The Candle Experiment

I look forward to you performing that experiment. Netflix might even put it in Beyond The Curve 2, if they will ever make that one.

Ah sorry for using a 'layman's term'. I am sure it is too low for the ivory tower of hubris you are wrongfully defending.

So let me get this straight - the formula, that I didn't supply, is incorrect because I used a common term which you clearly knew the meaning of, namely "dip".

Really quite a show you guys have here. Might be the next Barnum and Bailey if you keep it up.

I look forward to you performing that experiment. Netflix might even put it in Beyond The Curve 2, if they will ever make that one.

I would never associate myself with the blatant attempt to frame our experiments and results in an inaccurate light which is against fact and reason.

Ah sorry for using a 'layman's term'. I am sure it is too low for the ivory tower of hubris you are wrongfully defending.

So let me get this straight - the formula, that I didn't supply, is incorrect because I used a common term which you clearly knew the meaning of, namely "dip".

Really quite a show you guys have here. Might be the next Barnum and Bailey if you keep it up.

Perhaps this would be less of a circus if you were less vague and less condescending.

"the flame will not touch the twine, showing the predicted drop in curvature of two inches is not observed."

It's not 2 inch drop on 1/4 mile. it's 1/2 inch.
1 mile is 8" drop squared, so you have to square root when you go less than 1 mile.
1/4 mile is 1/16 of the 8" drop.
You can't make a string 1/4 mile long, drupe less than 1 anyway.

An oddly specific number indeed. It is of course a fourth of a mile, and the dip for a mile is predicted by the globularist academic community to be eight inches. I trust that globularism has not rotted your brains such that you can't perform simple arithmetics and divide an octuplet such that you get its quarter.

You are not the first one that has to be reminded that trigonometric functions are not linear.

I believe that your mind is fresh enough to uderstand that 1/4 cos x is not equal cos (1/4 x)

Next, tie one end of the string to this pole. Walk until the string is taught, to the point that the string is level and the stick sturdy.

I worked in EOD for four years while in the military.  A common render safe procedure for some ordnance was the use of pulleys and substantial lengths of manila rope, parachute cord, and other forms of twine.  I can tell you that 1000' of any rope other than assaultline (professional mountaineering/climbing rope) is going to have an incredible amount of slack in it.  There is no physical way you can pull a rope of that length taut.  Even if it was secured by rebar on either end, it would still sag.  Dude, you'd have a hell of a time with steel cable of that length not sagging. 

What you've proven, without any shadow of doubt, is that you have not performed this test yourself or if you did, you completely goofed it for the reasons mentioned above.

"the flame will not touch the twine, showing the predicted drop in curvature of two inches is not observed."

It's not 2 inch drop on 1/4 mile. it's 1/2 inch.
1 mile is 8" drop squared, so you have to square root when you go less than 1 mile.
1/4 mile is 1/16 of the 8" drop.
You can't make a string 1/4 mile long, drupe less than 1 anyway.

Dyneema (a brand of Ultra High Molecular Weight PolyEthylene) has close to the highest specific strength of any currently available fibre.
But even when stretched to almost breaking point that will still have far more sag than the earth deviates from being perfectly flat.

Those doing "thought experiments" would be well advised to think the experiment through.

And here come the acrobats! Quite the entrance of gladiators, would you not say?

An oddly specific number indeed. It is of course a fourth of a mile, and the dip for a mile is predicted by the globularist academic community to be eight inches. I trust that globularism has not rotted your brains such that you can't perform simple arithmetics and divide an octuplet such that you get its quarter.

It is stated clearly that one must walk until said string is taught, and put the sticks in such that this is the case. If you can't follow simple instructions, I don't know if I can help you globularists. Is it really so difficult to the believer to tie an appropriate twine to two sticks? I have done so myself many times to the bemusement of many. When done in more urban areas, which obviously would fit this experiment well, it often draws quite a crowd. Bring a music box to give the entire ordeal a fanciful rhythm!

It is clear that these globularists are too spooked by my 'scary magic' that they will not even attempt to properly execute this experiment themselves. It is said that the man who thinks he knows something can be taught naught, yet those with an open mind might find themselves able to learn. This is in action this very day as you rotunders flip to and fro from mental trapeze sets to avoid facing up to the fact that there is no way the earth could possibly be some sort of round ball.

