No, that is your way of doing things !
No. It is not his way. It is the rational way. Making a model which can explain observations.
Mine is to go back to the PROVEN fundamentals of earth not some fantasy cosmology.
You mean go back to baselessly asserted crap which has not been proven in any way?
And in that proven FLAT reality, no one has ever showed any curvature whatsoever in accordance with the current measurements of the hypothetical ball.
There is no proven flat reality. People have shown curvature. No one has ever been able to show it is flat. Instead all results that might indicate that are consistent with both.
It isn't a hypothetical ball, it is a proven fact. The only thing up for debate is the exact composition and exact shape (as it isn't a perfect sphere).
The shape of earth, it's tilt. speed, origans are all part of the same cosmological fairytail.
You mean all part of the same reality.
You can't focuss on just the shape of our world, because according to the current cosmology the shape is a result of all other implemented nonsense
You mean implemented explanations which explain reality?
We don't need to know why Earth is round in order to show it is round, and you are yet to show any of it is nonsense.
All you have done is shown you don't like it.
What's the matter? Don't you like being an insignificant nothing on an insignificant planet orbiting an insignificant star in a vast universe?
this way you can ignore the absurdities that are part of your globe, not my flatearth.
You are yet to show any absurdities with the globe or cosmology. Instead you just repeatedly assert that basically you don't like it.
On the other hand we have proven numerous absurdities with the flat Earth which makes the FE impossible.
Don't you see how many times i point out that globers jump to conclusions without trying to understand flatearthers ?
Perhaps that is because you are the one jumping to conclusions instead of understanding what people say?
But i said i do not believe in a concave earth
And who said you did?
Mostafa Abdelkader engaged in a thought process that shows our current ''understanding'' of the universe is a mere choice of directions after standing on a crossroad.
Except it isn't. Not in the slightest.
Our current understanding is a model which makes sense and explains reality far better than any other and doesn't require special pleading.
On the other hand his has Earth be super special, completely manipulates space and light to force Earth to be special and fails to explain numerous things.
So I suppose you could call that a chose of directions:
1 - Go for the rational model.
2 - Be an arrogant prick and make Earth special.
Here are the most important sentences of his essay !
reduces the earth and the solar system to nothing in comparison; whereas in the latter, the earth’s surface is the finite boundary of the whole universe
I shrunk it down to the more important one.
He doesn't want Earth to a be a mere nothing. He wants it to be special.
Also, this shows the reason why the geocosmos idea would be rejected, it requires Earth to be special and space to be set up to accommodate a special Earth.
Until you can explain why this should be the case it will be rejected for the simpler one, where Earth is not special and no particular region of space is special.
Also, he is wrong. They are not the only 2 models.
There are almost infinitely many more.
The same trick can be applied to any object, or just any region of space.
You could make the sun special and be the edge of the Cosmos. You could make the moon special and have it be the edge of the cosmos. You can make Mars special and have it be the edge of the Cosmos. You can make 51 Pegasi b special and have it be the edge. You can make Alpha Centuri C b special and have it be the edge. You could make a point in space between us and the Andromeda galaxy special and have it be the edge. And so on.
There is no reason to make Earth special. It simply arrogance and not wanting to be insignificant.
That is why crap like that is discarded. Because it demands that Earth be special without any justification and ignores the options of Earth still being insignificant but having some other object be special.
The only one realising that you need physical proof for the model of the earth is Cyrus Teed who built a rectilliniator.
Except plenty of people already had physical proof.
Additionally, his rectiliniator was fundamentally flawed.
He did so in a backward time with vague outcomes, but the idea of a physicall structure is extremely appealing.
Not to anyone who actually examines it.
You can't simply get a bunch of square objects and join them together. The error is too great.
If you attempt to construct one people will just cry fake.
If they are willing to built facilities like CERN and the latest one to search for gravitational waves then it seems more and more absurd that such curvature structure does not excist.
No it doesn't.
They are building these facilities to discover new things, not attempt to prove to a bunch of conspiracy nuts something that has been proven long ago, especially when these conspiracy nuts will just reject it.
All the lame excuses about that there is enough proof and supporters and understanding of the globe so that such a structure is unwanted is poor reasoning.
Why?
There is already plenty of proof including other ways of seeing the curvature.
The issue is not a lack of proof. It is people like you being unwilling to accept it.
