Jumping in front of a Iphone 7 camera and then having the balls stating you measured those jumps down to micrometers.
You're an utter disgrace to every proper engineer out there.
Nice work, but the wolf pack will find some little thing to discredit you.
Jumping in front of a Iphone 7 camera and then having the balls stating you measured those jumps down to micrometers.
You're an utter disgrace to every proper engineer out there.
I appreciate your comment kind sir or ma'm, but I have spent the past three years of my life doing research to be able to make measurements that precise. You think I had money left for a fancy smancy camera? Self funding is hard.
Fellow Flat Earthers and respected Globers. I have been working on this experiment for a few months now and believe I have disproved the spinning globe model of our planet, while simultaneously proving the Flat Earth model!
I graduated from the school of engineering and applied sciences at the George Washington University with a degree in Mechanical Engineering and am two years into a PhD at Carnegie Mellon University. I was introduced to the idea of FE by one of my classmates midway through last school year. I’ll admit at first, I was dubious about what she was telling me. After a couple of days of research, however, it all started to make sense. With a few sentences, she had opened up my mind to a level I thought was never possible.
How could I have been brainwashed for all these years?
<image of flat earth> (http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image002.png)
As time went on, I started realizing that there was a slight disconnect with the FE theories and the scientific methods I was learning in school. A lot of Globers were telling me that if I put these ideas to the “test”, the FE model would not hold up. In my heart though, I knew these ideas were right, and using the scientific methods and theories I have learned over the course of my education, I believe I have proved it! Below, I will describe to you how I did it.
*Disclaimer: I apologize to any other Flat Earthers who may have run similar tests. I have done a lot of research on this topic and have not seen anything like it on the web, but I am only human, so I may have missed the articles or blog posts.
To understand my method and logic, I must first explain a phenomenon that occurs from the spinning globe model that Globers believe in. If the earth were a spinning ball, centrifugal force would cause the equator to bulge out a little causing cities near the equator to be farther from the center of the earth than cities farther away from the equator. Below is an image to show this:
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image004.png)
The globe on the left is what most Globers imagine the earth to look like. The “scientifically accurate” version of this model looks like the image on the right.
Now, based on scientists’ theories of gravity, the farther you are from the center of the earth, the lower the acceleration of gravity. Therefore, if I measured the acceleration of gravity at two different locations on the planet, they should be different. BUT WE FLAT EARTHERS KNOW THAT THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS.
Since the earth is flat, it is just accelerating at 9.807 m/s^2 in space creating a uniform gravitational field. This means that if Flat Earth is correct, no matter where I measure the acceleration of gravity, I should get the same value… and that’s exactly what happened. Here is how I went about doing the experiment.
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image006.png)
I am originally from NY state and that’s where I took my first measurements. I used a condo that my uncle owns in up state New York to run my tests. I used an iPhone 7 video camera to record myself jumping, then analyzed the video frame by frame to measure my acceleration. Below is one of the frames from one of the trials.
I propped the phone using a vice and did not move it during all trials for the day. I was sure to mark exactly where everything was relative to everything else before taking my phone for the night. I also knew how far I was jumping from the camera with great accuracy (to within micrometers). I also measured my height to within micrometers. Using these two values, I was able get an extremely accurate value for my height off the ground for each frame. Since I knew the frame rate of the camera, I had a plot of my distance from the ground as a function of time. Using a simple formula, I was able to calculate the acceleration.
I did this with 100 different jumps to account for random error. I then took a trip out to Indonesia and stayed with some relatives who live very close to the equator to run another 100 jumps. Here are plots of the results:
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image008.png)
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image010.png)
As you can see, the average is 9.807 m/s^2 in both places! I crunched the numbers and if the earth was actually a spinning globe, in the New York state location, I would be 19 km closer to the center of the earth so I should have measured 9.809 m/s^2. While in Indonesia, I should have measured 9.805. As you can see in the zoomed in plots, my data does not hit these values even with random error.
I have peer reviewed that data my self and even showed some of my colleagues who agree with me.
I urge other Flat Earthers and Globers alike to run similar experiments so we can finally end this nonsensical argument once and for all!
Fellow Flat Earthers and respected Globers. I have been working on this experiment for a few months now and believe I have disproved the spinning globe model of our planet, while simultaneously proving the Flat Earth model!Lots of people have claimed that and completely failed.
Yes, a very small amount.
