More Utterly Undeniable Proof of Flat Earth!

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.

[/size]

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!!!

No, he did prove a point.
The FEers came here congratulating him on his nonsense and attacking those that were refuting him.
Meanwhile the REers went to showing problems in his methodology and provide directly contradicting results, and even asked to see his data and exact methodology.

So no, it shows the FEers will happily accept evidence which supports their beliefs, regardless of how insane or impossible it is, while the REers "attack" FE claims by pointing out contradictory evidence or the impossibility of their claims.

So thanks for helping show the REers are the rational, scientific ones.

Although I suppose that does just raise another question.
You have been here spouting loads of shit.
Are you a FEer just being a typical FEer, or are you a REer trying to make FEers look bad?

The issue is it is impossible to tell. All FEers have are bullshit claims based upon lies or ignorance. The trolls or fakes act just like the real ones.

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...

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?
I would say you only asked to see it after several people explained how it was impossible, but even then, that isn't actually asking to see the data.



Your messages (Note: the one you asked for isn't actually asking for data. It was saying if we were truly interested we would ask, so I have provided both were you came close to asking):

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.

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

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!

Note the first one, you didn't ask for the data, you said if we were interested in his work we would ask for the data, and again bitched that we were proving him wrong without even needing to see his data.

Note the second one, still not asking to see his data. Instead you were saying you would have to see the data before you determined if the experiment was bullshit.

Now look at mine:

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.

Note: Explicating wanting him to provide the data, not just making a vague reference to needing the data for something.

Also note the times.
Your first post coming close to asking about the data in general was almost a day after your first post in this thread (21 hours 30 minutes).
My first post in this thread was 11 hours 5 minutes after your first post, but already asked for the data (I suppose you could say I didn't ask, I demanded). This was 10 hours and 25 minutes before you came close to asking, which was 2 hours and 10 minutes after your first post after mine.

So who actually showed interest in the data?
Me.
Who only brought up vague references to needing or wanting the data for various purposes, and only did so long after it was already refuted? YOU!

Quote from: prkearther on July 21, 2017, 06:25:29 AM

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.

Looks like data to me. In the first post.

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 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.

Mike

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!

So you did an unscientific experiment jumping that has a variable that you cant account for.  Your ability to jump exactly the same 100 times.  SIGH....

Why dont you do this. 

Buy this scale:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06WD3C2KV?psc=1

Buy this calibration weight:
https://www.amazon.com/Calibration-Weight-Digital-Pocket-Scales/dp/B003EH4SPE/ref=pd_sim_328_5?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B003EH4SPE&pd_rd_r=QB6EFA639PRNY60GAVWJ&pd_rd_w=Gv8TP&pd_rd_wg=2Wra8&psc=1&refRID=QB6EFA639PRNY60GAVWJ

Calibrate your scale and meassure in one location, then travel north or south a few hundred miles and take a second measurement and you will see that the scale will be slightly off.  which proves the weight being slightly different at different locations.

Guys, the OP already admitted that this was just a joke and that he faked the entire data.