A Possible Demonstration of a Round Earth

Jupiter has a red spot that can be viewed through ground-based telescopes.  A simple youtube or google search will reveal many amateur and professional observations.  Because the Great Red Spot has a fixed latitude, we should be able to use its apparent location on Earth to say something about the shape of the surface on which we live.

Just to be clear, the tangent lines to the circle represent the approximate slope of the curve at that point, a representation of the orientation of the surface/horizon for an observer at that point.  The rays extending to the small sphere represent the way Jupiter would appear to be oriented to an observer at the tangent. 

If various observers were positioned across the planet and made simultaneous observations of the apparent location of the Great Red Spot, these observations could be compared in such a way that could, I think, could demonstrate whether or not the Earth is round.  On a flat plane, the red spot should be oriented in the same place according to all observers who can see the spot, regardless of their location on the plane.

The equipment necessary to carry this out is relatively inexpensive and can be operated by amateurs, as " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">this youtube video demonstrates.

Obviously, this is not a rigorous proof.  However, I believe that my logic is sound.  And, it could be tested by any FETers with minimal coordination and minimal expense. 

Jupiter has a red spot that can be viewed through ground-based telescopes.  A simple youtube or google search will reveal many amateur and professional observations.  Because the Great Red Spot has a fixed latitude, we should be able to use its apparent location on Earth to say something about the shape of the surface on which we live.

Just to be clear, the tangent lines to the circle represent the approximate slope of the curve at that point, a representation of the orientation of the surface/horizon for an observer at that point.  The rays extending to the small sphere represent the way Jupiter would appear to be oriented to an observer at the tangent. 

If various observers were positioned across the planet and made simultaneous observations of the apparent location of the Great Red Spot, these observations could be compared in such a way that could, I think, could demonstrate whether or not the Earth is round.  On a flat plane, the red spot should be oriented in the same place according to all observers who can see the spot, regardless of their location on the plane.

The equipment necessary to carry this out is relatively inexpensive and can be operated by amateurs, as " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">this youtube video demonstrates.

Obviously, this is not a rigorous proof.  However, I believe that my logic is sound.  And, it could be tested by any FETers with minimal coordination and minimal expense.

This might work if the scale on the picture that you posted was correct, the issue is that at such a great distance to Jupiter the relative and between the two observers would be vary minimal, or in other words the line of site from the two observers would be nearly parallel and i am pretty sure indistinguishable.  There is also the fact that the earth is tilted on its axis and rotating which would produce much more difficult results to interpret.

I think it would be easier to do this with a crater on the moon, but even then I am not sure exactly how it would work.

It appears to me that so long as the object in question is close enough that we can resolve fixed details from our surface, we should be able to determine the shape of that surface, regardless of the relative distances.  What is important is the relative differences in the values of the tangent lines at different points on the surface.  If the slope is always the same (ie. a flat Earth), then these fixed details of the object in question will always be oriented at the same latitude relative to all observers on the plane, so long as they are making their observations simultaneously.  Regardless of how far away the object is, if the slope of our surface changes, observers at different slopes will report differences in the orientation of the features of that object. 

I agree that such a method, if valid, could be tested on any number of celestial bodies with permanent, fixed, and observable features.  And, it is probably correct that examining closer bodies would make observations easier to make.

No one wants to have a go at this? 

I agree that such a method, if valid, could be tested on any number of celestial bodies with permanent, fixed, and observable features. 

I am finding this a little hard to follow, if truth be told. Am I right in thinking you assume the red spot does not move and is fixed? And that we can thereby use it to ascertain our own movement?

Because Jupiter has the fastest rotation of all planets according to RE theory. A sidereal day of just 9.92 hours. It also rotates 2-3 degrees off axis, has an elliptical orbit and the spot itself is a storm that does drift ... again all according to RE. So it isn't really as straight forward as assuming the spot is fixed ... because it isn't. It disappears to the far side of the planet as it turns, it moves in latitude with the seasons and other storms and currents buffet and wobble it because it is a product of atmospheric conditions.

In short, I don't see how you could use the spot to determine our position, when the damn thing keeps moving about.

Quote from: garygreen on May 12, 2012, 03:08:18 PM

I agree that such a method, if valid, could be tested on any number of celestial bodies with permanent, fixed, and observable features. 

I am finding this a little hard to follow, if truth be told. Am I right in thinking you assume the red spot does not move and is fixed? And that we can thereby use it to ascertain our own movement?

