Disproving strong Round Earth arguments

I would like a link to that experiment, thanks.

It's on the Netflix documentary "Behind the Curve", with Bob Knodel talking about it.

So it's caused quite a ruckus on YouTube, with some Flat Earthers defending him, others accusing him of being a NASA shill, CIA plant, Satanist, etc.  There's probably thousands of videos on it now.  Search the above and take your pick.

This is quite an entertaining "debate" between Bob and someone from the Limitless channel:

All trips by independent researchers

The wording here is quite dishonest. Plenty of people have done it, but those who do just get grouped together with REers.

But that we live on a ball is also unconvincing.

Why? I am yet to see any actual problem presented, just misunderstanding.

We will not know the truth.

After reviewing with some interest (actually, morbid curiosity) the F.A.Q.s, the Revised F.A.Q.s, and much of the conversation on this site, I propose that the above statement by Heavenly Breeze should be adopted as the official motto of the FES, since it is essentially the ultimate answer to all the technical questions posed by FE skeptics here.

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on March 08, 2019, 08:26:22 PM

We will not know the truth.

After reviewing with some interest (actually, morbid curiosity) the F.A.Q.s, the Revised F.A.Q.s, and much of the conversation on this site, I propose that the above statement by Heavenly Breeze should be adopted as the official motto of the FES, since it is essentially the ultimate answer to all the technical questions posed by FE skeptics here.

Were you so morbidly curious you decided to create an alt, Pi31415?

Quote from: sesquipedalianist on March 09, 2019, 03:41:42 PM

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on March 08, 2019, 08:26:22 PM

We will not know the truth.

After reviewing with some interest (actually, morbid curiosity) the F.A.Q.s, the Revised F.A.Q.s, and much of the conversation on this site, I propose that the above statement by Heavenly Breeze should be adopted as the official motto of the FES, since it is essentially the ultimate answer to all the technical questions posed by FE skeptics here.

Were you so morbidly curious you decided to create an alt, Pi31415?

No no no, this must be Phew and not Pi. SUCH ACCUSATIONS!

Quote from: sesquipedalianist on March 09, 2019, 03:41:42 PM

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on March 08, 2019, 08:26:22 PM

We will not know the truth.

After reviewing with some interest (actually, morbid curiosity) the F.A.Q.s, the Revised F.A.Q.s, and much of the conversation on this site, I propose that the above statement by Heavenly Breeze should be adopted as the official motto of the FES, since it is essentially the ultimate answer to all the technical questions posed by FE skeptics here.

Were you so morbidly curious you decided to create an alt, Pi31415?

Excuse me?

LOL you know you are trackable, right?

LOL you know you are trackable, right?

Trackable by what, satellite? Impossible, since they don't exist according to FE theory.

No, drone. There is one watching through your window RIGHT NOW. But when you look, it darts slightly out of view.

Quote from: AroundWeGo on February 28, 2019, 05:40:03 PM

We have people trying to disprove RE by buying an extremely sensitive gyroscope saying it should move 15 degrees every hour if the Earth is a globe—so giddy to prove once and for all it’s flat.

They see it move 15 degrees every hour and instead of maybe, just maybe, the Earth is round, they say, “oh.....gee.....I don’t know what’s going on.....perhaps some effect we don’t know about and we will create out of thin dome air.”

I would like a link to that experiment, thanks.

I'll answer that in another thread as it's a bit out if place here: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope « Reply #113 on: Today at 09:18:26 PM »

No, drone. There is one watching through your window RIGHT NOW. But when you look, it darts slightly out of view.

Bullshit, I know for a fact they use SEP fields.

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on March 08, 2019, 08:26:22 PM
We will not know the truth.

After reviewing with some interest (actually, morbid curiosity) the F.A.Q.s, the Revised F.A.Q.s, and much of the conversation on this site, I propose that the above statement by Heavenly Breeze should be adopted as the official motto of the FES, since it is essentially the ultimate answer to all the technical questions posed by FE skeptics here.

sesquipedalianist - oh well! Here you plant fables ... I have repeatedly asked questions and just the technical part, to which your skeptics, who believe in the ball, have not answered! For example, why a gyro responds to entropy. And moonlight, by its nature, bears in itself enthalpy. It turns out that the sun emits two types of radiation that are in different time ranges. And the moon reflects exactly the second type of radiation (100% confirmed by experiments). And the north pole - why does time flow there differently? Nobody answered this for me so far ... So don't be clever - those who believe in the ball do not even have half the answers to what we see in reality. When the earth is a plane without rounding, and when it goes under the ground or ascends to a height, the space is bent and time flows differently ...

