Why is the Round Earth model untestable?

This thread is intended to demonstrate that the Round Earth Theory is not testable. I will show through easily reproducible household methods that there is absolutely zero reason to consider the possibility of the Round Earth model.

Our Environment

FE predicts that the earth is flat. To test this we need to look out our window. We will see a plane extending farther than the eye can see. - Testable

RE predicts that the earth is at such a convenient size that it creates the illusion of being flat. -  Untestable

Gravitation

FE predicts that gravitation is caused by an upwardly accelerating earth. To test this we will need to stand up on the edge of our chair and walk off the edge while observing the surface of the earth carefully. The earth will appear to accelerate up towards the observer -  Testable

RE predicts that “graviton particles” no one has ever seen are pulling objects towards the surface of the earth. There should be trillions of tiny graviton particles whooshing around us at every moment of the day creating the illusion of an accelerating earth. - Untestable

Movement of the earth

FE predicts that the earth is still and the celestial bodies whirl above our heads. To test this we simply need to sit on our porch for a while and watch as the sun and stars move through the sky on their own accord as the earth remains still - Testable

RE predicts that the earth is in constant motion, spinning like a top at over a thousand miles an hour at the equator, the appearance of moving celestial bodies being an illusion. – Untestable

Size of Celestial Bodies

FE predicts that the celestial bodies are all very small. To test this we simply need to look into the sky. We see that the sun, moon, and stars all appear to be small bodies. – Testable

RE predicts that the celestial bodies are very large, being hundreds of thousands of miles in diameter; however they are at such a distance from the earth that they create the illusion of being small bodies. – Untestable

As we can see, virtually everything in our environment suggests a Flat Earth. There is nothing which suggests that the earth is a globe, all phenomenons being passed off as "illusion." I've provided tests which each and every one of you can perform very easily to demonstrate that our environment suggests a Flat Earth.

Now as a challenge to you Round Earthers, what kind of household test can I preform which suggests that the Round Earth model is true? The budget for your test needs to be minimal. Asking me to build a rocket ship and blast off into space is not a household test.

Try this experiment.  All you need is a stopwatch.

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/homework/earth_radius/earth_rad.html

Wow, assume a round earth and then with a stopwatch you can learn properties about it? That does sound like a proof of your assumption... Or rather, further proof that RET is unprovable since it requires assuming a roundearth.

Spot on, Tom.

Wow, assume a round earth and then with a stopwatch you can learn properties about it? That does sound like a proof of your assumption... Or rather, further proof that RET is unprovable since it requires assuming a roundearth.

Spot on, Tom.

He did not ask for proof.  He asked for a test that would suggest that the RE model is true.  That is what I provided.  If the RE model is not true, then the test in the link will not work. 

BTW, that's pretty much how science works.  Make an assumption,  then test is to see if your assumption is correct.

Quote from: narcberry on May 24, 2008, 07:13:02 PM

Wow, assume a round earth and then with a stopwatch you can learn properties about it? That does sound like a proof of your assumption... Or rather, further proof that RET is unprovable since it requires assuming a roundearth.

Spot on, Tom.

He did not ask for proof.  He asked for a test that would suggest that the RE model is true.  That is what I provided.  If the RE model is not true, then the test in the link will not work. 

No, you'd still be able to get a result, but it would be measuring something completely different.  There's nothing about this test that inherently suggests that the RE model is true except, as Narcberry said, that you need to assume the RE model is true in order to get the proper result.

Oops, I forgot reading is not included in the RE'ers packet of standard skills.
Try this instead.

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2008, 07:21:35 PM

Quote from: narcberry on May 24, 2008, 07:13:02 PM

Wow, assume a round earth and then with a stopwatch you can learn properties about it? That does sound like a proof of your assumption... Or rather, further proof that RET is unprovable since it requires assuming a roundearth.

Spot on, Tom.

He did not ask for proof.  He asked for a test that would suggest that the RE model is true.  That is what I provided.  If the RE model is not true, then the test in the link will not work. 

No, you'd still be able to get a result, but it would be measuring something completely different.  There's nothing about this test that inherently suggests that the RE model is true except, as Narcberry said, that you need to assume the RE model is true in order to get the proper result.

