The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2020, 06:29:47 AM

Title: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2020, 06:29:47 AM
I think the theoretical work in the wiki has gone as far as it could go based on mainstream sources. The next step is to think of experiments which could fill in a gap of knowledge. Since we are not funded it would need to be something low cost or reasonable, so geographical explorations are probably out. It is possible that collaborative tests can be made at some time in the future after all details have been worked out.

Electromagnetic Acceleration

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

If you read these pages we find that EA predicts various curving phenomena with celestial phenomena. Straight lines will curve on the celestial sphere. On the Celestial Sphere page we see various astronomers who describe curving astonomical phenomena and the Moon Tilt Illusion page has an observation of an astrophotographer seeing the tilted Moon in the same frame as the Sun simultaneously, which should not be possible if the explanation is due to a perspective effect.

Better evidence of these curving effects could be gathered if we had a rectilinear wide angle lens which could capture very wide angle shots in a single frame while keeping straight lines straight. It should be possible to capture the Sun and Moon in the same frame simultaneously and see that the illuminated portion of the Moon does not point at the Sun. It should also be possible to take pictures of curving phenomena on the celestial sphere such as aurora, comet tails, milky way, or timelapses of moon trails.

For confidence we could send this camera and lens to different members, or find a public figure such as a physics teacher or something of that nature.

Universal Acceleration

For UA, the best test that could be done would be to test the scale experiment in a vaccum chamber at different latitudes. If you read this page, the experiments which show variations were not done in a vaccum:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude

On this one some type of device would need to be constructed with a scale in a vaccum chamber. This may be more difficult as the vaccum may adversely affect components in a precision scale to be unreliable when the chamber fills and evacuates. If resolved such an experiment can be tested against a second precision scale not in a vaccum chamber.

Again, it can be sent to different people at different latitudes for confidence.

What other possibilities are there for a test of FE?
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: edby on August 09, 2020, 08:04:45 AM
For UA, the best test that could be done would be to test the scale experiment in a vaccum chamber.
That would be an interesting test. Can you clarify what result would be consistent with UA? I.e. are you expecting that the observed freefall acceleration would be different at different latitudes, or the same?

Quote
What other possibilities are there for a test of FE?
A fairly cheap test would be to determine the length of a degree of latitude. I believe you are in California. Route 5 has a number of stretches which are nearly North-South. Then (i) check the driving distance between two points 111km apart and (ii) determine the altititude of Polaris at each point. Then see if if the difference is 1 degree, as RE models predict. Repeat the experiment across the continent with different volunteers. The only equipment required would be a sextant, about $100.


Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Toddler Thork on August 09, 2020, 08:31:41 AM
Doing our own tests would be meaningless because anyone visiting the site would just scream ... HAS IT BEEN PEER VIEWED?  >o<

The best tests would be those you could perform at home. For example, you could flush the toilets and unplug all the sinks and bath in your house to see which way they go. Did they all go the same way? Is Coriolis a thing?

I think constructing a number of DIY tests to see for yourself and get people on the journey of discovery would be far more valuable than "In 2020 Thork bought a vacuum chamber and witnessed the following".

Maybe a "Top 10 things you can do right now to find out earth's shape" would be more engaging and lead to a fleshed out self experimentation section?
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: edby on August 09, 2020, 08:40:43 AM
Doing our own tests would be meaningless because anyone visiting the site would just scream ... HAS IT BEEN PEER VIEWED?  >o<
Then get it peer reviewed. That would require a journal to submit to, but easy enough to set up a journal if you can get an editor and an editorial board composed of volunteers.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Toddler Thork on August 09, 2020, 08:49:00 AM
Doing our own tests would be meaningless because anyone visiting the site would just scream ... HAS IT BEEN PEER VIEWED?  >o<
Then get it peer reviewed. That would require a journal to submit to, but easy enough to set up a journal if you can get an editor and an editorial board composed of volunteers.

It is a bent system.

If I said "Round Earth is an oppressive thought system to bolster and foster white privilege at the expense of the BAME community" ... that one is going to get green lit. To get anything peer viewed I simply need to state either climate change is real, black people are oppressed, or homosexuality is the natural default and anything else is a perversion. You have to think about the absolute cock wombles who do the peer reviewing.
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/15/17951492/grievance-studies-sokal-squared-hoax
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: edby on August 09, 2020, 09:03:41 AM
Doing our own tests would be meaningless because anyone visiting the site would just scream ... HAS IT BEEN PEER VIEWED?  >o<
Then get it peer reviewed. That would require a journal to submit to, but easy enough to set up a journal if you can get an editor and an editorial board composed of volunteers.

It is a bent system.

If I said "Round Earth is an oppressive thought system to bolster and foster white privilege at the expense of the BAME community" ... that one is going to get green lit. To get anything peer viewed I simply need to state either climate change is real, black people are oppressed, or homosexuality is the natural default and anything else is a perversion. You have to think about the absolute cock wombles who do the peer reviewing.
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/15/17951492/grievance-studies-sokal-squared-hoax

You misunderstand. I suggest setting up a new FE journal whose purpose is to publish papers on FE research. Similar to the way that JB Rhine set up the journal of parapsychology https://psi-encyclopedia.spr.ac.uk/articles/journal-parapsychology after finding there was no orthodox venue for such studies.