For example, why a gyro responds to entropy. And moonlight, by its nature, bears in itself enthalpy.

So far you are yet to substantiate these claims, and seem to just be confusing words.

Entropy and enthalpy have specific meanings.

It turns out that the sun emits two types of radiation that are in different time ranges.

No, the radiation of the sun remains fairly constant. Yes, there are variations due to solar flares and the like, but not things like daily variations.
Just what do you think the types are?

And the north pole - why does time flow there differently?

In what way?

Nobody answered this for me so far

Because so far you are yet to raise real issues backed up by experiments/evidence.

When the earth is a plane without rounding

It isn't.

when it goes under the ground or ascends to a height, the space is bent and time flows differently ...

The only time flowing differently is explained by relativity and is insignificant for most purposes.

I'm going to have to conduct an experiment to see if moon light really is colder. I think that's what they are talking about with two kinds of light.

I'm going to have to conduct an experiment to see if moon light really is colder. I think that's what they are talking about with two kinds of light.

One key thing to note with this experiment is that you need to distinguish between being exposed to the night sky and being exposed to the moon.

A simple way is to carry out an experiment every night and seeing if there is any correlation to the moon phase and cloud coverage.
Doing this over a long period (such as a year) should be able to notice any significant cooling from the moon.

Another option is waiting for a full moon with no clouds and then having 2 tubes, one pointed at the moon, one pointed at a region of the sky without the moon.

Quote from: Tom Foolery on March 11, 2019, 01:46:23 PM

I'm going to have to conduct an experiment to see if moon light really is colder. I think that's what they are talking about with two kinds of light.

One key thing to note with this experiment is that you need to distinguish between being exposed to the night sky and being exposed to the moon.

A simple way is to carry out an experiment every night and seeing if there is any correlation to the moon phase and cloud coverage.
Doing this over a long period (such as a year) should be able to notice any significant cooling from the moon.

Another option is waiting for a full moon with no clouds and then having 2 tubes, one pointed at the moon, one pointed at a region of the sky without the moon.

Great idea. I was thinking of taking a 2" diameter rubber air filled ball and hang it on a rope with a servo motor to slowly move it across the sky to block the moon from one small area on the ground without blocking much view of the sky.

Two tubes might be easier, but I'd still need a tracking mechanism.

But what if I simply propped up a 4x8 sheet of plywood so that it was straight up like a fence, perpendicular to the moon  so that it created a shadow of the moon for several hours, but  permitted the ground on both sides equal amount of view of clear night sky? (In other words, the ground immediately on each side of the sky would see half the night sky, but one side would get the moon and the other not!)

But what if I simply propped up a 4x8 sheet of plywood so that it was straight up like a fence, perpendicular to the moon  so that it created a shadow of the moon for several hours, but  permitted the ground on both sides equal amount of view of clear night sky? (In other words, the ground immediately on each side of the sky would see half the night sky, but one side would get the moon and the other not!)

The only potential issue I can immediately see with this is what is nearby.
If you have a large field or large enough yard that should work fine.

I was thinking of taking a 2" diameter rubber air filled ball and hang it on a rope with a servo motor to slowly move it across the sky to block the moon from one small area on the ground without blocking much view of the sky.

Two tubes might be easier, but I'd still need a tracking mechanism.

But what if I simply propped up a 4x8 sheet of plywood so that it was straight up like a fence, perpendicular to the moon  so that it created a shadow of the moon for several hours, but  permitted the ground on both sides equal amount of view of clear night sky? (In other words, the ground immediately on each side of the sky would see half the night sky, but one side would get the moon and the other not!)

That would be interesting but quite a few, including myself, have shown that the cooling effect is simply the cold (very cold at night) of the clear sky and that the moon has nothing to do with it:

Quote from: 17 November on August 08, 2018, 04:49:14 PM

So I’m still left concluding that sunlight is hot and moonlight is cold. I can dig it. Why do some folks have such a hang up with that conclusion? Just respectfully asking.

I took two containers filled with water and placed one in a location shaded from the sky (under a verandah roof or under a shrub, it moade little difference).
The sky temperature was measured with an IR thermometer directed as near as possible vertical but well away from any overhead objects and the sun (in daylight).
Here are a few of my results - with no moon in the sky.

