Proposal for easiest way to disprove Flat-Earth theory

I've been reading the forum for days, utterly facinated by the spectrum of people here.  There's a fair amount of thinkers here, which is why I just joined.

This proposal, or rather a contest, is to come up with the simplest/cheapest way of actually disproving that this flat-earth theory is wrong (meaning the one using the disk-earth with north pole in the middle).  PROVIDED THAT one assumes the position of an FE completely (conspiracy and all).  Failing that, at least use as much of the FE-accepted rules as possible.

We can all play Devil's Advocate and point out possible pitfalls in each other's entries.

My reason?  Might as well get something useful out of these discussion, right?  If we can come up with a solid experiment that is actually rather easy, then we can perform it personally and post the results.

Figure I should give an example:

Pictures of a spherical earth is, natually, right out, unless you can prove that you took it yourself, with a camera that you made, in a spacecraft that you built yourself, etc.

Of course, some math and science may have to be explained to prove the experiment valid.  Please do so as briefly as possible.

The trouble is that they reject most maths and science, part of their argument is that the educational institutes are filled with liars. Which makes it difficult to formulate a scientific argument against them.

I'd say the easiest way is not to prove our theory but to disprove theirs. Keep asking questions about the theory and looking for flaws until we find a contradiction in it that disproves it, or until they are unable to answer.

I've set up an FAQ thread here -

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1137

The trouble is that they reject most maths and science, part of their argument is that the educational institutes are filled with liars. Which makes it difficult to formulate a scientific argument against them.

In order to engage in rational debate with a person, both parties must agree (implicitly or otherwise) on
1)  the sorts of arguments that are permitted, and
2)  the sorts of premises that are accepted.

Flat-Earthers and Round-Earthers on this forum agree on neither of these points, primarily (2).  FE'ers insist that only what one sees with one's own eyes, or derives from first principles, are acceptable as premises.  They then go on to make statements about things they have never seen themselves and have not derived from any axioms; their willingness to act in a contradictory manner is the most fundamentally asinine way in which they disagree with RE'ers on point (1).  Furthermore, they reject all established science and mathematics (another disgareements on (1)), but don't hesitate to butcher science and mathematics if it suits them.  Lastly, FE'ers see fit to quote scripture to support their claims, even when it doesn't support their claims, which is of course logically void on at least two counts.

Conclusion: no rational discussion can be had between FE'ers and RE'ers.  What sorts of discussion are we left with?  Sophistry, is an option, but there is no audience.  It seems we are left with the option of crushing the egos of flat Earthers and making them cry.

Nevertheless, if anybody's on the fence, I will continue to offer constructive, logical arguments and analysis.  Alternatively, if a person argues for RE in an idiotic way, I will point out the flaws.  So this forum can still be of service to people interested in rational thought.

-Erasmus

Are there not even enough self-consistency within FE to perform experiments?  I am optimistic enough to think that there is a method to the madness.  And methods are testable by individuals.

One frequently used come-back of FE to photos of earth from space is "build yourself a rocket and take a picture from orbit.  Then I'll believe."  So I think building that rocket and send the FEers up into orbit with their own eyes is a definitive (if completely impractical) solution.  After all, if you see it with your own eyes, the shape of the Earth can no longer be refuted.

A close second is to give them rides to outerspace by paying for it.  I think the current price is $100,000 USD.

I'm just trying to jog some thinking muscles to bring that price down a bit.

A close second is to give them rides to outerspace by paying for it.

I'm afraid it's not a close second.  I've heard somebody go so far as to claim (facetiously, perhaps?) that you can't believe what you see through airplane windows, because they could be designed so as to distort, say, the shape of the horizon from the perfectly flat reality.

And then you get bullhorn, who says that your eyes don't lie to you, not for things as important as this (like they can tell), unless they're telling you that the Earth is round, in which case they're clearly lying; there must be an optical illusion (that he can't describe) or atmospheric effects (that he doesn't understand).  Or fog.

I'm pretty sure I know where the fog is, and it's not on the horizon.

-Erasmus

Even worse:

SPace Cadets

A program on TV where a group of people believe they are being sent into space. They saw the Earth through a massive projection screen, and they actually believed it was the Earth.

So after this, even IF you took an FE'er into space, you'd never convinve him it was real!

Don't pay to send them into space...otherwise I'll believe in the FE theory too if I can get a free ride into outer space.

I'm afraid there is absolutely nothing you can do to convince FE's that the earth is round. If you take him for a ride to the south pole to show you can go over it and to the other side, he will argue that you went a different way and avoided the ice wall. Etc etc

RE Space Cadets:

Take Americans/Australians/anyone non-British.

They won't have seen the programme lol.