To understand my method and logic, I must first explain a phenomenon that occurs from the spinning globe model that Globers believe in. If the earth were a spinning ball, centrifugal force would cause the equator to bulge out a little causing cities near the equator to be farther from the center of the earth than cities farther away from the equator. Below is an image to show this:
Now, based on scientists’ theories of gravity, the farther you are from the center of the earth, the lower the acceleration of gravity. Therefore, if I measured the acceleration of gravity at two different locations on the planet, they should be different.Yes, that is true. And that is also what happens.
BUT WE FLAT EARTHERS KNOW THAT THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS.Really?
This means that if Flat Earth is correct, no matter where I measure the acceleration of gravity, I should get the same value… and that’s exactly what happened. Here is how I went about doing the experiment.And it is exactly NOT what numerous others have done.
An iPhone camera cannot record to micrometer accuracy, so you are already lying.
I propped the phone using a vice and did not move it during all trials for the day. I was sure to mark exactly where everything was relative to everything else before taking my phone for the night. I also knew how far I was jumping from the camera with great accuracy (to within micrometers). I also measured my height to within micrometers. Using these two values, I was able get an extremely accurate value for my height off the ground for each frame. Since I knew the frame rate of the camera, I had a plot of my distance from the ground as a function of time. Using a simple formula, I was able to calculate the acceleration.
I did this with 100 different jumps to account for random error. I then took a trip out to Indonesia and stayed with some relatives who live very close to the equator to run another 100 jumps. Here are plots of the results:You are looking for an average, so that isn't the right way to plot it in the first place.
I have peer reviewed that data my selfThat is not peer review.
even showed some of my colleagues who agree with me.i.e. the ones that were already FEers? Did you just show the data or also the methodology?
I urge other Flat Earthers and Globers alike to run similar experiments so we can finally end this nonsensical argument once and for all!Without expensive equipment I would not be able to measure i accurately enough to tell.
I appreciate your comment kind sir or ma'm, but I have spent the past three years of my life doing research to be able to make measurements that precise. You think I had money left for a fancy smancy camera? Self funding is hard.Unless you can show how, I'm calling bullshit, as it is physically impossible to measure to that degree of accuracy using that camera showing that much.
Told you, they will throw everything at you to discredit you.You mean what you are doing in the other thread, completely ignoring the argument and focusing on a very small and false thing and trying to blow it out of proportion to pretend you are right, or in the other one where you are demanding a FBD which is completely unneeded as people have explained the forces involved.
But this is just the first phase. Once you start writing back, why will find a very small insignificant thing and blow it out of proportion.
If you have any ideas on how to calculate the distance that a signal photon can travel, please tell me.As you have been told, the formula is quite simple:
A gravimeter is an instrument used in gravimetry for measuring the local gravitational field of the Earth. A gravimeter is a type of accelerometer, specialized for measuring the constant downward acceleration of gravity, which varies by about 0.5% over the surface of the Earth.
The Eötvös effect is the change in perceived gravitational force caused by the change in centrifugal acceleration resulting from eastbound or westbound velocity.
These videos are relevant to this topic.
In the first a set of high quality (force neasuring) scales are calibrated with a 500 g mass in Perth, Australia then taken to other locations.Perth: Lat 31°57.64'S Weight=500.00 g
Flat Earth vs Globe - Does weight change with Latitude? Is this evidence the Earth is spinning?
Canberra: Lat 35°18.55'S Weight=500.16 g
Perth: Lat 31°57.64'S Weight=500.00 g, return
Broome: Lat 17°57.07'S Weight=499.44 g
The second video shows a similar measurement on an aircraft flying nearly east than nearly west,
again showing a difference in weight, depending on the direction,QuoteThe Eötvös effect is the change in perceived gravitational force caused by the change in centrifugal acceleration resulting from eastbound or westbound velocity.I hope you find them of interest.
Flat Earth vs Globe - The Eötvös effect observed in aircraft - how does it affect Gravity?
Fellow Flat Earthers and respected Globers. I have been working on this experiment for a few months now and believe I have disproved the spinning globe model of our planet, while simultaneously proving the Flat Earth model!
I graduated from the school of engineering and applied sciences at the George Washington University with a degree in Mechanical Engineering and am two years into a PhD at Carnegie Mellon University. I was introduced to the idea of FE by one of my classmates midway through last school year. I’ll admit at first, I was dubious about what she was telling me. After a couple of days of research, however, it all started to make sense. With a few sentences, she had opened up my mind to a level I thought was never possible. How could I have been brainwashed for all these years?
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image002.png)
As time went on, I started realizing that there was a slight disconnect with the FE theories and the scientific methods I was learning in school. A lot of Globers were telling me that if I put these ideas to the “test”, the FE model would not hold up. In my heart though, I knew these ideas were right, and using the scientific methods and theories I have learned over the course of my education, I believe I have proved it! Below, I will describe to you how I did it.
