More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!

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?



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:



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.



 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:




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!

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

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

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.

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.

Nice work, but the wolf pack will find some little thing to discredit you.

So true. Thank you for your comments

You have seen nothing yet from them, they will hit back even harder...

In another thread I'm trying to get them to calculate what the maximum distance that a single photon can travel, but they refuse to do so. If you ask yourself why, the answer is simple, if a photon can only travel a distance of 1 lightyear, than all this talk of galaxies and stars being many lightyears away is bogus and goes against their religion. To them this is all a religion that they will fight hard for.

If you have any ideas on how to calculate the distance that a signal photon can travel, please tell me.

Good luck,

Quote from: Sentinel on July 21, 2017, 07:19:12 AM

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.

Don't care what angle you're coming from, but you have to understand that a setup like you did there can't prove shit. Do it again with a reproducable one like dropping a solid ball from a precisley measured height, filmed by a proper high speed camera, and we could talk about the results and if they hold up to the micrometers you've claimed before.

Told you, they will throw everything at you to discredit you.

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.

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.

She used her feminine wiles on you huh?

How could I have been brainwashed for all these years?

<image of flat earth>

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.

"Prove" is a bit strong, but bravo! for actually running an experiment!

*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:



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.

"I have done a lot of research on this topic and have not seen anything like it on the web". Really? You came up with nothing at all?

Just out of curiosity, did you review any introductory geophysics or geodesy books while researching the topic? There should be some in the CMU library system; if not, they could no doubt get some for you on loan. At any rate, I'm surprised you didn't find anything about this on Wikipedia and elsewhere with just a web search alone.

The effect you describe is correct, and is actually well established and well known. In fact, you have missed an additional effect which works to lessen the acceleration of gravity at the equator: centrifugal acceleration, and a third which increases it slightly due to the slight change in distribution of mass within the not-quite-spherical earth from your two experiment sites [the stackexchange article explains this pretty well a couple of replies down]. The combined effect of the ellipsoidal shape and rotation of the earth combine to reduce the net acceleration toward the center of the earth by about 0.5% at the equator compared to the poles.

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.



 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.

That's a clever technique but it seems unlikely that you can measure height to the precision claimed. Can we see your calculations? Did you verify the frame rate of your camera?

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:




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.

By 'average', I presume you are referring to the 'mean'. Did you run any other statistics on the data, like, say, standard deviation?

Using your values, you were looking to detect a change of 0.002 out of almost 10, or about 2 parts in 10,000, so even very small uncertainties must be controlled for, or at least recognized. For instance, what was the height (in pixels) of your average jump? If it was less than 5000 pixels, you don't have the resolution to measure your predicted effect, even presuming you could convert pixels to height exactly, and could determine your height down to the single-pixel level, and your timing was stable to a similar precision.

The formula for acceleration of gravity on the surface of the WGS-84 ellipsoid[nb]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Latitude_model[/nb] predicts a 0.26% increase in gravitational acceleration at 45° latitude compared to the equator. The northern border of NY is 45° latitude, and gives the largest difference from the equator in the state, so I used that. Also, the (sin(45°))² terms in the formula are exactly 0.5, which made the number crunching a little easier.

In reality, the effect should be much greater than your analysis predicted, more like 1 part in 400, but you'd still need at least 400 pixels of jump height, under perfect conditions, to have a chance of detecting it.

Can we see your raw data, including the videos, and your calculations?

I have peer reviewed that data my self and even showed some of my colleagues who agree with me.

Are any of these colleagues geoscientists or physicists (or statisticians)?

I urge other Flat Earthers and Globers alike to run similar experiments so we can finally end this nonsensical argument once and for all!

There is better equipment available for measuring effects such as this, such as gravimeters. As far as I know, CMU doesn't specialize in geosciences, but the geology department (if there is one) may have a gravimeter for use in some of the lab courses; many schools do have them. The typical gravimeter available from the '50s was sensitive enough to estimate the height of multi-story buildings using only measurable changes in the acceleration of gravity; this is a common experiment for intro geophysics labs. They are similarly capable of detecting the change in acceleration due to a change of latitude of as little as a couple hundred meters or less if the measurements are carefully done.

Again, I commend you for taking the time to design and conduct an experiment. The one you describe seems to lack the precision necessary, but more details would be welcome.

[Edit] Clarify 45° as giving greatest change from equator in New York State.

Firstly, saying more implies there already is some.
There is no proof for a flat Earth.
There is plenty of proof against it though.

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.
It is better to be humble and say you have an experiment, present the results and go through your conclusions (including the reasoning) and then say you think that shows Earth is flat.

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:

Yes, a very small amount.

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.
Other things can also cause variations in gravity, such as the distribution of mass. This can even be used to survey what is under the ground such as finding oil deposits based upon a difference in density and thus mass and thus gravity.

BUT WE FLAT EARTHERS KNOW THAT THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS.

Really?
I know it to be a fact, a fact which requires calibrating scales based upon location to account for gravity and even calibrating pendulum clocks.
FEers need it to be preposterous for their model to hold. They don't know it, they just want it to be true.

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.
Instead numerous others have mapped variations in gravity and found it to very from location to location.

However, if you just measure rather rough values, you can get them the same.

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.