Anyway, why would Channel 4, an 'obvious endorser' of the 'conspiracy theory' (they're not quotes they're bunny ears) show that such a method of trickery was possible?

Lol.

Yeah that's true, seems strange of them to reveal that it's possible to trick someone, but if you ask why then the answer you'll get is "unknown motives".

Although they may claim it's reverse psychology, by making it obvious that it could be a trick, no one would suspect it.

I'd like to see that show.  How'd the contestants not notice the lack of G-Force when they "launched"?  Weren't there supposed to be close to 3Gs at shuttle launches?

Anyhow, space travel is expense.  That's why I'm asking for cheaper alternatives.  Like a few physical experiments to test gravity; another few for planetary orbits, etc.

I'd like to see that show.  How'd the contestants not notice the lack of G-Force when they "launched"?  Weren't there supposed to be close to 3Gs at shuttle launches?

You can't tell the difference between the acceleration provided by a solid rocket booster and the acceleration provided by, say, the back of your chair which is connected to one end of a long arm whose other end is connected to a rapidly spinning hub.  Thousands of amusement parks take advantage of this.

Disneyworld, btw, takes advantage of another really, really neat one: the priciple of equivalence.  They put you in a chair and all it does it tilt.  They show you images of flying around an asteroid field, and you believe that you are really accelerating and decelerating, because you have no view of the outside world (i.e. nothing in your visual field is tilting).

So yeah.  g's can be faked.

-Erasmus

I'll concede that acceleration of a chair on a spinning arm would be equivalent to acceleration during take-off.  After all, that's how they train astronauts.  But remember these people were in a mock-shuttle when they were 'launched'.  To make something that size into an acceleration chair is a little more difficult.  Not impossible, but difficult.

Oh and I love those little rides with hydrolics.  However, having been through quite a few of them by now, I can say that it is possible to tell the difference between the perceived movements and actual movements.  The images show on the screen tricks your visual sense and the jerking movements mimick accelerating in different directions.  But the mimic isn't perfect.  Once you make an effort to consciously separate the senses and analyze them separately, you can tell that sometimes they conflict with each other.  It's the same mechanism that makes people car-sick or boat-sick: conflicting sense of direction and balance.

It's sort of funny that people who have motion-sickness are more equipped to discern faked G's, because we're probably more concerned about not seeing our breakfast coming back up...

I guess it's all about experience.  Though now that they have it all set up, I wonder how much it is to go on a fake space mission in a full-size fake shuttle?  That would be kind of cool.

Here's my experiment.

This experiment is designed to show the existence of time zones, along with evidence as to the geometric shape of the Earth.

Equipment

* two 24 hour clocks (i.e. military time)
* a sundial
* a level
* a meterstick
* a magnetic compass
* two journals

The clocks are to be selected by the FE, and should be verified by both the FE and RE to keep accurate time with respect to the 24 hour day and each other.  The clocks should be battery operated, to allow a long period of operation.  The clocks should be mechanical, to ensure that nothing outside physical tampering could change their time.  Each clock is to be sealed inside a plexiglass box to prohibit resetting the time shown on the clock.  The FE and RE will each have their own clock for the duration of the experiment.  If either clock does not agree with the other by an amount not acceptable to either party, the experiment will be scrapped and have to be started over.

The sundial is to be used to verify Noon, independantly of the two clocks.  Noon will be defined as the time when the sun has reached its apex in the sky.  The sundial will consist of a large circular base with a thin straight vertical rod in the center.  The base will have compass points on it so that it can be oriented correctly with respect to the north pole.  The base should have a surface similar to a chalk board to allow marks to be made during data collection.

The journals will be used to gather data.  They will be used to record the time shown on the clocks with respect to Noon at various locations around the world.  The FE and RE will each have their own journal.  Identical information will be recorded in each journal, by hand, in ink and only when both parties are present.  The RE and FE will have to initial each journal entry (in both journals) to verify that they were both present when data was gathered.  Each piece of data must be entered into both journals, record the same information and be initialed by both parties to be valid.

Method

The two clocks will be selected by the FE.  Both the FE and RE will verify that the two clocks are accurate with respect to the 24 hour day and each other.  How each chooses to verify this is not specified, so long as each party agrees to the accuracy of the clocks.  The clocks will be synchronized and sealed in plexiglass boxes under the observation of both the FE and the RE.  One clock is assigned to the FE and the other to the RE.  At any time, either the FE or RE may request to verify the time shown on both clocks.  The time on both clocks must be verified at least once every 12 hours.  The mandatory time verifications must be recorded in the journals.  Whenever time is recorded, the time of both clocks must be recorded in each journal.

