Let's do the science

Hello again. There are lots of tests that can be done to figure out if the earth is curved or flat. I'm not an expert but people have been figuring the shape of the earth out for a very long time. I propose we post experiments that can by done by the average user to gain scientific data.

Rules:
Don't invent methods because I doubt any of us are qualified, if you are state your qualification.
The reason for this rule is that people will come up with ideas that support what they want to find, this is called confirmation science and is in fact not science.
 
Post a method and post your findings, with out findings there is no reason to post in this thread

Don't spam this thread with nonsense. This will test the fortitude of both sides and  who actually wants answers and not just silly arguments over trivial points.

Hello again. There are lots of tests that can be done to figure out if the earth is curved or flat. I'm not an expert but people have been figuring the shape of the earth out for a very long time. I propose we post experiments that can by done by the average user to gain scientific data.

Rules:
Don't invent methods because I doubt any of us are qualified, if you are state your qualification.
The reason for this rule is that people will come up with ideas that support what they want to find, this is called confirmation science and is in fact not science.
 
Post a method and post your findings, with out findings there is no reason to post in this thread

Don't spam this thread with nonsense. This will test the fortitude of both sides and  who actually wants answers and not just silly arguments over trivial points.

Well, I personally did no measurements for this, but there are numerous references as to the validity of these figures.

Distance from the Equator to the North Pole:	not exactly, but very close to 10,000 km (just ask Napoleon!) -
Circumference of the Equator Circle:	This can be taken either as 21,600 NMi or 40,000 km - very close

No "science" is needed, just a little geometry.  Before getting too serious, we'd better get agreement on the numbers.  But, for a start:

Please refrain from posts like that it defeats the purpose of this thread. I'd rather get no reply then ones that don't fit into what I'm trying to do. No replays shows me at least that no one on this site is very serious about there beliefs.

On a flat earth the stars will only rotate around one point, and a round earth they will rotate around two.
If you can find two points of rotation, the earth is round, if you can only find one, the earth is flat.

On a flat earth the stars will only rotate around one point, and a round earth they will rotate around two.
If you can find two points of rotation, the earth is round, if you can only find one, the earth is flat.

Its a good starting point. To do this test properly you would have to take pictures from the equator or close to it and a view that can see both north and south. The reason for this is If the earth is flat at the equator you should see one point of rotation, if the earth is round you should see 2.

This is a really neat link, turns out someone did this and then turned it into an interactive picture. scroll down until you hit the interactive part.
http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 08:29:21 AM

On a flat earth the stars will only rotate around one point, and a round earth they will rotate around two.
If you can find two points of rotation, the earth is round, if you can only find one, the earth is flat.

Its a good starting point. To do this test properly you would have to take pictures from the equator or close to it and a view that can see both north and south. The reason for this is If the earth is flat at the equator you should see one point of rotation, if the earth is round you should see 2.

I propose that one person in each hemisphere take a long exposure picture of the night sky to determine if there are indeed 2 fixed points of rotation.

Quote from: Mbecks on January 12, 2016, 11:11:45 AM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 08:29:21 AM

On a flat earth the stars will only rotate around one point, and a round earth they will rotate around two.
If you can find two points of rotation, the earth is round, if you can only find one, the earth is flat.

Its a good starting point. To do this test properly you would have to take pictures from the equator or close to it and a view that can see both north and south. The reason for this is If the earth is flat at the equator you should see one point of rotation, if the earth is round you should see 2.

I propose that one person in each hemisphere take a long exposure picture of the night sky to determine if there are indeed 2 fixed points of rotation.

I second this, I'm in the northern hemisphere in Canada so I could do this side I Just need to find a camera that can do the exposure. it would be good to take a picture of the stars as well to see if we have different sets stars. someone has done something like this very neatly from the equator, check this out.
http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html

So I guess no one is actually interested in testing there theories? that kind of defeats the purpose of stating anything that we do if we don't try and back it up with our own research.