*Disclaimer: I apologize to any other Flat Earthers who may have run similar tests. I have done a lot of research on this topic and have not seen anything like it on the web, but I am only human, so I may have missed the articles or blog posts.
To understand my method and logic, I must first explain a phenomenon that occurs from the spinning globe model that Globers believe in. If the earth were a spinning ball, centrifugal force would cause the equator to bulge out a little causing cities near the equator to be farther from the center of the earth than cities farther away from the equator. Below is an image to show this:
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image004.png)
The globe on the left is what most Globers imagine the earth to look like. The “scientifically accurate” version of this model looks like the image on the right.
Now, based on scientists’ theories of gravity, the farther you are from the center of the earth, the lower the acceleration of gravity. Therefore, if I measured the acceleration of gravity at two different locations on the planet, they should be different. BUT WE FLAT EARTHERS KNOW THAT THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS.
Since the earth is flat, it is just accelerating at 9.807 m/s^2 in space creating a uniform gravitational field. This means that if Flat Earth is correct, no matter where I measure the acceleration of gravity, I should get the same value… and that’s exactly what happened. Here is how I went about doing the experiment.
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image006.png)
I am originally from NY state and that’s where I took my first measurements. I used a condo that my uncle owns in up state New York to run my tests. I used an iPhone 7 video camera to record myself jumping, then analyzed the video frame by frame to measure my acceleration. Below is one of the frames from one of the trials.
I propped the phone using a vice and did not move it during all trials for the day. I was sure to mark exactly where everything was relative to everything else before taking my phone for the night. I also knew how far I was jumping from the camera with great accuracy (to within micrometers). I also measured my height to within micrometers. Using these two values, I was able get an extremely accurate value for my height off the ground for each frame. Since I knew the frame rate of the camera, I had a plot of my distance from the ground as a function of time. Using a simple formula, I was able to calculate the acceleration.
I did this with 100 different jumps to account for random error. I then took a trip out to Indonesia and stayed with some relatives who live very close to the equator to run another 100 jumps. Here are plots of the results:
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image008.png)
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image010.png)
As you can see, the average is 9.807 m/s^2 in both places! I crunched the numbers and if the earth was actually a spinning globe, in the New York state location, I would be 19 km closer to the center of the earth so I should have measured 9.809 m/s^2. While in Indonesia, I should have measured 9.805. As you can see in the zoomed in plots, my data does not hit these values even with random error.
I have peer reviewed that data my self and even showed some of my colleagues who agree with me. I urge other Flat Earthers and Globers alike to run similar experiments so we can finally end this nonsensical argument once and for all!
I just get triggered by people claiming to be engineers/PhD's and then clearly proving that they are not :(I've no idea if he is or not, but it's fucking obvious piece of satire.
I have peer reviewed that data my selfClearly humorous.
See my posts. I have used the technical specifications of the camera he said he used, plus the one photo he provided. I did not need anything else to prove that his 'experiment' is bullcrap or a lie.
There is no need to invest additional time in that, as the measurements he claimed to make are impossible under the conditions he described.
The wolf pack has moved on the next stage of making fun of you and calling you names.
If they would truly interested in your work, they would ask for the data readings themselves. It is funny how they can prove you wrong, without ever looking at the actual numbers of your experiment.
Since phones are not acceptable instruments for testing, then the video has to be disregarded as to where his location is, since is based on an iPhone and not an expensive machinery that cost thousands of dollars.Who said they aren't acceptable instruments?
If they would truly interested in your work, they would ask for the data readings themselves. It is funny how they can prove you wrong, without ever looking at the actual numbers of your experiment.You mean like I did?
The wolf pack has moved on the next stage of making fun of you and calling you names.
If they would truly interested in your work, they would ask for the data readings themselves. It is funny how they can prove you wrong, without ever looking at the actual numbers of your experiment.
That's because the guy is a jack ass and is no way doing a PhD in engineering......self peer review...give me a break?
I challenge this goon to provide evidence of the department he is in and his prof who is overseeing his project. He could also give us some info of his area of research. As he is in his 2nd year he must have contributed to some published papers, links to these would be good. Going by what he has provided so far the possibility of him being a PhD student is nil!
See my posts. I have used the technical specifications of the camera he said he used, plus the one photo he provided. I did not need anything else to prove that his 'experiment' is bullcrap or a lie.