After all, if it is possible to support the FE hypothesis by means of rigorous experimentation and methodology documentation, it should be possible to publish the results in a journal specifically set up for the purpose. The journal could be hosted on this website. If the methodology was rigorous enough, then the subject would be taken seriously by established science.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Tumeni on August 09, 2020, 12:16:38 PM
A fairly cheap test would be to determine the length of a degree of latitude. I believe you are in California. Route 5 has a number of stretches which are nearly North-South. Then (i) check the driving distance between two points 111km apart and (ii) determine the altititude of Polaris at each point. Then see if if the difference is 1 degree, as RE models predict. Repeat the experiment across the continent with different volunteers. The only equipment required would be a sextant, about $100.

Of course, the two measures of altitude/elevation of Polaris must be done on the same day of the year, if done separately, or by two measuring persons, at the same time.

Luckily, we have better communications than existed in Norwood's day, so we can arrange simultaneous measures with two participants, as opposed to measuring one, then waiting till next year...
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: edby on August 09, 2020, 01:52:12 PM
Of course, the two measures of altitude/elevation of Polaris must be done on the same day of the year, if done separately, or by two measuring persons, at the same time.
The issue of whether observed latitude = Google latitude is a preliminary. Tests could be run across Europe and the US. If sufficient agreement is found, then the FE research team could agree to rely on the Google latitudes and then move to distances.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2020, 04:51:09 PM
Thork is correct that people would never believe any experiment we did. The best we could hope for is that people replicate it. Thork is also right that the experiment needs to be as simple as possible, within the reach of a person, which is why I suggested observational tests of EA which look for curving phenomena.

 There are ways to inspire confidence with any test. The best way to do that would be to:

- Do it ourselves first
- Find a public figure such as a physics teacher interested in performing the experiment to "double check"
- Maybe send the devices to different RE/FE people who hopefully would not steal or damage the equipment (under escrow if we don't know them?)

Anyway, not that it would prove anything since all of those people could still be planted FE shills, but it would at least encourage a science group or classroom somewhere to do it, which would in turn possibly encourage a real scientific investigation of the effect. I have my doubts that science will ever actually go near anything FE since they are not performing more comprehensive versions of the water convexity tests, which now number into the hundreds in the wider FE YouTube community, and which can show that one can see further than should be possible. I think they just accepted that this effect exists and have opted to call it an illusion rather than to perform more controlled versions.

Repeated tests are generally enough to convince people that the effect exists. A result encourages others to also investigate the event, so nothing would be a waste.

edby's idea of a journal is interesting and deserves some thought.

On the UA Experiment to edby:

 Universal Acceleration suggests that the gravitational variations by latitude would not exist, correct. It also suggests that variations by height would not exist (if we ignore the Celestial Gravitation hypothesis that is sometimes invoked that gives the celestial plane a gravitational field)

There are doubts that the existing gravity by latitude experiments with precision scales are valid since they were not done in a vaccum chamber. It is possible that an environmental property gradient at different latitudes is affecting the device (as discussed on https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude ).  At the bottom of that page there is also a link to Time Dilation by Latitude, which uses precision atomic clocks, and shows that time does not dilate by latitude according to the latitudinal variations of the Earth. It is explained away with the Equivalence Principle. That is reason enough for me that the latitudinal variations are questionable.

The scale experiment in a vaccum chamber is one that is simple enough that a community project could be centered around it. Vaccum chambers and scales accurate enough to test this are not expensive. But we would need to figure out how to put a scale into a vaccum chamber and get accurate results, which I suspect will be the actual challenge (and may doom it). Taking it to a different height is something that can be done by a single person. Taking it to a different latitude could be timed to coincide with someone's vacation, or sent to other people who live at different latitudes like the Kern the Gnome experiment.

As far as I can tell from numerous searches, a vaccum experiment with a scale at different latitudes and heights has never been performed. I am sure that you have also searched for these kinds of experiments in your efforts to debunk UA. 300 years ago scientists did the scale experiment exposed to atmosphere and decided that the fraction of a one percent difference they were seeing was due to gravity. That same experiment was then repeated over the years.

I think you already know about what the Wiki has to say about gravimeters and what it is actually testing. It would be nice to have reference of a simple experiment that doesn't depend on assumptions about a complex product full of algorithms and inputs, and which may be only indirectly testing gravity based on some of the statements given.

To Thork on his simple experiments list:

If you can think of anything, sure. RE has spent 3000 years making explanations for any simple experiment that someone can perform. If you change the nature of space and time you can explain why a shoe drops at the same rate as a penny, despite the illogical nature of that since it takes more force to physically move a more massive body through space (ie horizontally, pushing a bowling ball and a marble yourself). My opinion is that they are very adept at excuse making.