The FE and RE will agree on several locations in different parts of the world to which they will travel together.  In each location the sundial will be used to determine when Noon occurs.  The sundial will be set out on a level surface, do be verified using the level.  The sundial will be oriented  Data collection will begin at sunrise and end at sunset.  The time of sunrise and sunset will be recorded.  The first piece of data collected after sunrise will be the time when the end of the shadow of the central rod reaches the perimeter of the base of the sundial.  The last piece of data collected before sunset will be the time when the end of the shadow of the central rod reaches the perimeter of the base of the sundial.

Every half hour after the end of the shadow reaches the base of the sundial the location of the end of the shadow will be marked on the base of the sundial and the time recorded.  The length of the shadow will be measured using the meterstick and the compass direction will be measured using the compass points on the base of the sundial.  Noon will be determined to be the shadow with the shortest length.

The times recorded with respect to Noon at several locations in the world will serve to demonstrate the existence of time zones.  The angles of the shadows cast by the sundial will serve as evidence of the geometric shape of the Earth.


That's all I've got for now.  Please discuss the predictions based on the flat vs. spherical models.

Good experiment, but I'm sure FE's will come up with something to counter it.

"The Sun is a point light source" it one I've heard before. More will come, be sure of it.

Pesto: your suggestion is interesting, and it will take me some time to evaluate it to come up with predictions.  Problems I expect you might run into is that FE'ers will claim that angular measurements of shadows are too imprecise, and that your experiment assumes that the sun's rays are parallel, which is find in the RE model but not in the FE model with a more proximous sun.

However, like I said, I have not given your experiment sufficient consideration to determine whether these issues are truly problematic for your experiement.

-Erasmus

I am not assuming the sun's rays are parallel.  Only that they are straight.  A very detailed analysis may have to account for refraction in the atmosphere.

This is what I've been waiting for.  Relatively cheap (except for travel expenses), and modest with the intermediate goal rather than flat-out (excuse the pun) proof.

How about this one.  Go to the south pole during December and watch the sun circle you.

BTW, I'd like to know what an FE thinks of the experiment I posted a few days ago.

How about this one.  Go to the south pole during December and watch the sun circle you.

I think once the FE'ers have made it to the south pole, no sungazing should be necessary...

Agreed.  Actually one doesn't even have to go to the south pole proper as long as one is south enough to be able to observe this at night:


The geographical south pole isn't easy to get to.  But the celestial south pole can be observed as long as you are in the southern hemisphere and have a clear view.

The biggest shock about reading the Flat Earth Society of Johnson's is that his wife was Australian.  She must have really loved him to go along with the craziness her whole life, instead of taking him home with her and sit under the stars for one night.

[edited because hotlinking isn't nice, but a smaller hotlinked image makes me feel less guilty]

The biggest shock about reading the Flat Earth Society of Johnson's is that his wife was Australian.  She must have really loved him to go along with the craziness her whole life, instead of taking him home with her and sit under the stars for one night.

Yeah... though admittedly, she could just have been lobotomized.  That would also explain her behavior.

Agreed.  Actually one doesn't even have to go to the south pole proper as long as one is south enough to be able to observe this at night:


The geographical south pole isn't easy to get to.  But the celestial south pole can be observed as long as you are in the southern hemisphere and have a clear view.

The biggest shock about reading the Flat Earth Society of Johnson's is that his wife was Australian.  She must have really loved him to go along with the craziness her whole life, instead of taking him home with her and sit under the stars for one night.

I think this would be a much better experiment.  Get an FE to select a camera and film.  Take long exposure photographs of the night sky at various latitudes facing different compass directions and let them try to explain it away.  Why would the same phenomen be seen facing south in the southern latitudes as when facing north in the northern latitudes?

edit: I think the best way to do this would be to start in Canada and drive south several degrees at a time.  This way, one night's observations will be contiguous with the next night's observations.  Also, the FE should be the one to drive, so that there is no question as to the direction they are travelling.

I would agree to this, I would be the first FE to change my views if new information were to be presented that I can look over, this is an interesting solution, it would gather media attention and help solve the puzzle, There would be those who still dont take this as proof I might add.

What is the FE position on the existence of time zones?

it would gather media attention and help solve the puzzle,

No it wouldn't and no it wouldn't; to the rest of the world, there is no puzzle.

There would be those who still dont take this as proof I might add.

What might their counterargument be?

-Erasmus

Bullhorn, I think that shows a very good attitiude towards this if you are willing to carry out the experiement and see for yourself. Good man.

Erasmus: Their counter-argument would be: "We're idiots". There's no other way to describe someone who refuses to believe evidence he sees with his own eyes. I mean, refusing to believe the evidence that the Earth is round...well at least they can see claim they've not seen it with their own eyes.

People who would believe it if they saw it with their own eyes (like Bullhorn) are fairly sensible. But people who refuse to believe clear evidence from an experient they have carried out could only be described as moronic.