There is no need to invest additional time in that, as the measurements he claimed to make are impossible under the conditions he described.
But you take the time to attack all topics that go against he Heliocentric model...
See my posts. I have used the technical specifications of the camera he said he used, plus the one photo he provided. I did not need anything else to prove that his 'experiment' is bullcrap or a lie.
There is no need to invest additional time in that, as the measurements he claimed to make are impossible under the conditions he described.
But you take the time to attack all topics that go against he Heliocentric model...
Just when I am procrastinating. Also, not all, just the ones that trigger me ;D
So you accept that this experiment is utter bullshit and it is impossible with the given equipment to make such precise calculations? Good.
See my posts. I have used the technical specifications of the camera he said he used, plus the one photo he provided. I did not need anything else to prove that his 'experiment' is bullcrap or a lie.
There is no need to invest additional time in that, as the measurements he claimed to make are impossible under the conditions he described.
But you take the time to attack all topics that go against he Heliocentric model...
Just when I am procrastinating. Also, not all, just the ones that trigger me ;D
So you accept that this experiment is utter bullshit and it is impossible with the given equipment to make such precise calculations? Good.
I have to see the numerical data first, but I'm not interested if the data is precise, but it is accurate and if you had an engineering degree you would know the difference!
I have to see the numerical data first, but I'm not interested if the data is precise, but it is accurate and if you had an engineering degree you would know the difference!I care about both.
See my posts. I have used the technical specifications of the camera he said he used, plus the one photo he provided. I did not need anything else to prove that his 'experiment' is bullcrap or a lie.
There is no need to invest additional time in that, as the measurements he claimed to make are impossible under the conditions he described.
But you take the time to attack all topics that go against he Heliocentric model...
Just when I am procrastinating. Also, not all, just the ones that trigger me ;D
So you accept that this experiment is utter bullshit and it is impossible with the given equipment to make such precise calculations? Good.
I have to see the numerical data first, but I'm not interested if the data is precise, but it is accurate and if you had an engineering degree you would know the difference!
Never said I had one. I have one in math and one in physics. And I know that for a decent experiment you need both accuracy and precision.
I am just saying that when your systematic errors are 10 times (in time) or 100 times (in pixel precisions) higher than the value that needs to be measured then you have a huge problem. You could maybe circumvent that by taking a large number of measurements (I am talking far more than 100, it would have to be at least 10.000 or so), but alone looking at the photo you see that his legs are not perfectly straight. As you can not assume that he moves exactly the same during each jump there are errors of cm-level induced by that. Even if your bias was exactly zero you would need an insane amount of measurements to account for that.
Then you look at his figures and see that the values measured between jumps deviate only by about 0.5%, which is simply impossible as you can only determine the value up to 3.3% due to finite number of frames. In addition to that he claimed to have measured micrometer-level precision, which is simply impossible with his equipment. The only conclusion you can draw is that the data are faked.
In your opinion, for an experiment be to be valid, to how many decimal places must the reading be?That depends upon what you are trying to prove.
If somebody was measuring the height of an object, that was 2 meter tall, how many decimal places must he measure to, cm, mm...Again, it depends upon what you are trying to prove.
But remember with your answer, you will claim that all experiments that we conducted without this extend, are bogus!No I won't, because I realise the precision needed will vary depending upon what you are trying to do.
See my posts. I have used the technical specifications of the camera he said he used, plus the one photo he provided. I did not need anything else to prove that his 'experiment' is bullcrap or a lie.
There is no need to invest additional time in that, as the measurements he claimed to make are impossible under the conditions he described.
But you take the time to attack all topics that go against he Heliocentric model...
Just when I am procrastinating. Also, not all, just the ones that trigger me ;D
So you accept that this experiment is utter bullshit and it is impossible with the given equipment to make such precise calculations? Good.
I have to see the numerical data first, but I'm not interested if the data is precise, but it is accurate and if you had an engineering degree you would know the difference!
Never said I had one. I have one in math and one in physics. And I know that for a decent experiment you need both accuracy and precision.
I am just saying that when your systematic errors are 10 times (in time) or 100 times (in pixel precisions) higher than the value that needs to be measured then you have a huge problem. You could maybe circumvent that by taking a large number of measurements (I am talking far more than 100, it would have to be at least 10.000 or so), but alone looking at the photo you see that his legs are not perfectly straight. As you can not assume that he moves exactly the same during each jump there are errors of cm-level induced by that. Even if your bias was exactly zero you would need an insane amount of measurements to account for that.