The experiments would need to test those excuses, or catch the celestial bodies doing something that should not be possible under straight line geometry and force them into their "lines curve because they are projected/wrapped on the celestial sphere" explanation that is eventually trotted out.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2020, 05:44:52 PM
A fairly cheap test would be to determine the length of a degree of latitude. I believe you are in California. Route 5 has a number of stretches which are nearly North-South. Then (i) check the driving distance between two points 111km apart and (ii) determine the altititude of Polaris at each point. Then see if if the difference is 1 degree, as RE models predict. Repeat the experiment across the continent with different volunteers. The only equipment required would be a sextant, about $100.

Of course, the two measures of altitude/elevation of Polaris must be done on the same day of the year, if done separately, or by two measuring persons, at the same time.

Luckily, we have better communications than existed in Norwood's day, so we can arrange simultaneous measures with two participants, as opposed to measuring one, then waiting till next year...

Aren't latitudes currently defined by the celestial bodies? Ignoring GPS and LORAN and such, how did people manually determine the latitude and longitude of a location? If San Francisco and Chicago saw the altitude of Polaris in the 1800's to determine their latitude, what makes you think that it would change now?
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: edby on August 09, 2020, 05:49:13 PM
Aren't latitudes currently defined by the celestial bodies? Ignoring GPS and LORAN and such, how did people manually determine the latitude and longitude of a location? If San Francisco and Chicago saw the altitude of Polaris in the 1800's to determine their latitude, what makes you think that it would change now?
That's how it was always done, correct. However, if our own experiments were performed they might gain the trust of more sceptical members of the movement.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: edby on August 09, 2020, 05:58:31 PM
As far as I can tell from numerous searches, a vaccum experiment with a scale at different latitudes and heights has never been performed. I am sure that you have also searched for these kinds of experiments in your efforts to debunk UA. 300 years ago scientists did the scale experiment exposed to atmosphere and decided that the fraction of a one percent difference they were seeing was due to gravity. That same experiment was then repeated over the years.

From 1670s on the pendulum was the only method for determining g. Methods grew increasingly sophisticated and were already being corrected for pressure and temperature by the 1800s. In the 1930s Lacoste discovered the superspring method, which was supplemented superseded in the 1950s by ballistic freefall in vacuum method.

I uncovered some papers written in the 1820s using the pendulum method which I managed to calibrate to the modern IG standard. Seems that they could measure g to a few hundredths of a gal, which is pretty impressive for instruments made from brass and wood.

More later.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2020, 06:22:04 PM
In the 1930's and 1950's you are talking about gravimeters now, correct?

The pendulums (which they say tests weight dimunation) and any scale experiments should have been tested In a vaccum chamber. The vaccum chamber was invented in 1671, so there really isn't any excuse for a highly funded effort by science. Sufficient strength transparent material for a porthole existed (ie. very thick glass). There were materials and sealants strong enough for a vaccum with a porthole, even if it had to be a massive device. I doubt that it was beyond them if they really wanted to do it.

A theory about pressure and temperature and the associated air viscosity, etc, and how it affects the device (or perhaps they are just explaining the variations seen between tests) while in the atmosphere is all less emperical than a direct test in a vaccum chamber and just creates more assumptions. A simple test that we can look at would be best, that relies on as few assumptions as possible.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: edby on August 09, 2020, 06:43:56 PM
In the 1930's and 1950's you are talking about gravimeters now, correct?
The pendulums were also gravimeters. Their purpose was to measure the acceleration due to 'gravity', whatever gravity is.

The pendulums (which they say tests weight dimunation) and any scale experiments should have been tested In a vaccum chamber.
The early experiments made corrections for vacuum.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Longtitube on August 09, 2020, 07:57:04 PM
I think the theoretical work in the wiki has gone as far as it could go based on mainstream sources. The next step is to think of experiments which could fill in a gap of knowledge. Since we are not funded it would need to be something low cost or reasonable, so geographical explorations are probably out. It is possible that collaborative tests can be made at some time in the future after all details have been worked out.

Electromagnetic Acceleration

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

If you read these pages we find that EA predicts various curving phenomena with celestial phenomena. Straight lines will curve on the celestial sphere. On the Celestial Sphere page we see various astronomers who describe curving astonomical phenomena and the Moon Tilt Illusion page has an observation of an astrophotographer seeing the tilted Moon in the same frame as the Sun simultaneously, which should not be possible if the explanation is due to a perspective effect.

Better evidence of these curving effects could be gathered if we had a rectilinear wide angle lens which could capture very wide angle shots in a single frame while keeping straight lines straight. It should be possible to capture the Sun and Moon in the same frame simultaneously and see that the illuminated portion of the Moon does not point at the Sun. It should also be possible to take pictures of curving phenomena on the celestial sphere such as aurora, meteors, milky way, or timelapses of moon trails.

For confidence we could send this camera and lens to different members, or find a public figure such as a physics teacher or something of that nature....

Thork is correct that people would never believe any experiment we did...

As a final observation on the aims of FES outlined in this thread, you should remember the often-mentioned distrust of photos and videos which don't confirm the FES beliefs. If you generally disparage other people's photos and videos (and their rigorously documented experiments), you needn't expect them to take your own photos and videos seriously. Habitual scepticism is a two-edged sword.