So I guess no one is actually interested in testing there theories? that kind of defeats the purpose of stating anything that we do if we don't try and back it up with our own research.

How about we take it a step at a time? Just wait for a Southern Hem dweller to offer to take a pic of the southern cross first.

Its not like the flatties are going to rush herewith any evidence of any kind of experiment. 

Didnt I seen another thread by the same title? Aw well, this should be interesting.

should be interesting but no flat earther is participating so that says something. Did you guys check out that link and scroll down to the 360 photo take at the equator that you can move around. its pretty neat.

should be interesting but no flat earther is participating so that says something. Did you guys check out that link and scroll down to the 360 photo take at the equator that you can move around. its pretty neat.

Didnt see it.

The first test is to make a Flat Earth Map showing the true positions, sizes and distances of all continents.

If the Earth were really flat, that would be a piece of cake; no distortions due to the forced projection of a 3D object onto a 2D surface, a task that keeps thousands of coordinate systems, dozens of projection systems and tens of thousands of people at work every day...

That that map is still not produced, 200+ years after inventor Rowbotham came with the idea says it all...

On a flat earth the stars will only rotate around one point, and a round earth they will rotate around two.
If you can find two points of rotation, the earth is round, if you can only find one, the earth is flat.

I dispute that,   what if the earth is fixed and flat and the stars are fixed to a rotating celestial sphere?    We would still see the two poles of rotation.

BTW I don't believe that's the case, I'm just pointing out the flaw in the logic.

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 08:29:21 AM

On a flat earth the stars will only rotate around one point, and a round earth they will rotate around two.
If you can find two points of rotation, the earth is round, if you can only find one, the earth is flat.

I dispute that, what if the earth is fixed and flat and the stars are fixed to a rotating celestial sphere?    We would still see the two poles of rotation.
BTW I don't believe that's the case, I'm just pointing out the flaw in the logic.

I must say I go with "Empirical".
I don't see how it is possible for the earth to be fixed and flat and the stars fixed to a rotating celestial sphere and be able to see the two poles of rotation. "

if the earth were fixed and a globe and the stars are fixed to a rotating celestial sphere, as was accepted around Ptolemy's time, we would certainly see the two poles of rotation.  But, those even the nearest stars would have need to be travelling at around "Warp 10" - hope Scotty's around!
Hey, what do we have here - is it three globe supporters "discussing" hypotheticals?

Quote from: Rayzor on January 13, 2016, 06:25:40 PM

Quote from: Empirical on January 12, 2016, 08:29:21 AM

On a flat earth the stars will only rotate around one point, and a round earth they will rotate around two.
If you can find two points of rotation, the earth is round, if you can only find one, the earth is flat.

I dispute that, what if the earth is fixed and flat and the stars are fixed to a rotating celestial sphere?    We would still see the two poles of rotation.
BTW I don't believe that's the case, I'm just pointing out the flaw in the logic.

I must say I go with "Empirical".
I don't see how it is possible for the earth to be fixed and flat and the stars fixed to a rotating celestial sphere and be able to see the two poles of rotation. "

if the earth were fixed and a globe and the stars are fixed to a rotating celestial sphere, as was accepted around Ptolemy's time, we would certainly see the two poles of rotation.  But, those even the nearest stars would have need to be travelling at around "Warp 10" - hope Scotty's around!
Hey, what do we have here - is it three globe supporters "discussing" hypotheticals?

Well,   on a globe earth,  the only place you should be able to see two poles of rotation would be close to the equator.   On a flat earth you should be able to see two poles from anywhere. 

But my point is the Ptolemaic system does work, more or less, equivalently to the Copernican system.  As to why the flat earthers don't trot out the celestial sphere option to explain the SCP,  I don't know.  Too dumb?

Hey, what do we have here - is it three two globe supporters "discussing" hypotheticals?

Fixed.