Then you look at his figures and see that the values measured between jumps deviate only by about 0.5%, which is simply impossible as you can only determine the value up to 3.3% due to finite number of frames. In addition to that he claimed to have measured micrometer-level precision, which is simply impossible with his equipment. The only conclusion you can draw is that the data are faked.
In your opinion, for an experiment be to be valid, to how many decimal places must the reading be?
If somebody was measuring the height of an object, that was 2 meter tall, how many decimal places must he measure to, cm, mm...
But remember with your answer, you will claim that all experiments that we conducted without this extend, are bogus!
If you will not answer because you don't know, then your statement of this experiment not being valid is bogus!!!
In your opinion, for an experiment be to be valid, to how many decimal places must the reading be?That depends upon what you are trying to prove.If somebody was measuring the height of an object, that was 2 meter tall, how many decimal places must he measure to, cm, mm...Again, it depends upon what you are trying to prove.
If you are trying to prove these 2 objects are the same and thus a hypothesis which says they are a few micrometers different is false, then you need it to within a micrometer.
If you are trying to prove it was 2 m tall, then a few cm would be fine.But remember with your answer, you will claim that all experiments that we conducted without this extend, are bogus!No I won't, because I realise the precision needed will vary depending upon what you are trying to do.
A ball bearing needs much greater precision than a kids toy of putting a rod through a hole.
My mistake, let me clarify my question, To what percentage of the objects height must a person be accurate in making his readings, 99%, 99.9% , 99,99999%
My mistake, let me clarify my question, To what percentage of the objects height must a person be accurate in making his readings, 99%, 99.9% , 99,99999%
That depends on your required precision. You can not make a general statement about that.
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:
I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.
But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.
I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.
But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?
Dude the experiment was a jokeHe presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.
I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.
But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?
I don't know, the iPhones are good telephones, but I use Android.
Let me put it to you this way, the camera on the iPhone is much better video cameras then the ones costing thousands of dollars 30 years ago. So with this logic, the measuring instruments of the iPhone will be just as good as the measuring instruments of 30 years ago.
If you discard the measurement, then you also have to discard all measurement before 30 years ago also.
My mistake, let me clarify my question, To what percentage of the objects height must a person be accurate in making his readings, 99%, 99.9% , 99,99999%Your question is fine, you are just ignoring the answer.
OK, for this example, what % accuracy would you expect his readings to be.That would depend upon his exact methodology, i.e. exactly what he is measuring and calculating.
And how can people disregard this work, without even looking at the numerical data
Let me put it to you this way, the camera on the iPhone is much better video cameras then the ones costing thousands of dollars 30 years ago. So with this logic, the measuring instruments of the iPhone will be just as good as the measuring instruments of 30 years ago.No.
If you discard the measurement, then you also have to discard all measurement before 30 years ago also.
Since the earth is flat, it is just accelerating at 9.807 m/s^2 in space creating a uniform gravitational field
If the earth were a spinning ball, centrifugal force would cause the equator to bulge out a little causing cities near the equator to be farther from the center of the earth than cities farther away from the equator. Below is an image to show this:
I used an iPhone 7 video camera to record myself jumping, then analyzed the video frame by frame to measure my acceleration.
I also knew how far I was jumping from the camera with great accuracy (to within micrometers).
I also measured my height to within micrometers.
Erm, am I imagining it or has OP admitted this was a prank?Yeah, it's a prank
And you guys are still arguing?
This is insane... Inflatearth give it up man, you're making all these ridiculous posts and threads and just clogging up the genuinely interesting debate going on between other members.
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image008.png)
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image010.png)
Nice work, but the wolf pack will find some little thing to discredit you. They will throw everything at you, even the kitchen sink, but my advice, is to put them down with facts and science.
When you use science, they will start pulling rabbits out of the hat.
I too am an ME and believe in the Flat Earth, since it is the only thing that hold up in true science.
I have placed them up against a wall with my last thread,
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0)
In which I give then two real airports and I ask them to draw me a Free Body Diagram of an airplane landing and to show all the forces, especially the ones that keep the airplane in sync with the ground. So far, I have not had any Free Body Diagrams, because they can’t do the physics.
But I’m curtain that they will pull some Dark Matter energy to try to confuse the subject, because that is what they do. When they are placed on the wall, they will start stating nonsense in order to discourage you.
I suggest, instead of showing the graphs, do some statistical analysis with standard deviations and averages to prove your point with math. It was very smart of you to do 100 jumps. If you need help, send me a message.