I wish you well in doing and meticulously documenting actual experiments, it might help dispel the impressions some people have of the Society as a collection of individuals raging at their internet feed. However, do try not to chase non-existent problems like the Moon Tilt Illusion with unnecessarily expensive equipment: all you need (as previously discussed in the Flat Earth Theory forum) is a ping pong ball. I repeated the experiment myself just this morning.

Longtitube over and out.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 09, 2020, 08:57:06 PM
Per the ping pong ball test mentioned, it is possible that holding a ball up above you so that the phase or colored half points upwards would just show that you can make a perspective effect on the ball that points upwards, not that the real Moon phase is pointing upwards due to a perspective effect. I agree that a perspective effect is possible. We need an experiment to distinguish whether the illuminated portion of the Moon is really pointing upwards or whether it is a perspective effect.

If you are talking about that you can create a similar phase, just look at the lunar phase section of the main EA page and see that a little man on the map would see a similar phase to his ball based on the position of the Sun. When the Sun is across from the Moon it's full, so holding a ball up against the Moon will be full, as you are pointing the ball across from the Sun. Same for First Quarter Moon if you look at those diagrams.

We would need a test that can properly distinguish between different explanations.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Tumeni on August 10, 2020, 08:14:31 AM
Per the ping pong ball test mentioned, it is possible that holding a ball up above you so that the phase or colored half points upwards would just show ...

Once again, as explained to you in the Moon Tilt Illusion thread, if you hold the ball off from the line between you and the Moon, such that you are looking at ball and moon from different angles, or from different perspectives, then you're doing the experiment wrong.

The idea is to look at them both from the same angle, and the only way to do this is to hold the ball directly between you and the Moon. Since you cannot see the Moon through the ball, it must, by necessity, be held slightly to the side of the Moon in order that you can see both. The idea is not to see how far off-line you can hold the ball to generate different results.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: edby on August 10, 2020, 09:45:12 AM
As far as I can tell from numerous searches, a vaccum experiment with a scale at different latitudes and heights has never been performed.

Spring gravimeters such as the Lacoste are sealed, although not in a vacuum. Why do you think a vacuum would make any difference?

Quote
Changes in air pressure could cause a small apparent change in gravity because of the buoyancy of the mass and beam. This is prevented by sealing the interior of the meter from the outside air. As an additional precaution, should the seals fail, there is a buoyancy compensator on the beam.
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~geodyn/instruments/Manual_Lacoste_GDl.pdf
What type of weighing instrument do you propose using? I checked out the Kern (‘gnome’) results again, and the accuracy was not great, probably due to it being an ordinary weighing machine with an ordinary spring. The change in g per 1000 metres of height is about 0.30 Gals, the change per 5 degrees of latitude is 0.45 Gals at 45 degrees latitude, so you need an instrument with accuracy of about 0.1 Gal, otherwise the experiment is meaningless.


Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 10, 2020, 10:19:18 AM
Per the ping pong ball test mentioned, it is possible that holding a ball up above you so that the phase or colored half points upwards would just show ...

Once again, as explained to you in the Moon Tilt Illusion thread, if you hold the ball off from the line between you and the Moon, such that you are looking at ball and moon from different angles, or from different perspectives, then you're doing the experiment wrong.

The idea is to look at them both from the same angle, and the only way to do this is to hold the ball directly between you and the Moon. Since you cannot see the Moon through the ball, it must, by necessity, be held slightly to the side of the Moon in order that you can see both. The idea is not to see how far off-line you can hold the ball to generate different results.

If you are instructing people to hold out an object and get it to point like the moon and align them near each other you are just telling them to use close range perspective effects to get your desired result.

Close range perspective effects are incredibly flexible and dynamic as to where you can get a body to point.

I took a scene that uses three bodies of interest (cones). The blue plane is just for reference. There is a green cone that points parallel, a purple cone that is tilted upwards, and a yellow cone that tilts downwards. The purple and yellow cones are pushed further back into the background than the green cone. The green cone is near a position over the work plane (you can see part of its shadow on it)

Pre-Experiment Overview Angle 1:

(https://i.imgur.com/Cq2bXgq.png)

Pre-Experiment Overview Angle 2:

(https://i.imgur.com/xQGwNaG.png)

It wasn't that hard to move the camera around and find a point where the green cone was pointing in the same direction like the purple and yellow cones. I'm moving the camera here, not the cones.

In this one I got it to align with purple:

(https://i.imgur.com/7YcYZGw.png)

In this one I got it to align with yellow:

(https://i.imgur.com/m7LVtOX.png)

The possibilities are so dynamic that I also have some control of how far away I want the objects to be from each other while pointing in the same direction. Here is the green cone pointing like the purple cone, but this time green and purple seem to be further away from each other:

(https://i.imgur.com/5pQEzSF.png)

Again, I only moved the camera, not the bodies.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: edby on August 10, 2020, 10:52:02 AM
I suggest the moon-tilt illusion is not one to take externally as an experiment. The problem is not measurement and experimental and numerical results but rather the interpretation of something that we agree we see. If the thing gets bogged down by philosophical disputes like the one above, it will go nowhere. Stick to stuff that can easily be measured.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Tumeni on August 10, 2020, 12:51:21 PM
If you are instructing people to hold out an object and get it to point like the moon and align them near each other you are just telling them to use close range perspective effects to get your desired result.

