A refutation of RE that RE-ers will accept - experiment at home on 20th March

Hey all. If you'd like to disprove, easily, in a way that RE-ers will accept, the premise of a round earth, then tomorrow's the day to do it.

On March 20th, 2016 - when the sun is due south of you (or north, for those few in the southern hemisphere), measure the angle to the sun from the vertical.

If the angle is NOT your latitude, then post here (a photo of your setup would probably help), and no Round Earther will be able to refute the proof. Obviously, some indication of your latitude and proof that the sun was due south/north (i.e. probably not exactly at 12:00 noon, depending on your location) when the measurement was taken would be required.

If you miss the day, you can plan ahead and try again on September 22nd.

I look forward to seeing the simple, irrefutable proof that the round-earth model is wrong. Of course, if your measurements do show that the angle is equal to your latitude, then I'd be fascinated to hear about a non-RE model that accounts for the geometry. I'm guessing some sort of atmospheric lensing, distorting the position of the sun?

Get ready to be destroyed.

Found a good guide for a setup for measurements.

Hey all. If you'd like to disprove, easily, in a way that RE-ers will accept, the premise of a round earth, then tomorrow's the day to do it.

On March 20th, 2016 - when the sun is due south of you (or north, for those few in the southern hemisphere), measure the angle to the sun from the vertical.

If the angle is NOT your latitude, then post here (a photo of your setup would probably help), and no Round Earther will be able to refute the proof. Obviously, some indication of your latitude and proof that the sun was due south/north (i.e. probably not exactly at 12:00 noon, depending on your location) when the measurement was taken would be required.

If you miss the day, you can plan ahead and try again on September 22nd.

I look forward to seeing the simple, irrefutable proof that the round-earth model is wrong. Of course, if your measurements do show that the angle is equal to your latitude, then I'd be fascinated to hear about a non-RE model that accounts for the geometry. I'm guessing some sort of atmospheric lensing, distorting the position of the sun?

I could refute any of the proof by doing exactly what you FE-ers do any time valid evidence is provided contradicting your model. That is by simply saying: "nope. It's tampered. Math is easy so it wouldn't take much to calculate what coordinates, angles and measurements would be necessary to replicate any geometry expected on a flat earth". I mean it's flat. Straight lines and measurements are simple. Please, give me some numbers, how big is the sun? How far from the earth? What is the circumference of its current orbit above the flat earth? If the earth is being "propelled upward" at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, are then so too the sun and all other celestial objects under the same force and therefore maintaining a constant distance or is there any fluctuation with distance over time? Give me something to go on.

Please, give me some numbers, how big is the sun? How far from the earth?

Check the FAQ: their answer comes from Eratosphenes'.

What is the circumference of its current orbit above the flat earth?

They don't have a good map of the Earth, so they can't calculate the distances required.

If the earth is being "propelled upward" at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, are then so too the sun and all other celestial objects under the same force and therefore maintaining a constant distance or is there any fluctuation with distance over time? Give me something to go on.

Usually the FE answer is that the current (dark energy or aether) that accelerates the Earth forms a sort of dome of exclusion: the current's split by the Earth, then moves inwards again. There's a dome over the Earth in which things fall because they're not accelerated: and then above that everything's being accelerated at the same rate. That's where the stars etc are.
If there are any fluctuations, I'd guess the Earth would suffer them too as they're accelerated by the same force, so there wouldn't be any change in relative distance.
That being said, there are also plenty of FEers who don't accept the universal acceleration model. This isn't the site to come to if you want consensus.

Quote from: Ointflyment on March 20, 2016, 08:03:24 AM

Hey all. If you'd like to disprove, easily, in a way that RE-ers will accept, the premise of a round earth, then tomorrow's the day to do it.

On March 20th, 2016 - when the sun is due south of you (or north, for those few in the southern hemisphere), measure the angle to the sun from the vertical.

If the angle is NOT your latitude, then post here (a photo of your setup would probably help), and no Round Earther will be able to refute the proof. Obviously, some indication of your latitude and proof that the sun was due south/north (i.e. probably not exactly at 12:00 noon, depending on your location) when the measurement was taken would be required.

If you miss the day, you can plan ahead and try again on September 22nd.

I look forward to seeing the simple, irrefutable proof that the round-earth model is wrong. Of course, if your measurements do show that the angle is equal to your latitude, then I'd be fascinated to hear about a non-RE model that accounts for the geometry. I'm guessing some sort of atmospheric lensing, distorting the position of the sun?

I could refute any of the proof by doing exactly what you FE-ers do any time valid evidence is provided contradicting your model. That is by simply saying: "nope. It's tampered. Math is easy so it wouldn't take much to calculate what coordinates, angles and measurements would be necessary to replicate any geometry expected on a flat earth". I mean it's flat. Straight lines and measurements are simple. Please, give me some numbers, how big is the sun? How far from the earth? What is the circumference of its current orbit above the flat earth? If the earth is being "propelled upward" at a rate of 9.8m/s^2, are then so too the sun and all other celestial objects under the same force and therefore maintaining a constant distance or is there any fluctuation with distance over time? Give me something to go on.

EXACTLY what I have been saying all along.  Why can't FE'ers produce any real, tangible numbers that can be verified.  They make ludicrous claims but cannot even product the MOST BASIC such as the nature of the sun and moon.  They make one ridiculous claim that the earth accelerates upward at a rate of 9.8m/s2 but can't account for any other celestial bodies, least of all the sun and moon.  Come on.  If the sun and moon are really so close then why the heck can't they prove it?!  This is sine qua non to their entire argument and they can't prove that the sun is that close?  Are we supposed to believe you "FE theorists" can't find the appropriate technology to test your assumptions?  Look, no one is ever going to take you seriously until you can provide one piece of tangible evidence. 

Why can't FE'ers produce any real, tangible numbers that can be verified. 

For entirely obvious reasons.   

Ok! I did it. Here are the some pics:

My setup




The math + phone gps (open img in new tab to see better)




Guess what...
It fits!