Good luck
The time occupied by the moon in returning to the same star is called the time of her sidereal revolution. At the beginning of this century it amounted to 27.32 mean solar days. Its value is not the same in every century. From the time of the most ancient observations until the present day, we find that the sidereal revolution has been gradually becoming shorter and shorter. Will this acceleration always continue? This is a question which observation is incapable of deciding.
Popular Astronomy by Francois Arago 1858 - Page 235
I too am an ME and believe in the Flat Earth, since it is the only thing that hold up in true science.
Explain thisQuoteThe time occupied by the moon in returning to the same star is called the time of her sidereal revolution. At the beginning of this century it amounted to 27.32 mean solar days. Its value is not the same in every century. From the time of the most ancient observations until the present day, we find that the sidereal revolution has been gradually becoming shorter and shorter. Will this acceleration always continue? This is a question which observation is incapable of deciding.
Popular Astronomy by Francois Arago 1858 - Page 235
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bNAUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA257&dq=Popular+astronomy+volume+2&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUsPij6e7TAhWELcAKHQfdDo4Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Popular%20astronomy%20volume%202&f=false
He presented the numerical data in the plots. I say that the accuracy displayed there can not be achieved with his equipment.I am actually curious in your honest answer InFlatEarth. If you guys want more, here is the matlab code I used to "analyze" the data:
I would expect the precision of the results to be of order 5-10%, but this is just a rough guess and definitely depends on the used method.
As he wants to determine a 0.25% difference (at most), I would want an accuracy at this order of magnitude.
But please be honest with youself: Do you really think the obtained data with only 0.5% deviation can be obtained with an iphone 7 video camera and a person jumping?
fake = zeros(1,100);
fake(1:100) = 9.807;
fluc = rand([2 100]);
fluc2 = (fluc-0.5)./1000;
data = fluc2+9.807
trial = 1:1:100;
figure(1)
plot(trial,data(1,:),'b-o')
title('New York State');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
figure(2)
plot(trial,data(2,:),'b-o')
title('Indonesia');
xlabel('Trial Number');
ylabel('Acceleration of Gravity');
hold on
plot(trial,fake,'r');
legend('Measured Values','Average');
I apologize to the people who put effort into showing me the flaws in my "methods". I did learn about the existence of a gravimeter from you guys though. InFlatEarth, I appreciate you defending me, but your defenses don't really make any sense. I did graduate from GW but I have not been a PhD student for two years. In truth, I just graduated College and am starting my PhD at CMU this fall. In the words of my favorite cartoon character ever, "I just got bored. Everybody out." ... JimmyTheCrab probably gets that reference ;)
The guy was a fraud, but was he a Flat Earther or a Spherical Earther that posted nonsense to make the Flat Earth look bad.How about that map? Or your calculations on the size of the sun and moon? Anything?
That is the real question, is it not.
But he did prove a point. You first attack, without even looking at the data!!!
The guy was a fraud, but was he a Flat Earther or a Spherical Earther that posted nonsense to make the Flat Earth look bad.How about that map? Or your calculations on the size of the sun and moon? Anything?
That is the real question, is it not.
But he did prove a point. You first attack, without even looking at the data!!!
But a map should be easy. Just make it fit known observations.The guy was a fraud, but was he a Flat Earther or a Spherical Earther that posted nonsense to make the Flat Earth look bad.How about that map? Or your calculations on the size of the sun and moon? Anything?
That is the real question, is it not.
But he did prove a point. You first attack, without even looking at the data!!!
Rome was not built in a day...
A songs for you, but you are probably too young to remember them when they came out
The guy was a fraud, but was he a Flat Earther or a Spherical Earther that posted nonsense to make the Flat Earth look bad.
That is the real question, is it not.
But he did prove a point. You first attack, without even looking at the data!!!
What data, and he did prove a point, you first attack and then ask questions!!!!
Who asked to see the data first?
Must I remind you that I asked him to post it on the Thread...
Nice work, but the wolf pack will find some little thing to discredit you. They will throw everything at you, even the kitchen sink, but my advice, is to put them down with facts and science.
When you use science, they will start pulling rabbits out of the hat.
I too am an ME and believe in the Flat Earth, since it is the only thing that hold up in true science.
I have placed them up against a wall with my last thread,
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71355.0)
In which I give then two real airports and I ask them to draw me a Free Body Diagram of an airplane landing and to show all the forces, especially the ones that keep the airplane in sync with the ground. So far, I have not had any Free Body Diagrams, because they can’t do the physics.
But I’m curtain that they will pull some Dark Matter energy to try to confuse the subject, because that is what they do. When they are placed on the wall, they will start stating nonsense in order to discourage you.