Then try the experiment assuming an FE model and let us know the results.

We have, in fact it was done centuries ago.

Feel free to read the FAQ, use the search, and generally avoid hitting your 'act like an idiot' button.

We have, in fact it was done centuries ago.

Feel free to read the FAQ, use the search, and generally avoid hitting your 'act like an idiot' button.

You mean the one marked "Narcberry"?

Do you have a easily accessible "narcberry" button that you keep pushing on accident?

Do you have a easily accessible "narcberry" button that you keep pushing on accident?

So it would seem.   

I want a narcberry button

Don't push my button.

but it makes me feel good

but it makes me feel good

But afterwards, it makes you feel so dirty.   

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 24, 2008, 07:25:08 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2008, 07:21:35 PM

Quote from: narcberry on May 24, 2008, 07:13:02 PM

Wow, assume a round earth and then with a stopwatch you can learn properties about it? That does sound like a proof of your assumption... Or rather, further proof that RET is unprovable since it requires assuming a roundearth.

Spot on, Tom.

He did not ask for proof.  He asked for a test that would suggest that the RE model is true.  That is what I provided.  If the RE model is not true, then the test in the link will not work. 

No, you'd still be able to get a result, but it would be measuring something completely different.  There's nothing about this test that inherently suggests that the RE model is true except, as Narcberry said, that you need to assume the RE model is true in order to get the proper result.

Then try the experiment assuming an FE model and let us know the results.

What would that prove? 

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2008, 07:27:59 PM

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 24, 2008, 07:25:08 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 24, 2008, 07:21:35 PM

Quote from: narcberry on May 24, 2008, 07:13:02 PM

Wow, assume a round earth and then with a stopwatch you can learn properties about it? That does sound like a proof of your assumption... Or rather, further proof that RET is unprovable since it requires assuming a roundearth.

Spot on, Tom.

He did not ask for proof.  He asked for a test that would suggest that the RE model is true.  That is what I provided.  If the RE model is not true, then the test in the link will not work. 

No, you'd still be able to get a result, but it would be measuring something completely different.  There's nothing about this test that inherently suggests that the RE model is true except, as Narcberry said, that you need to assume the RE model is true in order to get the proper result.

Then try the experiment assuming an FE model and let us know the results.

What would that prove? 

I don't know, that's why I'm asking you to try it and let us know what happens.

Great something that looks like science from TB.
Let's see just how much we can keep this on science
I'm going to do this a bit at a time to avoid it getting too long.

Our Environment

FE predicts that the earth is flat. To test this we need to look out our window. We will see a plane extending farther than the eye can see. - Testable

RE predicts that the earth is at such a convenient size that it creates the illusion of being flat. -  Untestable

Both theories predict that looking out of you window tells you nothing about the shape of the world. Even if it looks flat that could mean the earth is a cube.
So either invalid test or a draw.

Gravitation

FE predicts that gravitation is caused by an upwardly accelerating earth.
This UA is caused by an unknown agent that no-one has ever seen  -  untestable

RE predicts that gravity causes objects to accelerate towards the ground when dropped. Drop a ball off, say, the Tower of Pisa and observe it accelerating, or roll a ball down an inclined gully with bells spaced evenly and listen for the bells to chime with shortening gaps  - Testable

See what I did there. I swapped the 'test the effect' for 'test the cause', in much the way the question did, but the other way round.

This thread is intended to demonstrate that the Round Earth Theory is not testable. I will show through easily reproducible household methods that there is absolutely zero reason to consider the possibility of the Round Earth model.

Our Environment

FE predicts that the earth is flat. To test this we need to look out our window. We will see a plane extending farther than the eye can see. - Testable

RE predicts that the earth is at such a convenient size that it creates the illusion of being flat. -  Untestable

Gravitation

FE predicts that gravitation is caused by an upwardly accelerating earth. To test this we will need to stand up on the edge of our chair and walk off the edge while observing the surface of the earth carefully. The earth will appear to accelerate up towards the observer -  Testable

RE predicts that “graviton particles” no one has ever seen are pulling objects towards the surface of the earth. There should be trillions of tiny graviton particles whooshing around us at every moment of the day creating the illusion of an accelerating earth. - Untestable