In the Netherlands we all know we live under sealevel, but we still create these kind of devices, because it's fun to actually see how much beneath sealevel you are.
And what device would that be?
If people wished to assert that the Netherlands were not under sea water would they easily be able to come up with excuses to pretend they weren't?
To have absolute proof of the curvature through a physicall structure would be awesome.
But it wouldn't be any more proof than all the other stuff we have.
People like you would still reject it.
That it is absent today is a smoking gun in favour of flat and concave earth !
No it isn't.
Do you know what else is absent?
A structure showing the flatness of Earth and a structure showing the concavity of Earth.
Are those being absent a smoking gun in favour of a round Earth? No.
So that's your device?
What effectively amounts to a marker saying the sea level is there.
In that case why bother with a physical structure?
Just get a bunch of these poles (except with the 0 at different heights along each), space them out along a road, and align the 0 to where a line straight out from a reference point would be.
Would that convince you? No.
How about this, go to the Netherlands and build a little river of water in from the sea to the middle of the country with perspex walls and a perspex roof so you can really see the sea level to see how far under you are. It must contain still water, not flowing water and have small bits open to the air to equalise pressure.
Is the lack of such a structure a smoking gun in favour of the Netherlands being above sea level?
I myself had done the test long ago if you would give me the money and many flatearthers face the same problems.
Why should we pay for your paranoia?
We already have plenty of evidence that Earth is round, including evidence you can easily get for free or for very little money, such as watching the sun, or getting a timelapse of the sky due north and due south.
We are absolutely sure that the amount of supposed curvature given in the current model is false !!
I'm absolutely sure your full of shit and that the amount of curvature in the current model is quite accurate.
But think about the following without immidiatly trying to redicule or debunk my requests.
How about you go and respond to where I did something similar for the 10 km?
You seem to ask for a lot and then just ignore it when it is given.
If the earth is a sphere with a circomference of roughly 40.000 km then i propose the following thought process ! (just for fun )
1 Cut this hypothetical sphere into pie slices each measuring one km wide at the outer edge of the sphere.
2 Compare that slightly bend km with a perfect mathematically straight km. And give the exact amount of how much bending takes place in mm.
3 Place both km (the straight and curved one on top of eachother....the straight one on top)
4 Now precisely calculate the amount of cm that the curved km bends downwards at the beginning and the end of the km (the straight km is a tine bit wider of course)
So now you want pi slices, and now you want it centred at the level.
Well that means your d will be d1, and will be 0.5 km, and h will still be h3.
Well, as you recall:
h3=R*(1-cos(a))
and a=d1/R
Thus h3=R*(1-cos(d1/R)
=(40000/(2*pi))*(1-cos(pi/40000)) km
=0.00001963495407484301871893175224039102890588379894705277 km
=19.63495407484301871893175224039102890588379894705277 mm
If you wanted it for the start being level and it just curving down at one end, then it is 78.53981617825380671782556485313824632251256800741961876248 mm or roughly 7.9 cm.
5 Now you have the exact curvature present in each and every km of the hypothetical ball with a circomference of 40.000 km.
And due to how curvature works, you can't simply multiply this by the distance.
6 built a straight line as solid structure, or laser based along a huge body of water,(the seashore/lake) and start measuring earth's curvature !
Give us the money to do so.
And how will you confirm it is straight?
Then there is the issue of Earth not being this perfect sphere. So do you want us to redo it for the local curvature?
It is easy the Dutch have been doing this for centuries !
Except this sign in no way shows that is what sea level is unless you simply trust those who put it up.
Where is the structure I demanded?
Until you provide that structure should I assume the Netherlands is not actually below sea level? After all, according to your reasoning the absence of this structure is a smoking gun that those poles is just fake crap and that the Netherlands is not actually below sea level.
Don't you see the hypocrisy in just trusting that it is below sea level without any such device to prove it, but you demand such a device to prove the curvature of Earth, something known for millennia?
You simple have to follow the canal to the sea and if needed add or deminish the height differences between the sealevel and canal level at the present water pomp station that levels the canal with the sea !
I take it you don't understand flowing water?
Flowing water is not necessarily level.
Unless the canal water is perfectly still you cannot use it.
Even if you can, how do you then compare the height of the water level before and after the pumping station (which would have to be off to keep the canal water still)?
