Hey all. If you'd like to disprove, easily, in a way that RE-ers will accept, the premise of a round earth, then tomorrow's the day to do it.I wasn't able to check the sun's position at noon (and I probably wouldn't if I was able), but I used Stellarium and found the sun's inclination to be 51.7° at culmination. This makes sense, as my latitude is 38.53 N. If we are to trust Stellarium (and we absolutely are) then we haven't disproven RET at all.
On March 20th, 2016 (it's even a weekend, so most people should have the day available) - when the sun is due south of you (or north, for those few in the southern hemisphere), measure the angle to the sun from the vertical.
If the angle is NOT your latitude, then post here (a photo of your setup would probably help), and no Round Earther will be able to refute the proof. Obviously, some indication of your latitude and proof that the sun was due south/north (i.e. probably not exactly at 12:00 noon, depending on your location) when the measurement was taken would be required.
If you miss the day, you can plan ahead and try again on September 22nd.
I look forward to seeing the simple, irrefutable proof that the round-earth model is wrong. Of course, if your measurements do show that the angle is equal to your latitude, then I'd be fascinated to hear about a non-RE model that accounts for the geometry. I'm guessing some sort of atmospheric lensing, distorting the position of the sun?
Simple, irrefutable, proof that the round Earth model is wrong would be for the FE supporters to travel to and document the ice wall.
Unfortunately they don't put any value in proof as it would, ultimately, prove them wrong.
I think that the fact that people can go there if they choose is evidence enough for me. Same with space tourism.Simple, irrefutable, proof that the round Earth model is wrong would be for the FE supporters to travel to and document the ice wall.
Unfortunately they don't put any value in proof as it would, ultimately, prove them wrong.
Traveling to Antarctica to conduct an expedition isn't as "simple" as most people think. There is the matter of equipment, transportation, experts, crew, and above all else, the funding to pay for it all. If it's so simple, CableDawg, perhaps you can supply the funding for such a trip?
I don't see how this would ultimately disprove the premise of a round Earth anyway. At most it would force it to need a little tweaking, but that seems to be something you guys are good at, tweaking your theories to explain why they don't always match observation.Please explain how at either equinox the sun rises (almost) due east everywhere on earth, except close to the poles where they have 24 daylight.
I don't see how this would ultimately disprove the premise of a round Earth anyway. At most it would force it to need a little tweaking, but that seems to be something you guys are good at, tweaking your theories to explain why they don't always match observation.Please explain how at either equinox the sun rises (almost) due east everywhere on earth, except close to the poles where they have 24 daylight.
And, no I have not seen it everywhere, but all evidence I have seen indicates that it does!
I know it does here at 27.680°S 153.049° - I have checked it!
I don't see how this would ultimately disprove the premise of a round Earth anyway. At most it would force it to need a little tweaking, but that seems to be something you guys are good at, tweaking your theories to explain why they don't always match observation.Please explain how at either equinox the sun rises (almost) due east everywhere on earth, except close to the poles where they have 24 daylight.
And, no I have not seen it everywhere, but all evidence I have seen indicates that it does!
I know it does here at 27.680°S 153.049° - I have checked it!
I think you're confused again, rabinoz. This thread was supposed to be about an alleged refutation of RET. If you have something to add to the discussion feel free, but I won't be baited into responding to your random musings.
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.
I wasn't able to check the sun's position at noon (and I probably wouldn't if I was able), but I used Stellarium and found the sun's inclination to be 51.7° at culmination. This makes sense, as my latitude is 38.53 N. If we are to trust Stellarium (and we absolutely are) then we haven't disproven RET at all.
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.I wasn't able to check the sun's position at noon (and I probably wouldn't if I was able), but I used Stellarium and found the sun's inclination to be 51.7° at culmination. This makes sense, as my latitude is 38.53 N. If we are to trust Stellarium (and we absolutely are) then we haven't disproven RET at all.
Anything else?
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.
If you were answering my post (you may have noticed the (http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Quote_zps85poz4ue.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip) button?),
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!
But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."
Only if you completely ignore:The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.
If you were answering my post (you may have noticed the (http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Quote_zps85poz4ue.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip) button?),
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!
But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.
So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."
If you look out the window you will see evidence that the earth is flat. We have yet to see something as obvious and clear to tell us that the earth is a globe.