Movement of the earth

FE predicts that the earth is still and the celestial bodies whirl above our heads. To test this we simply need to sit on our porch for a while and watch as the sun and stars move through the sky on their own accord as the earth remains still - Testable

RE predicts that the earth is in constant motion, spinning like a top at over a thousand miles an hour at the equator, the appearance of moving celestial bodies being an illusion. – Untestable

Size of Celestial Bodies

FE predicts that the celestial bodies are all very small. To test this we simply need to look into the sky. We see that the sun, moon, and stars all appear to be small bodies. – Testable

RE predicts that the celestial bodies are very large, being hundreds of thousands of miles in diameter; however they are at such a distance from the earth that they create the illusion of being small bodies. – Untestable

As we can see, virtually everything in our environment suggests a Flat Earth. There is nothing which suggests that the earth is a globe, all phenomenons being passed off as "illusion." I've provided tests which each and every one of you can perform very easily to demonstrate that our environment suggests a Flat Earth.

Now as a challenge to you Round Earthers, what kind of household test can I preform which suggests that the Round Earth model is true? The budget for your test needs to be minimal. Asking me to build a rocket ship and blast off into space is not a household test.

Fallacy, thou art defined.

Movement of the earth

FE predicts that the earth is still and the celestial bodies whirl above our heads. To test this we simply need to sit on our porch for a while and watch as the sun and stars move through the sky on their own accord as the earth remains still - Testable

RE predicts that the earth is in constant motion, spinning like a top at over a thousand miles an hour at the equator, the appearance of moving celestial bodies being an illusion. – Untestable

Excellent my favorite subject of the mo.
Again, in both cases on an incredibly superficial level they predict if we look up we should see objects go by. So on this basis testable and pass for both.
Now how about a proper test, you know like they do in science, with like equipment and numbers.

RET predicts the sun and celestial bodies move through the sky with constant angular velocity
FET predicts angular velocity varies by location and time of day.
Testable.
Guess what result we get when we test.

Size of Celestial Bodies

FE predicts that the celestial bodies are all very small. To test this we simply need to look into the sky. We see that the sun, moon, and stars all appear to be small bodies. – Testable

RE predicts that the celestial bodies are very large, being hundreds of thousands of miles in diameter; however they are at such a distance from the earth that they create the illusion of being small bodies. – Untestable

FET predicts that the size of the sun and moon should markable (measurably) decrease towards the end of the day as they get further away - Testable

RET predicts that celestial objects (particularly the sun and moon) maintain virtually the same size (except the nearest planets) in the sky as the distance to them does not change very much. - Testable

Again, what result do you think we get when we test.

So, TB's test are of the calibre of 'look mummy the moon is in a different place to earlier'.
The test I use are something that could be done with a £100 telescope, or a stick and some string.

Now as a challenge to you Round Earthers, what kind of household test can I preform which suggests that the Round Earth model is true? The budget for your test needs to be minimal. Asking me to build a rocket ship and blast off into space is not a household test.

I have already outlined, in detail how to test for CAV with stick and string here.

You have yet to explain how this test, which you claim we can't even think of, produces results that are consistent with FET predictions.

i wonder what instrument you need to beat tom in the head with to make him realize looking out your window doesn't tell you anything about the shape of the earth.

I suspect science has yet to invent it.
Making the blind see is easier.

Yeah and thats freaking hard. I saw a documentary about it though. It involves sunglasses with a camera on them. They send a wireless signal to an implant inside the head of the blind person, it has a probe that attaches to the optic nerve. The implant changes the real time recording into an electrical signal that is sent down the optic nerve and interpreted by the brain. At the moment its only in like 16 pixels, but its still amazing. They obviously plan on increasing the resolution, but they have problems with implant size, batteries etc etc.

Good job Larf.  Once again, Tom Bishop is proven wrong and doesnt respond.

This thread is intended to demonstrate that the Round Earth Theory is not testable. I will show through easily reproducible household methods that there is absolutely zero reason to consider the possibility of the Round Earth model.