I suggest, instead of showing the graphs, do some statistical analysis with standard deviations and averages to prove your point with math. It was very smart of you to do 100 jumps. If you need help, send me a message.
Good luck
The wolf pack has moved on the next stage of making fun of you and calling you names.[/size]
If they would truly interested in your work, they would ask for the data readings themselves. It is funny how they can prove you wrong, without ever looking at the actual numbers of your experiment.
The guy was a fraud, but was he a Flat Earther or a Spherical Earther that posted nonsense to make the Flat Earth look bad.No, he did prove a point.
That is the real question, is it not.
But he did prove a point. You first attack, without even looking at the data!!!
What data, and he did prove a point, you first attack and then ask questions!!!!Must I remind you that I asked before you, in my very first reply, while you were bitching about how "mean" the REers are coming on in groups and pointing out bullshit?
Who asked to see the data first?
Must I remind you that I asked him to post it on the Thread...
If they would truly interested in your work, they would ask for the data readings themselves. It is funny how they can prove you wrong, without ever looking at the actual numbers of your experiment.
So you accept that this experiment is utter bullshit and it is impossible with the given equipment to make such precise calculations? Good.I have to see the numerical data first, but I'm not interested if the data is precise, but it is accurate and if you had an engineering degree you would know the difference!
Tell us your exact methodology.
Tell us exactly what you measured and how.
Tell us what calculations you then did.
Tell us how you determined your camera's frame rate, including what it actually uses and what effects things like temperature might have on that.
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image008.png)
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image010.png)
Just because InFlatEarth keeps arguing that he wanted to see the data: It was presented exactly there. The 200 data points he was looking for. In the OP. As this arguments spans several threads I will just post it here, please cite it whenever he starts spouting BS again.
Fellow Flat Earthers and respected Globers. I have been working on this experiment for a few months now and believe I have disproved the spinning globe model of our planet, while simultaneously proving the Flat Earth model!You could rent a high speed camera and try the experiment again. The fps on a cell phone camera is not nearly high enough resolve any differences in acceleration. But, a high speed camera will give you the resolution and a definitive answer. There would be no doubts and nobody could dispute your findings.
I graduated from the school of engineering and applied sciences at the George Washington University with a degree in Mechanical Engineering and am two years into a PhD at Carnegie Mellon University. I was introduced to the idea of FE by one of my classmates midway through last school year. I’ll admit at first, I was dubious about what she was telling me. After a couple of days of research, however, it all started to make sense. With a few sentences, she had opened up my mind to a level I thought was never possible. How could I have been brainwashed for all these years?
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image002.png)
As time went on, I started realizing that there was a slight disconnect with the FE theories and the scientific methods I was learning in school. A lot of Globers were telling me that if I put these ideas to the “test”, the FE model would not hold up. In my heart though, I knew these ideas were right, and using the scientific methods and theories I have learned over the course of my education, I believe I have proved it! Below, I will describe to you how I did it.
*Disclaimer: I apologize to any other Flat Earthers who may have run similar tests. I have done a lot of research on this topic and have not seen anything like it on the web, but I am only human, so I may have missed the articles or blog posts.
To understand my method and logic, I must first explain a phenomenon that occurs from the spinning globe model that Globers believe in. If the earth were a spinning ball, centrifugal force would cause the equator to bulge out a little causing cities near the equator to be farther from the center of the earth than cities farther away from the equator. Below is an image to show this:
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image004.png)
The globe on the left is what most Globers imagine the earth to look like. The “scientifically accurate” version of this model looks like the image on the right.
Now, based on scientists’ theories of gravity, the farther you are from the center of the earth, the lower the acceleration of gravity. Therefore, if I measured the acceleration of gravity at two different locations on the planet, they should be different. BUT WE FLAT EARTHERS KNOW THAT THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS.
Since the earth is flat, it is just accelerating at 9.807 m/s^2 in space creating a uniform gravitational field. This means that if Flat Earth is correct, no matter where I measure the acceleration of gravity, I should get the same value… and that’s exactly what happened. Here is how I went about doing the experiment.
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image006.png)
I am originally from NY state and that’s where I took my first measurements. I used a condo that my uncle owns in up state New York to run my tests. I used an iPhone 7 video camera to record myself jumping, then analyzed the video frame by frame to measure my acceleration. Below is one of the frames from one of the trials.