Because Jupiter has the fastest rotation of all planets according to RE theory. A sidereal day of just 9.92 hours. It also rotates 2-3 degrees off axis, has an elliptical orbit and the spot itself is a storm that does drift ... again all according to RE. So it isn't really as straight forward as assuming the spot is fixed ... because it isn't. It disappears to the far side of the planet as it turns, it moves in latitude with the seasons and other storms and currents buffet and wobble it because it is a product of atmospheric conditions.

In short, I don't see how you could use the spot to determine our position, when the damn thing keeps moving about.

As I explain in the OP, the red spot has a fixed latitude.  It rotates around the southern hemisphere, but it doesn't travel north or south.  It has never been observed to deviate from the atmospheric belt in which it resides.  It also maintains a constant oblateness relative to this belt and the direction in which it travels.

Also, since the observations should be taken simultaneously, it hardly matters where the red spot will move in the future.  We only need to observe Jupiter and compare its apparent location between the observers.  We can use other observable surface features such as atmospheric belts and smaller storms to calibrate these observations.

However, the movement of the spot is actually a blessing in disguise.  If the spot moves, we can make simultaneous observations across some length of time and use that movement to calibrate our results.  If one observer sees the spot in southern hemisphere moving west to east, and another observes the spot in the northern hemisphere moving east to west, we would have to conclude that one observer is upside-down in relation to the other.  There is no way for these observers to have such a disagreement on a flat Earth.  At least, none that I can see.

I suppose one observer on the flat Earth could be viewing Jupiter from directly beneath it and rotate any which way she pleases, although she still couldn't disagree with any other observer on the direction of its movement.  So, there's caveat #1: Neither observer should make her observations when Jupiter is directly overhead.

It also seems relevant to note that this experiment does not assume the conclusion.  In fact, unless I am mistaken, the only assumption it makes (other than that geometry is not fake) is that light doesn't do stuff like this:

Even this is hardly an assumption.  Contrary to popular belief around here, light is well understood.

Ok, sounds good. Set it up and post the results.

I suppose one observer on the flat Earth could be viewing Jupiter from directly beneath it and rotate any which way she pleases, although she still couldn't disagree with any other observer on the direction of its movement.  So, there's caveat #1: Neither observer should make her observations when Jupiter is directly overhead.

Seems a little sexist. Is there something you haven't told us, Gary?

Ok, sounds good. Set it up and post the results.

Quote from: garygreen on May 17, 2012, 11:06:03 AM

I suppose one observer on the flat Earth could be viewing Jupiter from directly beneath it and rotate any which way she pleases, although she still couldn't disagree with any other observer on the direction of its movement.  So, there's caveat #1: Neither observer should make her observations when Jupiter is directly overhead.

Seems a little sexist. Is there something you haven't told us, Gary?

I do not know anyone who lives at a significantly different latitude than I do, and the experiment cannot be conducted alone.  Plus, I already believe that the Earth is round, so I have understandably little incentive to find someone to help me conduct it. 

However, if you or anyone else knows someone who lives south of the equator, the equipment is relatively inexpensive, and a few hours of observations is all it would take.  I'd even be willing to make one of the sets of observations myself (I live in the Midwest US).

I know some of you like to perform experiments and such.  Maybe instead of taking yet another trip to the Bedford level, you could do a little social networking and find some amateur astronomers who would be willing to assist.  We don't need too many excuses to go out and snap some pics of Jupiter.

Again, unless I am mistaken (obviously possible), the results would be conclusive, and it relies on virtually no assumptions.  You could be the one to prove to the world that the Earth is flat!

Again, unless I am mistaken (obviously possible), the results would be conclusive, and it relies on virtually no assumptions.  You could be the one to prove to the world that the Earth is flat!

Unless I am mistaken, you are patronising me. With no intention of actually performing the experiment, I wonder why you bothered to make a thread about it and then demand a response from FErs?

No one wants to have a go at this? 

Have a go at what? Flying half way across the earth with a bunch of expensive equipment in the hope that the one millionth person to create an account on our forum happens to have the most amazing experiment to date? No, I'm not surprised no one wants to have a go at that.

Quote from: garygreen on May 17, 2012, 12:04:58 PM

Again, unless I am mistaken (obviously possible), the results would be conclusive, and it relies on virtually no assumptions.  You could be the one to prove to the world that the Earth is flat!

Unless I am mistaken, you are patronising me. With no intention of actually performing the experiment, I wonder why you bothered to make a thread about it and then demand a response from FErs?

Quote from: garygreen on May 17, 2012, 10:15:06 AM

No one wants to have a go at this? 

Have a go at what? Flying half way across the earth with a bunch of expensive equipment in the hope that the one millionth person to create an account on our forum happens to have the most amazing experiment to date? No, I'm not surprised no one wants to have a go at that.