That's not what I'm telling people to do. I'm telling them to hold the object between their eye(s) and the Moon, such that the object is as close to the Moon as is possible without it getting in the way and obscuring the Moon altogether.

The principle is to be looking at the Moon at the same angle at which you are looking at the object, and vice versa. The idea is not to move the object around to get a desired result by looking from a different angle.

Please review the last page of this thread; https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16106.100 to save me writing it all out again.

Review diagrams in a moment... 

(EDIT - we should continue this discussion in the above thread, in order not to derail this one - however, your diagrams observe from a position outwith the three objects, but we're discussing a situation where the Earth observer is at one point of a triangle, the other points being Sun and Moon. He is one of the three objects or points.

The observer CANNOT look down on the triangle, since he is at one point. Likewise, he cannot look up at the triangle above him, for the same reason. His only view is along the plane of the triangle, along one side toward the Sun, along another side to the Moon, or along the plane of the triangle looking at points between. He can look AWAY from the triangle, but that view is of no relevance.)
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 11, 2020, 09:46:46 AM
What other possibilities are there for a test of FE?
Right. The trouble here is first you need to define what experiment would help you discriminate between a FE and a RE.
In your description of the Bishop experiment you say:

Quote
With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore near Lovers Point 20 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore.

But then when you're shown video of the Turning Torso experiment which clearly shows the building being occluded more with distance you invoke "waves" or something.

If you think your Bishop Experiment is a good test of a FE - and I agree it is although I'm sceptical about your results - then some more controlled versions of that would make sense. I believe some FE people had a go at recreating the Bedford Level experiment but I don't think they documented it well.

In brief, first you need to design an experiment along the lines of the Bishop Experiment - predict what you'd expect to see on a RE and on a FE and then make some observations and document them well. The trouble with your experiment is it's just you saying "I saw a thing". And it's compounded when you're shown videos which indicate you probably didn't see a thing and you hand wave them away.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2020, 04:52:23 PM
What type of weighing instrument do you propose using? I checked out the Kern (‘gnome’) results again, and the accuracy was not great, probably due to it being an ordinary weighing machine with an ordinary spring. The change in g per 1000 metres of height is about 0.30 Gals, the change per 5 degrees of latitude is 0.45 Gals at 45 degrees latitude, so you need an instrument with accuracy of about 0.1 Gal, otherwise the experiment is meaningless.

For that type of experiment getting reliable readings from a scale put into a vacuum would be the most difficult part, so there would need to be a discovery stage which will determine which type of equipment is most appropriate for a vacuum and pressure changes - as it is possible that calibration can be messed up in that process to produce an unreliable result if they are not designed for that. That's the part I have doubts on. Reaching out to precision scale manufacturers would probably be best for suggestions. It is also possible that there might already be special precision scale devices on the market that have a built-in vacuum chamber, and would be the best case scenario.

Luckily the expected result for UA is a null result (at least under a 'pure-UA' theory), which would makes things easier if there is some sort of unmitigated error somewhere.

Quote
But then when you're shown video of the Turning Torso experiment which clearly shows the building being occluded more with distance you invoke "waves" or something.

If you think your Bishop Experiment is a good test of a FE - and I agree it is although I'm sceptical about your results - then some more controlled versions of that would make sense. I believe some FE people had a go at recreating the Bedford Level experiment but I don't think they documented it well.

For a water convexity test, I think by this stage everyone agrees that it is possible to see further than should be possible on an RE. The next step in that sort of test is to do some of the following:

- Take long duration time-lapse photography of the effect and catch how it transitions between obscured and visible scenes, to try to determine which one is an illusion. That might involve leaving a telephoto camera set-up on the shore of a lake for a timespan of a few hours. The risk is that it is possible that only one version is seen, an inconclusive result. But it would provide evidence of limits - how long one version could last if it was an illusion.

It would basically be looking for more transition evidence of this: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Refraction

Something that clearly shows that a refraction transition event is going on.

- Make a long line of posts like in Rowbotham's second experiment in ENAG (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm) and set up a long duration time-lapse photography device that observes how the top of the poles are aligned for a long period of time. This would provide a set of known point of reference for points along the length of the scene. May take more effort.

I consider the water convexity tests to be "harder" since a single observation taken down at the waterline is no longer sufficient, and the purpose is now to catch something in the act. Since there is an element of refraction, any result for this kind of experiment will still be questioned, since anyone can say that there are multiple layers of refraction effects.

Anyone can say anything, really, and a comprehensive test would require a lot of thought.

For RE evidence that sinking reflects a globe:

- Determine that the sinking consistently occurs to produce something in accordance with the predictions of RE, without needing another theory about "refraction did some of this". That was one of the problems that came up when RE has doubled down on the sinking images in the past.

This sort of investigation relies on an 'analysis', and so it becomes more questionable if the results are not what is predicted by an RE, like what was seen when we had past discussions.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: edby on August 11, 2020, 08:57:52 PM
What type of weighing instrument do you propose using? I checked out the Kern (‘gnome’) results again, and the accuracy was not great, probably due to it being an ordinary weighing machine with an ordinary spring. The change in g per 1000 metres of height is about 0.30 Gals, the change per 5 degrees of latitude is 0.45 Gals at 45 degrees latitude, so you need an instrument with accuracy of about 0.1 Gal, otherwise the experiment is meaningless.