After i receive the exact numbers involved in such bend km derived from a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km, i at least have a great starting point.
I have many more suggestions, but i truly want to know the amount of bending of this mathematically perfect slice of one km wide derived from a perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km.
You already got the numbers for 10 km and just ignored them.
I suspect you will do the same with the numbers for your 1 km.
I want to know because i really believe that the amount of bending is considerable (at least 10-20 cm over each and every km)
Considering you just ignored the 10 km, I highly doubt you actually want to know.
It is also only roughly 8 cm at best for 1 km.
And that is simple that much that it could be used on our not so perfect sphere as a reference to either confirm or exclude any curvature for a ball roughly measuring 40.000 km in circomference.
No it can't, because you then have the issue of building a straight structure over 1 km. Unless you are using data from the curvature of Earth, that will be difficult to verify. Unless you plan on paying for all the vacuum pumps required to maintain a vacuum over this 1 km to be able to pass a light along it without having to worry about refraction, and then also verify that that laser is pointed level and not slightly up or down.
Then once you do that you have the issue of setting up a perfectly level surface to follow the curvature of Earth and confirming that.
Again i have no idea what the exact numbers for the hypothetical globe km slice are, my expertise is lacking, therefor i ask you the experts of a globe and it's properties.
I provided you with a way to work it out, you ignored it.
I provided you with what it is for 10 km, you ignored it.
It isn't your expertise that is lacking, it is you not wanting to know.
I can follow the canal to the sea (only 15km) and confirm that the measuring tool in this canal fits the sealevel !
And have you done that? No. You just trust the government.
And don't forget all the issues I raised with that method.
So what is the amount of bending in the following slices derived from the hypothetical perfect sphere with a circomference of 40.000 km.
1km wide bended curvature slice compared to a perfect straight line
10km ''
100km ''
1000km ''
10000km ''
Again, there are several different ways to measure.
I shall assume (especially as you have gone to 10 000 km) that you are referring to d as 2*d1 (so you are going both ways) and h as h3 in my diagram, which would correspond to the height of the bulge in the centre.
All of these follow the formula:
h=R*(1-cos(d/R), noting that d is half the length.
As such you get h=(40000/(2*pi))*(1-cos(l*pi/40000))
So in order of your list, starting at 1 km and going up an order of magnitude each time (with the answer in mm, accurate to 1 mm (so an error of 0.5 mm))
20 mm
1963 mm
196349 mm
19624863 mm
1864616143 mm
And as a bonus: 20 000 km:
6366197724 mm, i.e. the radius of Earth.
What happens if i place a precise laser pointer near an extremely flat beach at a height of let's say 80cm and cast a beam towards a specific predetermined point 5 km away on the beach at a height of also 80cm ?
The laser cannot reflect on a specific target over 5km at a height of 80cm , because of the bulge in the middle no matter what the angle of the laser is ?
Flat or level?
If flat, then the beach is flat and the laser can hit it.
If it is level, then there is the bulge, but how high should it be?
As you are going 5 km, the bulge is only 491 mm or 49.1 cm. So that height of 80 cm puts it above the bulge.
The calculator you are using shows the curve, not the bulge. The 2 are slightly different.
For the curve, you are at the top and Earth just curves down away from you.
For the bulge, the bulge is at the top and Earth curves down towards you and your target.
A better calculator would be this one: (which still doesn't consider refraction)
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=5&h0=0.8&unit=metricIt first calculates how far away the horizon is based upon your height and then uses that to determine how much of the object is hidden due to the curve away from the horizon.
So no your reasoning is not sound.
It would be akin to saying if you place a small object on the ground right in front of you you wouldn't see it because of the curve, ignoring that your height lets you see over the curve.
I would say start off around the 80 cm, confirm it can reach it, then systematically lower the target and the laser to see when it can no longer reach.
If Earth is round, and you did it in a vacuum, it would be around 50 cm. Due to refraction and you doing it in air, it will be lower, depending upon the conditions, at ground level.
If Earth is flat, it should go all the way to the ground.
Due to the nature of refraction this can't actually disprove a round Earth unless you remove refraction from being a variable.
But if Earth is flat, refraction should not be an issue (as the laser should be level and thus not passing through air of differing density) and thus you should be able to get to ground level and thus I can disprove a flat Earth.
So do you still want to try it knowing it can't actually disprove the globe but can disprove a flat Earth?