Our Environment

FE predicts that the earth is flat. To test this we need to look out our window. We will see a plane extending farther than the eye can see. - Testable

RE predicts that the earth is at such a convenient size that it creates the illusion of being flat. -  Untestable

Gravitation

FE predicts that gravitation is caused by an upwardly accelerating earth. To test this we will need to stand up on the edge of our chair and walk off the edge while observing the surface of the earth carefully. The earth will appear to accelerate up towards the observer -  Testable

RE predicts that “graviton particles” no one has ever seen are pulling objects towards the surface of the earth. There should be trillions of tiny graviton particles whooshing around us at every moment of the day creating the illusion of an accelerating earth. - Untestable

Movement of the earth

FE predicts that the earth is still and the celestial bodies whirl above our heads. To test this we simply need to sit on our porch for a while and watch as the sun and stars move through the sky on their own accord as the earth remains still - Testable

RE predicts that the earth is in constant motion, spinning like a top at over a thousand miles an hour at the equator, the appearance of moving celestial bodies being an illusion. – Untestable

Size of Celestial Bodies

FE predicts that the celestial bodies are all very small. To test this we simply need to look into the sky. We see that the sun, moon, and stars all appear to be small bodies. – Testable

RE predicts that the celestial bodies are very large, being hundreds of thousands of miles in diameter; however they are at such a distance from the earth that they create the illusion of being small bodies. – Untestable

As we can see, virtually everything in our environment suggests a Flat Earth. There is nothing which suggests that the earth is a globe, all phenomenons being passed off as "illusion." I've provided tests which each and every one of you can perform very easily to demonstrate that our environment suggests a Flat Earth.

Now as a challenge to you Round Earthers, what kind of household test can I preform which suggests that the Round Earth model is true? The budget for your test needs to be minimal. Asking me to build a rocket ship and blast off into space is not a household test.

Erm.. what, you will see a plane extending further than the eye can see, isnt that a little bit contradictory and to find that the earth has a curve just do a simple mathematic equation,

Lenght of Arc = X degrees / 360 degrees x pi x Diameter

also to prove the world is round (this is able to be done by yourself, so nasa sure as hell aint in on it, influencing YOUR results ) just establish the volume of the earth using its radius, you know
that one V=4/3 x pi x r to the power of 3

ANd this thread in general = win for the Round earth theory!!!

It cracks me up how all four of his "testable" FE points also test for RE theory. E.g. They do nothing to a flat earth, so they are not a test for either.

FE predicts that the earth is flat. To test this we need to look out our window. We will see a plane extending farther than the eye can see. - Testable

The earth has a shallow curve, looks flat.

FE predicts that gravitation is caused by an upwardly accelerating earth. To test this we will need to stand up on the edge of our chair and walk off the edge while observing the surface of the earth carefully. The earth will appear to accelerate up towards the observer -  Testable

Or we accelerate downwards and the earth accelerates upwards by the smallest unmeasurable distance.

FE predicts that the earth is still and the celestial bodies whirl above our heads. To test this we simply need to sit on our porch for a while and watch as the sun and stars move through the sky on their own accord as the earth remains still - Testable

The earth remains still?? lol to your perspective it does. The stars move and so do we.

FE predicts that the celestial bodies are all very small. To test this we simply need to look into the sky. We see that the sun, moon, and stars all appear to be small bodies. – Testable

You ever looked at a basketball 5Km away? It looks pretty tiny.

His stupidity just amazes me.

Lol even the RE'ers agree Tom just disproved their model.

Nice work Tom.

Okay I got a test that I've read about, its rather hard to do but its the only one you guys wouldn't be able to disprove. Set up a giant triangle (like I'm talking at least between two cities) and measure the angles at each angle in the triangle now add them all together. Now if the earth is flat the total angle should be 180 degrees however, if its greater i means its round.

P.S. This all assumes you can make a accurate measurement and find a reasonable flat plane

FE predicts that the celestial bodies are all very small. To test this we simply need to look into the sky. We see that the sun, moon, and stars all appear to be small bodies. – Testable

RE predicts that the celestial bodies are very large, being hundreds of thousands of miles in diameter; however they are at such a distance from the earth that they create the illusion of being small bodies. – Untestable

Tom your an idiot have you ever looked at something far away? They look smaller than they actually are! It's not very disputed that the things we see are far away. After all the cosmological red shift wouldn't work if they were close