An iPhone camera cannot record to micrometer accuracy, so you are already lying.
An iphone 7 with its 12 MP camera has a maximum resolution of 4200 pixels.
Assuming that was measuring you similar to the photo you provided (which appears you chose the shorter 2800 pixels instead of 4200, but I'll ignore that), and you just wanted to get your entire height in, that gives you roughly 2 m for 4200 pixels. That means each each pixel is roughly 0.5 mm. That is not within micrometers.

The frame rate can also vary.
So you have a very large error.

You didn't even explain what you did to calculate the acceleration due to gravity.

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.
Regardless, I see a plot with a bunch of points and a red line.
A better way to show this would be with a list of the points and an average.
But more importantly, WHAT IS YOUR ERROR?

I have peer reviewed that data my self

That is not peer review.
That is self 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.
As such, it is rather pointless me trying.
Instead I will look at other things, like time zones, sunrises and sunsets and so on which clearly indicate Earth is round.

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.
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.

Told you, they will throw everything at you to discredit you.

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.

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.

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:
distance=infinite.

prkearther The subject has been studied extensively, it is called gravimetry. We have complete maps of the gravity variation on the surface of the Earth, such as this one :


You don't need to take pictures with your iPhone. There are portable devices to measure local gravity with great accuracy, called gravimeters :

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.

I doubt the camera of an iPhone has a margin of error less than 0.5% ... Gravimeters can be bought by private individuals, although they are pretty expensive ($75000 for the model pictured above) :
https://rtclark.com/product/scintrex-cg-5-gravity-meter

You should also note that gravitaty variations can be observed because of altitude, not only because of the oblate shape of the Earth. It might be easier to go to the mountains than near the equator.

Edit : That also means that if you go near the equator, you still have to correct for altitude.

For someone supposedly 2 years into a PhD you have no idea what peer review is and you really should reference the model by which you are calculating your difference from the earth''s centre.

What confidence intervals have you calculated and what's your value of people?

In other words cool story Bro,  but nah.

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
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,

The 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.

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.

Flat Earth vs Globe - Does weight change with Latitude? Is this evidence the Earth is spinning?

Perth:        Lat 31°57.64'S Weight=500.00 g
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,

Quote

The Eötvös effect is the change in perceived gravitational force caused by the change in centrifugal acceleration resulting from eastbound or westbound velocity.

Flat Earth vs Globe - The Eötvös effect observed in aircraft - how does it affect Gravity?

I hope you find them of interest.

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.

Resolution of Iphone 7 video camera: 4k at 30fps, meaning 3840x2160 pixel. I am assuming you used the 3840 pixel to measure your height (the picture you posted looks like you used the 2160 pixel, but let's go with the higher value). I will assume that you are about 1.80m in height, so you would need to have a camera frame of at least 1.92m (probably even more as you jump more than 12cm, but this number is convenient).

This means that one pixel covers at least 1.92m/3840=0.5mm = 500 micrometer.

So even if you have a perfectly sharp image (which is completely unrealistic) and could perfectly determine your height in pixels you would still only achieve a resolution 500 times worse than that you claimed. And I am not even beginning to talk about the finite resolution in time induced by the 30 frames per second, or the motion blur induced by finite exposure time.

As someone who actually works in science (i.e. a peer) I can assure you that your experiment by no means follows scientific methods. With your method it is impossible to achieve the resolution you claim, which means that your whole data are worthless (or even faked).

Just because I am bored:

What did you define as your time of landing? The moment your feet touch the ground? Which part of the feet? Are you absolutely confident you held your feet exactly the same way up to one micrometer (1/50th of the diameter of a human hair)?

Same applied for the start time of the jump as well, of course.

Even if we say that you could do that all, perfectly. Say your jump takes 2 second, i.e. 60 frames. This means that you have an error due to finite time resolution alone of 2/60, i.e. 3.3% (that is if you can perfectly and consistently define the starting and landing frame). You want to measure a change of the order 1/400 where you have a systematic error of 3.3% due to one aspect alone? Good luck!

I do not believe that you are doing a PhD somewhere. If so, please reconsider your carrer choices. Your work is by no means scientific and you likely faked your entire data.

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?



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:



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.



 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:




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!

You are joking? If your not then you are both a liar and an ass squeak.

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.

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.

Christ, can none of you see a good joke?   

I just get triggered by people claiming to be engineers/PhD's and then clearly proving that they are not 

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 self

Clearly 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.

But you take the time to attack all topics that go against he Heliocentric model...

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!

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?
They just have lower resolution.
They claimed micrometer accuracy. That is impossible.
The description of the video by Rab is giving it to within a city.
That is quite possible to do with a phone.

So no, there is no rational reason to disregard it.

Stop making pathetic strawmen. Either make a rational argument or fuck off.

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?
And yes, we can prove him wrong, looking at the physical limitations of his experiment.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 04:10:03 AM

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!

OK, but first your credentials...

Who do you work for, pay stubs,

Your Degrees and transcripts, because we got to know if we are talking with a 4.0 student or a 2.0 student

Quote from: Kami on July 22, 2017, 04:15:31 AM

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 

So you accept that this experiment is utter bullshit and it is impossible with the given equipment to make such precise calculations? Good.

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 04:25:52 AM

Quote from: Kami on July 22, 2017, 04:15:31 AM

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 

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!

Quote from: Kami on July 22, 2017, 06:35:07 AM

Quote from: InFlatEarth on July 22, 2017, 04:25:52 AM

Quote from: Kami on July 22, 2017, 04:15:31 AM

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 

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.