Only if you completely ignore:The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.
If you were answering my post (you may have noticed the (http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Quote_zps85poz4ue.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip) button?),
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!
But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.
So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."
If you look out the window you will see evidence that the earth is flat. We have yet to see something as obvious and clear to tell us that the earth is a globe.
Satellites
Planets
The sun
The moon
Orbits in general
Maps
Satellite imagery
Videos of rocket launches
Basic physics
Anything having to do with NASA
All the other space programs
Third party evidence for NASA
Geodesy
Tides
Plane flights
Astronomy
Stellarium
Neutrino astronomy
Neutrinos in general
Particle accelerator measurements
Weather
Navigation
Surveying
Every single expert in each of these fields (including myself)
But yeah, the horizon is totally the most trustworthy piece of evidence. :P
Funny that you would accuse me of handwaving, considering THAT'S WHAT YOU LITERALLY JUST DID. The things I listed are self evident, and every single one of them requires the earth to be a globe to make any sense at all. Why do you put so much faith in the horizon?Only if you completely ignore:The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.
If you were answering my post (you may have noticed the (http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Quote_zps85poz4ue.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip) button?),
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!
But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.
So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."
If you look out the window you will see evidence that the earth is flat. We have yet to see something as obvious and clear to tell us that the earth is a globe.
Satellites
Planets
The sun
The moon
Orbits in general
Maps
Satellite imagery
Videos of rocket launches
Basic physics
Anything having to do with NASA
All the other space programs
Third party evidence for NASA
Geodesy
Tides
Plane flights
Astronomy
Stellarium
Neutrino astronomy
Neutrinos in general
Particle accelerator measurements
Weather
Navigation
Surveying
Every single expert in each of these fields (including myself)
But yeah, the horizon is totally the most trustworthy piece of evidence. :P
You are merely waving your hand and assuming that those things show that the earth is a globe. You will need to present specific evidence which shows that the earth is a globe. A lot of that is addressed in Earth Not a Globe, the Wiki, and other places.
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.I wasn't able to check the sun's position at noon (and I probably wouldn't if I was able), but I used Stellarium and found the sun's inclination to be 51.7° at culmination. This makes sense, as my latitude is 38.53 N. If we are to trust Stellarium (and we absolutely are) then we haven't disproven RET at all.
Anything else?
Rama, surely you aren't that dense. Stellarium isn't experimental or observational evidence. It's a computer program.
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.
If you were answering my post (you may have noticed the (http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Quote_zps85poz4ue.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip) button?),
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!
But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."
If you look out the window you will see evidence that the earth is flat. We have yet to see something as obvious and clear to tell us that the earth is a globe.
The things I listed are self evident, and every single one of them requires the earth to be a globe to make any sense at all.
The things I listed are self evident, and every single one of them requires the earth to be a globe to make any sense at all.
This may literally be the most objectively incorrect claim a round earther has ever made.
Some time back I claimed that the globe simply will not fit on "your flat earth", you asked for evidence. I gave some, but was completely ignored! So, I'll try again!If you look out the window you will see evidence that the earth is flat. We have yet to see something as obvious and clear to tell us that the earth is a globe.The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.
If you were answering my post (you may have noticed the (http://rs1075.pbsrc.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Quote_zps85poz4ue.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip) button?),
I was giving YOU the opportunity to prove the Globe false, so come down off your high horse!
But, since you brought up the proof question, you are claiming the earth is flat, when without doubt most people accept that it is a Globe.So, I would claim that: "The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive."
Please provide your evidence.I apologise for the length, but you wanted evidence!
LatitudeSince there are 90° of latitude from the equator to the north pole, the distance must be 90 x 69.5 = 6,250 miles or 10,058 km, close enough for this application. Mind you Napoleon was closer!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
Al-BiruniThis gives an equatorial circumference of 39,833 km - not far from the current 40,075 km. Note that his methods were some of the earliest examples of Geodetic-Surveying. Al-Biruni is regarded as "the father of Geodetic-Surveying".
Important contributions to geodesy and geography were also made by Biruni. He introduced techniques to measure the earth and distances on it using triangulation. He found the radius of the earth to be 6339.6 km.