For that type of experiment getting reliable readings from a scale put into a vacuum would be the most difficult part, so there would need to be a discovery stage which will determine which type of equipment is most appropriate for a vacuum and pressure changes - as it is possible that calibration can be messed up in that process to produce an unreliable result if they are not designed for that. That's the part I have doubts on. Reaching out to precision scale manufacturers would probably be best for suggestions. It is also possible that there might already be special precision scale devices on the market that have a built-in vacuum chamber, and would be the best case scenario.
 

But why do you need the vacuum chamber?  Just to illustrate, suppose we are in Prague where g would equal about 981 Gals at sea level. Then suppose we take the weighing machine up to 1000m. That would reduce (observed) g to about 980.70, i.e. a reduction of 0.30 Gals, which the instrument could easily detect. The effect of pressure is much smaller, however, being about 35 micro Gals, i.e. 35 millionths of a Gal. Nothing beyond a high accuracy ballistic gravimeter would detect that. So, given that the difference attributable to pressure would be undetectable, why bother with the vacuum stuff?
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2020, 09:36:21 PM
Any assessment of an element of the atmosphere is an analysis, and is less empirical than experimental demonstration. An analysis just brings in more questions.

To double down on an analysis we would need to know things like:

- Exactly how that determination of the affect of pressure at different altitudes was achieved. If it is based on the pressure variations combined with readings seen in precision scales at a particular high altitude over the course of the day, for example, the assumption could be totally off the mark. May be assuming that gravitational variations is affecting the scale.

- If it was assumed that gravity plays a part in the original determination of the variables of any particular atmospheric model; if the gravitational variations actually do not exist those variables may play more of an affect than originally assumed.

- How all the elements of the atmosphere combine to affect a scale. Atmospheric properties such as humidity, air viscosity, pressure, and thermal diffusivity could all be interrelated and combine in ways to affect the buoyancy in the atmospheric medium, which may be unclear.

If we sat here questioning each and every property of the atmosphere, which there are a good number of, and questioned how it could all affect the buoyancy, and how assumptions were determined for all of that, I really doubt that we would get solid answers. It's more than just pressure that can affect a scale - https://wiki.tfes.org/Weight_Variation_by_Latitude#Scales_Affected_by_Atmosphere
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: edby on August 11, 2020, 09:39:17 PM
Any assessment of an element of the atmosphere is an analysis, and is less empirical than experimental demonstration. An analysis just brings in more questions.
My point was that the effect of atmospheric pressure is very very tiny.

You could easily test this by getting a precision scale and a good barometer and weighing the object over a long period while monitoring air pressure and temperature. If change of air pressure and temperature make no difference then they make no difference.

[EDIT] Have you thought about the price of scales? A really good instrument with the precision you require would cost at least $5,000.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2020, 09:43:02 PM
Any assessment of an element of the atmosphere is an analysis, and is less empirical than experimental demonstration. An analysis just brings in more questions.
My point was that the effect of atmospheric pressure is very very tiny.

You could easily test this by getting a precision scale and a good barometer and weighing the object over a long period while monitoring air pressure and temperature. If change of air pressure and temperature make no difference then they make no difference.

In this example we are measuring the variations though, not the full affect of pressure.

- A barometer is a scale that weighs the atmosphere, and produces a reading which tells us the weight of the atmosphere, and this reading shows the 'atmospheric pressure'.

- A barometer changes slightly over the course of the day

Therefore, if you are describing the variations, you are not describing the total weight of the atmosphere, which averages 14.7 lb/square inch at sea level.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: edby on August 11, 2020, 09:45:30 PM
In this example we are measuring the variations though, not the full affect of pressure.

- A barometer is a scale that weighs the atmosphere, and produces a reading which tells us the weight of the atmosphere, and this reading shows the 'atmospheric pressure'.

- A barometer changes slightly over the course of the day

Therefore, if you are describing the variations, you are not describing the total weight of the atmosphere, which averages 14.7 lb/square inch at sea level.
I understand that. My point is that if you find that variations in atmospheric pressure do not affect the measurement, then they do not affect the measurement. Right?


Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 11, 2020, 10:19:58 PM
It would be pretty tough for me to determine. The variations could just be caused by the variations of the non-pressure elements.

There still might be a constant effect, just as the temperature ranges by some amount throughout the day on a thermometer (variations), but does not get anywhere close to Absolute Zero, 0 degrees Kelvin, at any point because there is a constant main temperature of some kind.