I am not patronizing you.  I think I've been pretty cordial.  I was also explicit that I would be perfectly willing to make one of the sets of observations.  No one needs to fly anywhere.  The second set must be made simultaneously, so it only requires another properly-equipped observer.  Everyone I know is at approximately the same latitude as I am, thus I cannot complete the experiment alone.

I started this thread to have a debate about this experiment.  And, it does seem to me that, if my logic is sound, this experiment would be much more conclusive than any of the FE favorites, like the Bedford level experiments.  My experiment leaves no room for ambiguity.  The result answers a yes or no question.  Do any simultaneous observers ever disagree on the latitude of the spot?  If they ever do, then one of them must be upside-down in relation to the other.  Notice that it doesn't even come to the conclusion that the Earth is round.  It only draws a conclusion about their positions relative to one another, regardless of the overall shape of the surface.  We can analyze this conclusion in light of other things we know about geometry and such to conclude that if any two points on the Earth are connectable, and two observers can be upside-down in relation to one another, then the Earth must be rounded someplace.  From there it easily follows that the Earth must be round generally.

So, there's the starting point.  I think this experiment would produce less ambiguous results than the Bedford level experiment.  It has fewer assumptions and a smaller possibility of mistakes and errors. 

I don't see how this holds up if light bends.

I don't see how this holds up if light bends.

Light doesn't bend, unless with gravity. It difracts also but doesn't bend.

I don't see how this holds up if light bends.

The problem with this statement is the word "if".  Either you have evidence that light bends (which makes your senses untrustworthy) or you must trust your senses when they tell you that things are right where they appear to be.

I don't see how this holds up if light bends.

Would you mind elaborating?  I know very little of your beliefs on light, so it's hard for me to know where to begin unpacking.

For starters, I think we can come to at least one conclusion: if you believe that the bending of light is something intrinsic to light itself (that it "just bends," so to speak, either randomly, or arbitrarily, or perhaps according to some unknown pattern), then we are probably at an impasse.  At the very least, we'll probably just end up arguing about the properties of light to no avail.

However, if you believe, as I do, that the bending of light us caused by something extrinsic to light itself (gravity, refraction, etc.), then we can probably make some forward progress.  From there we could begin to inquire about what those conditions might be and if they are present anyplace between us and Jupiter.

That said, whether the bending of light is intrinsic or extrinsic, the paths that light from Jupiter would have to take to appear to be upside-down to two distant observers on a flat plane do strain the imagination.  As I illustrate in my shoddy (but sufficient) diagram, some light would leave the surface of Jupiter and travel to Earth in exactly the manner predicted by modern physics (the right side of my second diagram).  Some of the light, though, would not simply bend; it would do a corkscrew in exactly the right way, ending at exactly the correct angles when it strikes your eyes, to produce exactly the same image, without any other distortions, but upside-down.  It's hard to imagine how photons emitted from the same surface of the same source toward two observers who are (relative to the distance those photons will travel) in virtually identical locations could lead to such strikingly divergent observations.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 20, 2012, 10:20:31 PM

I don't see how this holds up if light bends.

The problem with this statement is the word "if".  Either you have evidence that light bends (which makes your senses untrustworthy) or you must trust your senses when they tell you that things are right where they appear to be.

Or, I can logically conclude that the conflicts I observe between different kinds of direct sensorial evidence can only be explained by the bending of light.


Gary, I will reply to you later this evening.

Quote from: markjo on May 21, 2012, 06:47:54 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 20, 2012, 10:20:31 PM

I don't see how this holds up if light bends.

The problem with this statement is the word "if".  Either you have evidence that light bends (which makes your senses untrustworthy) or you must trust your senses when they tell you that things are right where they appear to be.

Or, I can logically conclude that the conflicts I observe between different kinds of direct sensorial evidence can only be explained by the bending of light.

Everything can be explained with a theory without scientifical background.

Quote from: markjo on May 21, 2012, 06:47:54 AM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on May 20, 2012, 10:20:31 PM

I don't see how this holds up if light bends.

The problem with this statement is the word "if".  Either you have evidence that light bends (which makes your senses untrustworthy) or you must trust your senses when they tell you that things are right where they appear to be.

Or, I can logically conclude that the conflicts I observe between different kinds of direct sensorial evidence can only be explained by the bending of light.

Don't the water convexity experiments that prove that the earth is flat rely on the premise that light does not bend?

Yes? You know markjo, you've been here a while, so at this stage you should be aware that I don't agree with Rowbotham's model. Indeed, I am fairly certain I've said as much to you in the past, though I cannot be bothered to dig up a quote. I've certainly said it pretty regularly to various people here over the years.