I doubt that FE supporters will accept even this evidence, so I have calculated my estimate of the circumference from a couple days travel, on mainly west to east journeys on an "almost round the block trip". Of course the road (even across the Nullabor) is not quite straight. So I actually used the Garmin GPS Map for the distance. Just in case that naughty NASA has been tricking us with the GPS readings I compared used the car's odometer with the map and GPS (the Landcruiser Prado odometer is almost exact)[1]. From the point-to-point distances I worked the west-east component of distance, the longitude difference and the average latitude of each of two journeys. From these figures I can calculate the km/degree at the latitude of that journey and hence the (circumference at that latitude) = 360 x (km/degree). If these figures are accepted, we now have to work out what the equatorial circumference. On the globe that is easy (at least to a good appoximation), where the (equatorial circumference) = (circumference at that latitude)/cos(latitude). But, for the flat earth we have the problem that no-one seems certain of the accepted map! I will take it as the map on the right on which we should be able to calculate the (equatorial circumference) = (circumference at that latitude)*90/(90-latitude), since on this map the meridians of longitude are straight lines radiating from the north pole. | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/FE%20Ice%20Wall%20Map%20-%20equ%20co-ords_zps5kmnmgbb.png) The most widely accepted map model of a flat earth. |
Origin and Destination | "Long Diff" | "at Lat" | "km/deg" | "Circ at Lat" | "Circ at Equ Globe" | "Circ at Equ Flat" |
Balladonia (Western Australia) to Eucla (Western Australia) | 5.264° | -32.01° | 94.5 | 34,021 km | 40,123 km | 31,302 km |
Eucla(Western Australia) to Penong(South Australia) | 4.125° | -31.80° | 94.7 | 34,087 km | 40,108 km | 32,055 km |
the Equator to North Pole is indeed | close to 10,000 km and |
the Equatorial Circumference is indeed | close to 40,000 km |
Route | from Lat Long | to Lat Long | Car oddo | in-car GPS | Direct Garmin Map |
Ballodonia to Eucla | -32.35° 123.62° | -31.68° 128.88° | 532 km | 531.5 km | 503.0 km |
Eucla to Penong | -31.68° 128.88° | -31.93° 133.01° | 424 km | 423.0 km | 390.6 km |
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.Did you even bother to look out your window to see where the sun rose?
The OP is misleading. The experiment proposed will debunk a flat earth, not a round one. Notice it says "measure the angle to the sun from the vertical". That's the sun's zenith angle, not its altitude angle. So in the case of the stellarium's angle of 51.7°, to get the zentih angle subtract it from 90°.Hey all. If you'd like to disprove, easily, in a way that RE-ers will accept, the premise of a round earth, then tomorrow's the day to do it.I wasn't able to check the sun's position at noon (and I probably wouldn't if I was able), but I used Stellarium and found the sun's inclination to be 51.7° at culmination. This makes sense, as my latitude is 38.53 N. If we are to trust Stellarium (and we absolutely are) then we haven't disproven RET at all.
On March 20th, 2016 (it's even a weekend, so most people should have the day available) - when the sun is due south of you (or north, for those few in the southern hemisphere), measure the angle to the sun from the vertical.
If the angle is NOT your latitude, then post here (a photo of your setup would probably help), and no Round Earther will be able to refute the proof. Obviously, some indication of your latitude and proof that the sun was due south/north (i.e. probably not exactly at 12:00 noon, depending on your location) when the measurement was taken would be required.
If you miss the day, you can plan ahead and try again on September 22nd.
I look forward to seeing the simple, irrefutable proof that the round-earth model is wrong. Of course, if your measurements do show that the angle is equal to your latitude, then I'd be fascinated to hear about a non-RE model that accounts for the geometry. I'm guessing some sort of atmospheric lensing, distorting the position of the sun?
If you look out the window you will see evidence that the earth is flat. We have yet to see something as obvious and clear to tell us that the earth is a globe.Actually you won't see evidence that the earth is flat, Tom, assuming you mean "evidence that the earth is flat rather than round." What you see looking out your window is compatible with the earth's being nearly spherical and having an average radius of 3959 miles, so it's not evidence against a round earth. Now if you have beachfront property, you might see some evidence that the earth is round, although of course flat-earthers contest this.
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.
Then prove the flatness.
The responsibility of the claimant is to prove his positive.
Then prove the flatness.
Already done, but thanks for stopping by!