I propped the phone using a vice and did not move it during all trials for the day. I was sure to mark exactly where everything was relative to everything else before taking my phone for the night. I also knew how far I was jumping from the camera with great accuracy (to within micrometers). I also measured my height to within micrometers. Using these two values, I was able get an extremely accurate value for my height off the ground for each frame. Since I knew the frame rate of the camera, I had a plot of my distance from the ground as a function of time. Using a simple formula, I was able to calculate the acceleration.
I did this with 100 different jumps to account for random error. I then took a trip out to Indonesia and stayed with some relatives who live very close to the equator to run another 100 jumps. Here are plots of the results:
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image008.png)
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image010.png)
As you can see, the average is 9.807 m/s^2 in both places! I crunched the numbers and if the earth was actually a spinning globe, in the New York state location, I would be 19 km closer to the center of the earth so I should have measured 9.809 m/s^2. While in Indonesia, I should have measured 9.805. As you can see in the zoomed in plots, my data does not hit these values even with random error.
I have peer reviewed that data my self and even showed some of my colleagues who agree with me. I urge other Flat Earthers and Globers alike to run similar experiments so we can finally end this nonsensical argument once and for all!
Fellow Flat Earthers and respected Globers. I have been working on this experiment for a few months now and believe I have disproved the spinning globe model of our planet, while simultaneously proving the Flat Earth model!
I graduated from the school of engineering and applied sciences at the George Washington University with a degree in Mechanical Engineering and am two years into a PhD at Carnegie Mellon University. I was introduced to the idea of FE by one of my classmates midway through last school year. I’ll admit at first, I was dubious about what she was telling me. After a couple of days of research, however, it all started to make sense. With a few sentences, she had opened up my mind to a level I thought was never possible. How could I have been brainwashed for all these years?
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image002.png)
As time went on, I started realizing that there was a slight disconnect with the FE theories and the scientific methods I was learning in school. A lot of Globers were telling me that if I put these ideas to the “test”, the FE model would not hold up. In my heart though, I knew these ideas were right, and using the scientific methods and theories I have learned over the course of my education, I believe I have proved it! Below, I will describe to you how I did it.
*Disclaimer: I apologize to any other Flat Earthers who may have run similar tests. I have done a lot of research on this topic and have not seen anything like it on the web, but I am only human, so I may have missed the articles or blog posts.
To understand my method and logic, I must first explain a phenomenon that occurs from the spinning globe model that Globers believe in. If the earth were a spinning ball, centrifugal force would cause the equator to bulge out a little causing cities near the equator to be farther from the center of the earth than cities farther away from the equator. Below is an image to show this:
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image004.png)
The globe on the left is what most Globers imagine the earth to look like. The “scientifically accurate” version of this model looks like the image on the right.
Now, based on scientists’ theories of gravity, the farther you are from the center of the earth, the lower the acceleration of gravity. Therefore, if I measured the acceleration of gravity at two different locations on the planet, they should be different. BUT WE FLAT EARTHERS KNOW THAT THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS.
Since the earth is flat, it is just accelerating at 9.807 m/s^2 in space creating a uniform gravitational field. This means that if Flat Earth is correct, no matter where I measure the acceleration of gravity, I should get the same value… and that’s exactly what happened. Here is how I went about doing the experiment.
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image006.png)
I am originally from NY state and that’s where I took my first measurements. I used a condo that my uncle owns in up state New York to run my tests. I used an iPhone 7 video camera to record myself jumping, then analyzed the video frame by frame to measure my acceleration. Below is one of the frames from one of the trials.
I propped the phone using a vice and did not move it during all trials for the day. I was sure to mark exactly where everything was relative to everything else before taking my phone for the night. I also knew how far I was jumping from the camera with great accuracy (to within micrometers). I also measured my height to within micrometers. Using these two values, I was able get an extremely accurate value for my height off the ground for each frame. Since I knew the frame rate of the camera, I had a plot of my distance from the ground as a function of time. Using a simple formula, I was able to calculate the acceleration.
I did this with 100 different jumps to account for random error. I then took a trip out to Indonesia and stayed with some relatives who live very close to the equator to run another 100 jumps. Here are plots of the results:
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image008.png)
(http://rahipatel.com/Flat_Earth.fld/image010.png)
As you can see, the average is 9.807 m/s^2 in both places! I crunched the numbers and if the earth was actually a spinning globe, in the New York state location, I would be 19 km closer to the center of the earth so I should have measured 9.809 m/s^2. While in Indonesia, I should have measured 9.805. As you can see in the zoomed in plots, my data does not hit these values even with random error.
I have peer reviewed that data my self and even showed some of my colleagues who agree with me. I urge other Flat Earthers and Globers alike to run similar experiments so we can finally end this nonsensical argument once and for all!