I'm sorry but I just can't see how you resolve the apparent conflict of light bending and the earth's apparent flatness.  If you believe that light bends, then how can you trust your senses when they tell you that the earth is flat?  If you believe that light bends, then what is your standard for straightness?  These are not trivial concerns. 

Yes, I have been here for a while and these are questions that I've never gotten satisfactory answers to.  If you are tired of answering these questions over and over, then perhaps you should include them in the FAQ and/or the FEW (or whatever they're calling it these days).

I have discussed that problem at length elsewhere. Do a search for it, it was pretty recent, and if I recall you were involved. I am not claiming it is a trivial concern. However, I am saying that you know full well (or should know full well) that I do not agree with Rowbotham in that respect. Asking me whether I do is just playing games. You know I don't, so why ask?

I'm sorry but I just can't see how you resolve the apparent conflict of light bending and the earth's apparent flatness.  If you believe that light bends, then how can you trust your senses when they tell you that the earth is flat?  If you believe that light bends, then what is your standard for straightness?  These are not trivial concerns. 

Yes, I have been here for a while and these are questions that I've never gotten satisfactory answers to.  If you are tired of answering these questions over and over, then perhaps you should include them in the FAQ and/or the FEW (or whatever they're calling it these days).

I have had the same problem. Light magically bends in just the exact amount to fool us into believing the Earth is round, And not just vertically, through the infamous formula with unknowable constants, but also horizontally. But not only that, light magically knows exactly by how much it has to violate the principle of conservation of energy to illuminate about as much the small areas with the Sun close to the zenith and the very large areas with the Sun close to the horizon.

And all of this is done in a fiendishly clever way to fool us humans into believing the Earth is round. Therefore we have to become Zetetic and not believe what ours eyes tell us because it is the deceptive information that light decided to give us. I wish I was half as smart as bendy light is.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43846774@N02/4879463436/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25457453@N08/4860369944/

I still don't really get how it's possible for two people to see Jupiter so differently while making (nearly) simultaneous observations, unless they are upside down in relation to one another.

I don't see how this holds up if light bends.

This experiment tests for predictions made by RET.  RET doesn't hold that light bends all that significantly between the atmosphere and space.  If we want to confirm or defeat a FET with this experiment, we need to come up with predictions made using a FE model.  What models should we use, and how do we make the predictions for each?

I'd help, but my telescope isn't powerful enough for me to see the red spot.  It should be noted though that testing will be difficult with jupiter currently just coming out from behind the sun.

Quote from: garygreen on May 12, 2012, 03:08:18 PM

I agree that such a method, if valid, could be tested on any number of celestial bodies with permanent, fixed, and observable features. 

I am finding this a little hard to follow, if truth be told. Am I right in thinking you assume the red spot does not move and is fixed? And that we can thereby use it to ascertain our own movement?

Because Jupiter has the fastest rotation of all planets according to RE theory. A sidereal day of just 9.92 hours. It also rotates 2-3 degrees off axis, has an elliptical orbit and the spot itself is a storm that does drift ... again all according to RE. So it isn't really as straight forward as assuming the spot is fixed ... because it isn't. It disappears to the far side of the planet as it turns, it moves in latitude with the seasons and other storms and currents buffet and wobble it because it is a product of atmospheric conditions.

In short, I don't see how you could use the spot to determine our position, when the damn thing keeps moving about.

Round Earth isn't a theory until you prove it wrong, which you have failed to do and always will fail to do.

Quote from: Thork on May 17, 2012, 10:26:35 AM

Quote from: garygreen on May 12, 2012, 03:08:18 PM

I agree that such a method, if valid, could be tested on any number of celestial bodies with permanent, fixed, and observable features. 

I am finding this a little hard to follow, if truth be told. Am I right in thinking you assume the red spot does not move and is fixed? And that we can thereby use it to ascertain our own movement?

Because Jupiter has the fastest rotation of all planets according to RE theory. A sidereal day of just 9.92 hours. It also rotates 2-3 degrees off axis, has an elliptical orbit and the spot itself is a storm that does drift ... again all according to RE. So it isn't really as straight forward as assuming the spot is fixed ... because it isn't. It disappears to the far side of the planet as it turns, it moves in latitude with the seasons and other storms and currents buffet and wobble it because it is a product of atmospheric conditions.

In short, I don't see how you could use the spot to determine our position, when the damn thing keeps moving about.

Round Earth isn't a theory until you prove it wrong, which you have failed to do and always will fail to do.

You need to look up the definition of a scientific theory

Honestly it is near impossible for the common man to, without shadow of doubt, find the red shift. The amount of money needed to obtain the correct equipment is costly.

I will stick to believing the PHD holding scientists who do this stuff on a daily basis.