", I mean in contrast to performing the same experiment 30+ years ago.

Of course, the biggest problem with ground-level observation is that the round Earth theory cannot be observed from the ground level if the requirement for evidence is direct observation because the round earth theory states that the Earth is a specific size, and because of its size, the curvature cannot be casually observed. I'm sure one can imagine if a microbe was on a beach ball, that microbe would not see a curve in the beach ball either because it lacks the proper height to be able to notice the curve. But to further complicate ground-level observation as being able to confirm the round earth theory, we add to the mix, the varying heights in land and this exaggerates the phenomena. You have to get high enough to be able to see it at a distance to where its spherical curve can be seen plainly.

Personally, I don't care if the Earth is round or flat ... I accept the truth whatever it is. It bears no consequence on my life one way or the other. I've just seen and learned far more evidence that validates a round Earth theory whereas the Flat Earth theory hasn't seemed to stand up to a lot of tests. It doesn't seem to explain solar or lunar eclipses, nor does it have any way of predicting them (that I know of) whereas the spherical model of Earth with a heliocentric sun in the solar system has yielded mathematical models that can predict those events with second precision (in addition to the locations of the other planets using similar mathematical technique). I'm not aware of a flat earth model that is capable of making those predictions.

But I am open to learn.

Heck, I'm not aware of how the FET explains the rest of the planets ... We all know they are out there, but the question is, if the sun is hovering above a flat Earth in a circular motion, then what force is keeping the other planets in their "orbits"? and why are we able to see them? If our sun is as close to the Earth as is postulated, certainly its light could not be reflecting off of the other planets. Unless the theory says that the planets are much closer to us and much smaller than is commonly understood. But even if that is the idea, there should be some way of measuring their distance using understood mathematics, no?

You'd do well to learn about the Flat Earth Theory before coming here and claiming you're ready to resolve the debate once and for all. Your idea is not original, and by acting the way you are, you're showing a lot of disrespect to both sides of the discussion.

I think you're making assumptions about my attitude. I think my post was very respectful. And I have zero anticipation that this debate will ever be settled. People tend to hold on to what makes sense to them and they don't let go very easily. Such is the nature of human beings.

Mike

Dual1ty

There's no debate when it comes to physical curvature. It either exists or it doesn't.

High altitude balloon observations have in fact been done many times.

The following experiment has truly never been done before and it would truly settle the "debate" if done right:

« Last Edit: October 11, 2023, 04:11:35 PM by Dual1ty »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
The following experiment has truly never been done before and it would truly settle the "debate" if done right:



Actually, it has, yet the debate continues.
https://wiki.tfes.org/LIGO_Curvature_Compensation
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

There's no debate when it comes to physical curvature. It either exists or it doesn't.

High altitude balloon observations have in fact been done many times.

The following experiment has truly never been done before and it would truly settle the "debate" if done right:



I actually saw this very experiment done on a video about two months ago and there was variation measured along the length of the straight edge, but the straight edge that was used and the way it was observed etc. seemed to me to have too much room for error to be 100% useful... but the concept is certainly solid.