I propose we post experiments that can by done by the average user to gain scientific data.

Ok, let's do this.

state your qualification.

I'm an engineer.  An engineer that designs and builds missiles.  A 'rocket scientist' if you will.

Post a method

FE Hypothesis:
The FE is accelerating.

Consequence:
Things not in contact with the earth, directly or otherwise will stop accelerating, continue at current velocity and will eventually be overtaken by the accelerating FE.

Simple test that can be done by the average user:
1. Pick up a pen.
2. Hold pen above the ground.
3. Let go of pen.
4. Observe.

post your findings

Results:
Trial 1:  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 2.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 3.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 4:  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 5.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 6.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 7.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 8.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 9:  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 10.  Pen fell to the floor.

In 100% of the tests (with a sample size of 10), the pen fell to the floor.

What do I win?

Quote from: Mbecks on January 11, 2016, 09:30:09 PM

I propose we post experiments that can by done by the average user to gain scientific data.

Ok, let's do this.

Quote

state your qualification.

I'm an engineer.  An engineer that designs and builds missiles.  A 'rocket scientist' if you will.

Quote

Post a method

FE Hypothesis:
The FE is accelerating.

Consequence:
Things not in contact with the earth, directly or otherwise will stop accelerating, continue at current velocity and will eventually be overtaken by the accelerating FE.

Simple test that can be done by the average user:
1. Pick up a pen.
2. Hold pen above the ground.
3. Let go of pen.
4. Observe.

Quote

post your findings

Results:
Trial 1:  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 2.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 3.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 4:  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 5.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 6.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 7.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 8.  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 9:  Pen fell to the floor.
Trial 10.  Pen fell to the floor.

In 100% of the tests (with a sample size of 10), the pen fell to the floor.

What do I win?

So by extension, I have a quadcopter, so your hypothesis suggests I will need to launch the quad into the air and keep applying more and more throttle to give the quad the appearance of hovering a few feet above the ground, alternatively, if I stop accelerating the props and leave the throttle at the point where it hovers. the quad should be hit by the rising earth in a fraction of a second.

Trial 1. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I don't add any acceleration.
Trial 2. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I don't add any acceleration.
Trial 3. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I don't add any acceleration.
Trial 4. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I don't add any acceleration.
Trial 5. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 6. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 7. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 8. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 9. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 10. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 11. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 12. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 13. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 14. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 15. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.

Conclusion;
The f#$king turtle and the elephants are in on the conspiracy!

RE Hypothesis:
The Earth rotates.

Consequence:
Things over the sky will rotate around the axis of rotation.

Results:
Trial 1:  Sun rotates around the axis across the sky.
Trial 2.  Stars rotate around the axis across the sky.
Trial 2N+1: same as #1.
Trial 2N+2: same as #2.
N=number of days since human became intelligent enough to develop science and observe the sky for more than just admiration of the nature.

Thanks.

Here's a nice easy one.

Stand on the beach,
look along the coast line,
Can you see the coast line further away than 3 miles ?
Can you see the coast line further away than 5 miles ?

Pull out a telescope or binoculars,
how far down the coast can you see ?
Remember you are looking for the waters edge.

job done.

Here's a nice easy one.

Stand on the beach,
look along the coast line,
Can you see the coast line further away than 3 miles ?
Can you see the coast line further away than 5 miles ?

Pull out a telescope or binoculars,
how far down the coast can you see ?
Remember you are looking for the waters edge.

job done.

Now climb the cliff and look again, can you see further?   If you can the earth is round.

Quote from: feuk on January 14, 2016, 05:19:07 AM

Here's a nice easy one.

Stand on the beach,
look along the coast line,
Can you see the coast line further away than 3 miles ?
Can you see the coast line further away than 5 miles ?

Pull out a telescope or binoculars,
how far down the coast can you see ?
Remember you are looking for the waters edge.

job done.

Now climb the cliff and look again, can you see further?   If you can the earth is round.
   