Date and Time		Sky Temp		Shade Temp		Exposed Temp
Aug 10 06:40				7.1°C		3.2°C
09:00		-21°C		11.1°C		7.3°C
16:00		-20°C		17.8°C		16.5°C
19:45		-24°C		12.0°C		10.3°C
Aug 11 07:00		-21°C		8.4°C		5.7°C
Bright Sun: 11:35		-16°C		20.2°C		34.2°C
After dawn, still in shade: Aug 12 06:40		-18°C		10.2°C		6.82°C
After dawn, still in shade: Aug 13 07:00		-40°C		1.5°C		-3.0°C

The temperature of that one in the bright sun kept rising.

There is no need for any moon in the sky. The moon does not send out "rays".
Moonlight travels in all directions and has an extremely small heating effect - maybe (50/500,000)°C and virtually impossible to measure.
The temperature of an object is due to an equilibrium between heat lost to the environment and heat gained.
The sky, day or night, is very cold and very little heat is gained from that source but shading objects are usually at about the air temperature and far warmer than the sky.

And just now, March 12, 2019 at 10:45 AM, on what is expected to be a very hot day, using a good IR thermometer, I measured the temperature of:

• the sky directly overhead, but without the sun in view, as 5.0°C and
• the shade under some trees as 36.3°C.

As a check on that shade temperature, an independent thermometer showed the in shade air temperature as 36.3°C.

Moonlight is not cold but the sky, especially on a clear night is what is cold.

---

Even Jeran Campanella, "jeranism" did an experiment and came to the interim conclusion that moonlight is not cold:

Moon Light Test Results - Full Moon & New Moon Compared by jeranism
You'll have to wade through a lot of "jeranism" to get to the nitty-gritty.
But at 13:40 he states, "My Conclusion Would Be THE MOONLIGHT IS NOT COLD".
I don't quite agree with what follows. It is not really "the direct cold air" that cools things but radiative loss to "space".

Just try a search for "moonlight colder than shade" in YouTube and you'll get flooded with "answers".

This is an interesting one that shows that moonlight is "warm": YouTube: Does Moonlight Makes Things Colder? by Astronomy Live.

Tom Foolery - without understanding the essence of what is happening, you will have nothing to do. Moonlight in the literal sense of the word does not cool objects, JackBlack and rabinoz are right when they say so. Direct measurements you will not see the result. Many have failed. No wonder I talked about enthalpy. So that you can see the difference and cooling. You need to use a metal concave mirror and conduct the experiment correctly. Which focuses the moonlight. But few people understand that such a mirror will also block the outer space. In this experience, you will see not how it cools or heats the moonlight. You will see something else. You will see how time itself behaves. Therefore, many questions remain - what is actually the sun and where is it located ...

JackBlack and rabinoz - I'm happy for you. You know our world very well from the existing scientific point of view. But, alas, scientists often just lie to us. But I am sad that once again you are not even trying to understand the essence. And immediately move the scientific theses. But besides England, France, the United States - there is also Russia and the Slavic peoples, where there is a different approach to science. In order to adequately understand my arguments, you need to spend time studying these issues in the Russian-speaking sector. And do not rush phrases. And apparently you have no time to do this, you need to have time to answer everyone and say that everyone is wrong.

JackBlack and rabinoz - I'm happy for you. You know our world very well from the existing scientific point of view.

I gave nothing "from a scientific point of view". I posted what I measured myself, a video of a prominent flat-earther and of an amateur astronomer reaching the same conclusion.

So you fail miserably on that point.

Then you say, "But, alas, scientists often just lie to us". Would you please provide evidence for that accusation!

Maybe you could post your evidence for moonlight being cold because I've seen numerous videos that prove nothing at all.

Moonlight in the literal sense of the word does not cool objects, JackBlack and rabinoz are right when they say so. Direct measurements you will not see the result. Many have failed. No wonder I talked about enthalpy. So that you can see the difference and cooling.

So will it cool or wont it?

You need to use a metal concave mirror and conduct the experiment correctly. Which focuses the moonlight. But few people understand that such a mirror will also block the outer space.

Why would it also block space?

In this experience, you will see not how it cools or heats the moonlight. You will see something else. You will see how time itself behaves.

Just what do you expect to see?

But, alas, scientists often just lie to us.

The scientists I find lie the most are those in "social science", not the hard physical sciences.
I see plenty of claims of them lying, but none with any backing.