(https://i.imgur.com/ncG3zy7.png)
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: JSS on August 11, 2020, 10:32:18 PM
Why not use one of these? It's a gravimeter where the sensor is already contained within a vacuum chamber making it immune to any pressure acting on the device.

https://www.muquans.com/product/absolute-quantum-gravimeter/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6098009/

"The sensor head houses the vacuum chamber where the measurement of gravity is performed"
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Tom Bishop on August 12, 2020, 04:06:06 AM
Why not use one of these? It's a gravimeter where the sensor is already contained within a vacuum chamber making it immune to any pressure acting on the device.

https://www.muquans.com/product/absolute-quantum-gravimeter/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6098009/

"The sensor head houses the vacuum chamber where the measurement of gravity is performed"

Take a look at this page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

It is possible that the gravimeter isn't directly measuring gravity. The gravity anomalies are generally associated with the seismic zones, and have a negative association with mountain ranges and continents.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: edby on August 12, 2020, 07:19:36 AM
It would be pretty tough for me to determine. The variations could just be caused by the variations of the non-pressure elements.
Wrong way round. If you find, after an exhaustive series of measurements at the same elevation, that change in pressure and temperature have no effect on the reading, then you can reasonably safely conclude that change in pressure and temperature have no effect on the reading.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: edby on August 12, 2020, 07:22:17 AM
It is possible that the gravimeter isn't directly measuring gravity. The gravity anomalies are generally associated with the seismic zones, and have a negative association with mountain ranges and continents.
We have discussed this at length elsewhere. A ballistic gravimeter simply drops a weight in a vacuum over a known distance, and measures the time the drop takes. Knowing the distance and the time you can then infer the acceleration. The more sensitive devices can even compensate for the difference in gravity over the drop itself.

So a gravimeter is an accelerometer. Of course, an accelerometer can also be used as a seismometer, no one ever denied that.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: JSS on August 12, 2020, 10:50:28 AM
Why not use one of these? It's a gravimeter where the sensor is already contained within a vacuum chamber making it immune to any pressure acting on the device.

https://www.muquans.com/product/absolute-quantum-gravimeter/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6098009/

"The sensor head houses the vacuum chamber where the measurement of gravity is performed"

Take a look at this page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

It is possible that the gravimeter isn't directly measuring gravity. The gravity anomalies are generally associated with the seismic zones, and have a negative association with mountain ranges and continents.

The device has an active system to cancel out vibrations and seismic activity, as well as a 2Hz sample rate which alone acts as a low-pas filter against any noise from intermitant motion like small earthquakes or other noise.

"The vacuum chamber is protected from external magnetic fields by two layers of mu-metal shields. A high-performance accelerometer is attached to the top of the vacuum chamber in order to implement an active compensation of vibrations and to make the instrument robust against seismic noise without the need of an isolation device"

This seems to cover two of your big concerns, atmospheric pressure and seismic zones.

All indications are that these devices certainly are measuring gravity directly, they time the speed an object falls, either a weight or using quantum measurements on atoms like this device. If an object falls faster, that is a very clear indication that gravity is pulling that object with more force, thus stronger gravity.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: edby on August 12, 2020, 11:30:09 AM
This seems to cover two of your big concerns, atmospheric pressure and seismic zones.

All indications are that these devices certainly are measuring gravity directly, they time the speed an object falls, either a weight or using quantum measurements on atoms like this device. If an object falls faster, that is a very clear indication that gravity is pulling that object with more force, thus stronger gravity.
See also this project https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/final_reports/M/G-K1/EURAMET.M.G-K1.pdf and this https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/final_reports/M/G-K1/SIM.M.G-K1.pdf which are specific projects to determine the uncorrected numbers from high precisision gravimeters. Table 3 in the first link gives the measurements at Walferdange. Table 5 in the second link gives measurements at Colorado.

I checked both sets of measurements against the IGS formula which is a theoretical value using inputs of just latitude and height. They agree closely, although the absolutely gravimeter values are clearly going to be ‘correct’.

The results conclusively indicate

(i) that observed acceleration changes significantly both with latitude and height. Thus the acceleration at Walferdange (lat 50.884635, elevation 405) is 980.96395 cm/s^2. At Colorado (lat 40.13080, elevation 1682) it is 979.62274 cm/s^2.

(ii) that observed acceleration agrees closely with predicted acceleration. My predictions were 981.02707 for Walferdange and 979.66495
for Colorado.

So to some extent Tom’s experiment is repeating existing scientific results, although I like the idea of an old school approach using spring based mechanisms that people can understand, and I fully support his idea for a project.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 12, 2020, 12:02:48 PM
For a water convexity test, I think by this stage everyone agrees that it is possible to see further than should be possible on an RE.
Well, let's define what we mean by that. You can generally see further than you would if we lived on a perfect sphere with no atmosphere.
No dispute there, but that's not what the RE model is.

I agree that refraction does confuse things somewhat. In some ways observations over water would seem ideal as I think both sides agree that "water finds its level" - whether that level is flat or following the contours of a sphere is in dispute of course. But refraction will yield inconsistent results.

Rowbotham's line of posts using water as a baseline seems sensible. Takes more effort but I believe that observations higher off the water surface mitigates the issue of refraction.