No need to climb a cliff,
Just stand at the waters edge make an observation and measure the distance.

Simple observed repeatable measurable scientific experiment.

How far away did you observe the coast line ?

Trial 1. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I don't add any acceleration.
Trial 2. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I don't add any acceleration.
Trial 3. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I don't add any acceleration.
Trial 4. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I don't add any acceleration.
Trial 5. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 6. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 7. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 8. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 9. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 10. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 11. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 12. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 13. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 14. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.
Trial 15. My quad hovers and stays that way even if I'm not accelerating.

Conclusion;
The f#$king turtle and the elephants are in on the conspiracy!

Your conclusions are false.  By keeping your quad hovering, you are constantly accelerating it at 9.8m/s^2.  It's sad you RE'ers can't even perform a simple experiment correctly but instead falsify the results/conclusions to fit your worldview.

Here is an experiment I did almost a year ago:

Recently I organized an experiment to prove the shape of the Earth where Dephelis and I both took pictures of the Sun at the same time at two very distant locations.  Time zones were obviously taken into account.

My photo:


Dephelis's photo:


Astronomy telescopes have a tendency to flip their image as well as rotate it in weird ways and also it was sunrise for me and sunset for Dephelis so we are seeing the sun at different orientations.  Here is my image rotated 180 degrees to match Dephelis's image better:


Here I have identified the sunspots on the two images:


Both these images contain the same sunspots in the same places which means that when they were taken the same side of the Sun was facing the two telescopes, but these images were taken at the same time from different continents so the only explanation is that the Sun is really far away, and if the Sun is really far away then the only way that time zones and seasons can be explained is by saying that the Earth is round.  Any resident of Earth has experienced seasons, and time zones had to be taken into account when this experiment was being preformed so they are obviously real.

Conclusion: the Earth is round.

I could repeat it if any willing participants live far away from the United States and has a telescope with a solar filter.  We could also repeat this experiment with the Moon instead of the Sun.

Well this turned into a joke fast. Clearly people don't  want to do actual science and just want to spam the thread. Oh well I've found tfes.org and there seems to. E a few more mature people there.

Quote

Post a method

FE Hypothesis:
The FE is accelerating.

Consequence:
Things not in contact with the earth, directly or otherwise will stop accelerating, continue at current velocity and will eventually be overtaken by the accelerating FE.

Simple test that can be done by the average user:
1. Pick up a pen.
2. Hold pen above the ground.
3. Let go of pen.
4. Observe.

Check me if I'm wrong, but the equivalence principle says that acceleration and gravitation are indistinguishable at such a small scale, therefore your experiment is inconclusive.

Well this turned into a joke fast. Clearly people don't  want to do actual science and just want to spam the thread. Oh well I've found tfes.org and there seems to. E a few more mature people there.

Not spent much time at TFES. Is that site also overrun by trolls? This site is pretty unique in my experience. Could you imagine a site dedicated to, let's say, football, tolerating people joining and then trolling with:

"WTF is wrong with you all??? Football SUCKS losers!!!"

Or, a site for battered wives happily accepting a new member stating:

I'm a wife beater and I wish I could knock the stuffing out of all you women, too.

Nope. Wouldn't happen. Only here.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 13, 2016, 11:15:36 PM

Quote

Post a method

FE Hypothesis:
The FE is accelerating.

Consequence:
Things not in contact with the earth, directly or otherwise will stop accelerating, continue at current velocity and will eventually be overtaken by the accelerating FE.

Simple test that can be done by the average user:
1. Pick up a pen.
2. Hold pen above the ground.
3. Let go of pen.
4. Observe.

Check me if I'm wrong, but the equivalence principle says that acceleration and gravitation are indistinguishable at such a small scale, therefore your experiment is inconclusive.

The OP didn't say anything about being conclusive.  He simply said "Let's do the science".  So I provided some simple science for him (and you) to do.