I have seen plenty of them make mistakes, but not lie.

You need to use a metal concave mirror and conduct the experiment correctly. Which focuses the moonlight.

Please tell me more! Why not a concave glass mirror? Or a large plastic Fresnel lens?
But anyway no matter I have a 5ft diameter aluminum parabolic radio dish antenna which I intend to polish up as a metal concave mirror.
Tell me more please how I will measure the cold light of the moon?

Therefore, many questions remain - what is actually the sun and where is it located ...

Well all I know is I've lit an awful lot of camp fires with a magnifying lens or a parabolic mirror using the sunlight.

Scientists in the true sense of the word don't lie. They don't have an agenda where they start with the conclusion and then try to make evidence fit while at the same time ignoring any evidence which is contrary to reaching that desired preset conclusion. That is a conspiracy theorist.

Scientists , experiment, observe and measure in order to extract a model which works best based on the conclusions. They don't state it as fact and will continually update the model based on new evidence.

Individuals can ponder which group they're a member of, if any.

Tom Foolery - without understanding the essence of what is happening, you will have nothing to do. Moonlight in the literal sense of the word does not cool objects, JackBlack and rabinoz are right when they say so. Direct measurements you will not see the result. Many have failed. No wonder I talked about enthalpy. So that you can see the difference and cooling. You need to use a metal concave mirror and conduct the experiment correctly. Which focuses the moonlight. But few people understand that such a mirror will also block the outer space.

Yes, I know that "you need to use a metal concave mirror and conduct the experiment correctly. Which focuses the moonlight."
That is why I posted this video that does use an astronomical telescope with a metal concave mirror!
See Мистер Небесный Бриз I knew that even defore you posted ot!

And that one showed that moonlight is "warmer" than the surrounding space:

YouTube: Does Moonlight Makes Things Colder? by Astronomy Live

The full moon does not cool anything.

These are experiments with a deliberately wrong result. The experiment must be carried out completely differently.
Read Kozyrev.

Scientists in the true sense of the word don't lie. They don't have an agenda where they start with the conclusion and then try to make evidence fit while at the same time ignoring any evidence which is contrary to reaching that desired preset conclusion. That is a conspiracy theorist.

Scientists , experiment, observe and measure in order to extract a model which works best based on the conclusions. They don't state it as fact and will continually update the model based on new evidence.

Individuals can ponder which group they're a member of, if any.

I agree scientists shouldn't; I disagree that most don't. The evidence doesn't support it. "Scientists Behaving Badly" from 2004 is one example of a study showing this, but there are plenty more.

These are experiments with a deliberately wrong result.

You mean they show your claims to be wrong, so you reject them.

The experiment must be carried out completely differently.

Then explain clearly how it needs to be carried out.

These are experiments with a deliberately wrong result. The experiment must be carried out completely differently.
Read Kozyrev.

But I know what I see and measure myself and know that the night sky is very cold and that the presence of the moon makes no difference at all!

Do you mean Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrevand the Kozyrev mirror that he did not design?

Kozyrev mirror
A Kozyrev mirror, in Russian esoteric literature from 1990s, is a device made from aluminum (sometimes from glass, or reflecting mirror-like material) spiral shape surfaces, which, according to a non-proved hypothesis, are able to focus different types of radiation including that coming from biological objects.[citation needed] They are named after the famous astronomer Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev, though they were neither invented nor described by him.

Kozyrev mirrors were used in experiments related to extrasensory perception (ESP), conducted in the Institute of Experimental Medicine of Siberia, division of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Humans, allocated into the cylindrical spirals (usually 1.5 rotations clockwise, made of polished aluminum) allegedly experienced anomalous psycho-physical sensations, which had been recorded in the minutes of the research experiments.

Maybe you could show us some references where Kozyrev has anything to say about the "cooling effects of moonlight".

How cute. Yes, I have him - Kozyrev. But you, like everyone, fell for the tricks of those who simply used his name for their own purposes. Read the original works of Kozyrev about his research.
Kozyrev discovered volcanoes on the moon, but I never heard him claim that moonlight cools things. But it is reliably known that in his experiments with sunlight he discovered that sunlight by its nature has the property of entropy, and also of enthalpy.
I also say that moonlight has the property of enthalpy. And the moonlight does not cool objects. We are confronted with something completely different. Since our world is not like many people imagine it.

Since the pyrometer somehow resembles torsional weights ...