There are some observations we make which I'd suggest are characteristic of a sphere. The distance to the horizon varying with height is one. This is what you'd expect on a sphere, you can see further over the curve. But then you explain it away in ways I don't really understand:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Viewing_Distance

And this is the issue I have with "you lot", and makes this sort of investigation difficult. If you're going to suggest mechanisms which explain why observations fit what you'd expect on a globe then what experiment can you do which would actually discriminate between the two models? That has to be the starting point.
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: edby on August 12, 2020, 12:56:11 PM
If you're going to suggest mechanisms which explain why observations fit what you'd expect on a globe then what experiment can you do which would actually discriminate between the two models? That has to be the starting point.
A quantitative approach would be a good start. There are many long discussions about how much of the height of a building has been obscured, or how tall a chimney might be. Find a way of clearly labelling a structure so that the points which are obscured (if any) are clear from a distance. Take temperature, pressure and humidity readings, document the height of the camera and make many many measurements at different times.

If FE research is going to be successful and make an impact on the scientific world, it needs to follow the scientific method, i.e. careful attention to how you are measuring things.

[EDIT] The time lapse below is a good example of the problem. Both sides claim it supports their model, because it is not clear how much of the buildings are obscured, nor do we know the height above lake level the film was taken.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTFEu-Tod7s
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Tumeni on August 12, 2020, 10:21:45 PM
For a water convexity test, I think by this stage everyone agrees that it is possible to see further than should be possible on an RE.

How can you "agree" on this if you're not yet convinced that light propagates in straight lines?

If you assert that light is or could be bending in a fashion you have not measured or determined, how can you form a conclusion such as you have above?
Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: Iceman2020 on August 26, 2020, 10:05:21 PM
Some cheap community-based tests to evaluate aspects of claims/predictions of FE and RE models:

1. Get a group of people, spread over as broad a range of latitudes (north and south of the equator) as possible, to measure the shadow length of n object of fixed height at their local solar noon on the upcoming fall equinox. Have them record their coordinates, take photos of their setup and shadow measurement, and conduct it in a public place, with identifiable landmarks. Post pictures and readings so that all reported coordinates, and measurements can be cross-validated by anyone who wishes to do so.

2. Minimum 3 people - one in southern america, one in southern africa, one in southern Australi/New Zealand - point their cameras due south, record star trails on the same night.

3. Take a long-haul southern hemisphere flight, bring a GPS with you. Take way point measurements every ~15 minutes or so. Plot the path you take, use the distance between points and time interval to evaluate for any changes in speed during the flight.

4. Obtain tide gauge data (public domain) for ports along oceans following seismic events that produce a  tsunami. Time interval between the seismic event (also public domain) and the arrival of tsunami waves at different coasts allows for the calculation of distance the wave has travelled.

5. Conduct your own pendulum experiments

6. Evaluate refractive effects of light bending over water by adding observers and instrumentation ( temperature, humidity etc) in between land-based observers, and ships dissapearing over the 'apparent' horizon.

Those are the cheapest and easiest experiments I can come up with. There are undoubtedly many others. In this age of instant communication, remember that it doesnt necessarily take big money to produce big data. Just ensure strict protocols are followed and record everything you do so that others can verify and replicate your work. Best of luck to you!

Title: Re: Brainstorming Community Tests of FE
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 27, 2020, 03:27:52 PM
1. Get a group of people, spread over as broad a range of latitudes (north and south of the equator) as possible, to measure the shadow length of n object of fixed height at their local solar noon on the upcoming fall equinox. Have them record their coordinates, take photos of their setup and shadow measurement, and conduct it in a public place, with identifiable landmarks. Post pictures and readings so that all reported coordinates, and measurements can be cross-validated by anyone who wishes to do so.

This has been done. Good video here showing the method and results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V03eF0bcYno

Well, I say good. It's a bit overly long really but if you skip some of the bits where he goes through thanking each participant and showing the results one by one it makes the point well.

I don't know what the FE explanation is. Possibly EA although I'm not sure if you can get the light to bend from any one point in a consistent way such that it matches the observed angles. The other possibility is that the points are mapped on to the plane incorrectly, the lack of a definitive FE map makes that placement tricky.

On the Wiki Zeteticism is described as:

Quote
In questioning the shape of the Earth the zetetic does not make a hypothesis suggesting that the Earth is round or flat and then proceed testing that hypothesis; he skips that step and devises an experiment that will determine the shape of the Earth, and bases his conclusion on the result of that experiment. Many feel this is a more reasonable method than the normal scientific method because it removes any preconceived notions and biases the formation of a hypothesis might cause, and leaves the conclusion up entirely to what is observed.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism

The issue here is how do you design an experiment to test that? I mean, you could, say, get in a rocket and observe the earth from space I guess. That experiment has been done of course, but it's not accessible to many people!

An observation can be made over water. Let's assume that the Bishop experiment is as described. What is the significance of being able to see the opposite beach? The conclusion drawn is the earth must be flat, but that's only true if light goes in straight lines in all cases and elsewhere the Wiki argues that is not a valid assumption. Or maybe that section of water really is flat, does that mean that all sections of water are? What has that experiment actually taught us? The conclusion can only be drawn if other assumptions are made.

The only experiments I can see which help here are ones of the form where you predict what the results should be in the heliocentric model or a FE model, do the experiment and see which model the results fit better. The trouble is from past experience if the results appear to back up a heliocentric model they are dismissed.

TL;DR, short of getting in a rocket and observing the earth, I don't know what experiment you can do which will determine the shape of the earth which can't be explained in some other way if you're determined to.