As a matter of course, it is of necessity to actually perform an experiment to properly refute and debunk it. There is even less doubt in my mind that the ball head refuses to even entertain scientific notions, their mind too atrophied from considering nonsenses and piecing together incoherences to properly reason.

Mr. Davis, you are a liar.  You've never done this experiment because if you had, you'd note that twine over 1000' cannot be pulled perpendicular to the ground without it snapping.  This is the most disingenuous post you've made that I've been party to.   I've worked with several types of line, up to a distance of an imperial mile, and know (apparently better than you) that this experiment as you've presented it is not possible.

I would be more than happy to purchase twine of this length and demonstrate on video the difficulty I know to be the case here.  If you'd be so kind as to provide the brand and number of plies, I will purchase and PROVE that you are absolutely full of crap.

The top line should be at such a height that it extends past the bottom line plus two inches - including the height of an average flame from said candle.

Why 2 inches?
The centre of a 1320 foot piece of an "ideal" sphere of radius 3,958.8 miles is only about ¹/₈ of an inch above a straight line joining the ends.

And on the practical side, Dyneema (Ultra High Molecular Weight PolyEthylene) has close to the best specific strength of any fibre.
Sufix 832 Braid Line-600 Yards is 600 yards is a braided line with 7 Dyneema fibres plus 1 "GORE Performance Fiber".
It has a nominal breaking strain of 20 lbs and the 600 yards only weighs about 5.1 ozs.

The "Displacement Cable Sag Error Calculator" needs:
the cable tension in pounds force, so start at 20 lbf, the length in feet,
the length in feet, so 1320 feet, and
the cable weight per unit length, so use ^{5.1 oz}/_{(16 × 3 × 600 yards)} = 0.000177 lb/foot.

Using these values in the Cable Sag Calculator the sag in the centre of that 1320 feet is 1.93 ft!
Maybe someone could check these figures.

In practice a 20 lb braid line will commonly not break at under twice the rated strength so let's "stretch the friendship" and put 40 lb tension on the line.
The sag is still 0.96 ft so I don't hold any hope of measuring the "earth's curvature" that way.

And don't think that longer distances will help because over a mile that cable would sag about 15 feet even at the 40 pound load.

Maybe someone could try it out at the 20 pound tension and 1320 feet. The line is $51.40 at Amazon: Sufix 832 Braid Line-600 Yards.

Now, light the candle while explaining that should the earth indeed have such a curvature - the candles flame would be touching said black line.

Ok, Amazon Prime came through with same day delivery. I set up the experiment in multiple locations following your instructions to the letter. In all instances the candle flame touched the twine at the mark made and burned through my line. According to your parameters, indeed the earth does have such curvature.

Now what?

Oh crap.

Oh crap.

Not entirely sure what you are referring to?

Is it that a smug and condescending post turned into a utter train wreck?

I didn’t even notice at first that John completely botched the simplified curve calculation, the only calculation flat earthers pay any attention to.

John, you had one job!

"And yes I used a linear estimation for my derivation. I felt it necessary, and apparently I am right as this matter of simple elementary school arithmetic is stumping even you!"

Yet my images over land and over water, agree the the curvature to 20%, that means it disagrees with the flat idea by 80%.
% wins.

To think you had touched the bottom with the poison bread argument ....
What a farce
Your silly pedantic attitude makes this post even funnier.
Keep em comming.

The best material I've found for even attempting to recreate this experiment is twaron aramid fiber (kevlar fiber).  It has 3.5% stretch (at each end) for a given length.  There's no damn way this was done with 3 or 5 ply twine.  The line would be on the ground at the middle, no matter how much you pulled (until it snapped). 

The open dishonesty made by the OP on this thread is incredible. 

Quote from: John Davis on August 23, 2019, 05:17:17 PM

Ah sorry for using a 'layman's term'. I am sure it is too low for the ivory tower of hubris you are wrongfully defending.

So let me get this straight - the formula, that I didn't supply, is incorrect because I used a common term which you clearly knew the meaning of, namely "dip".

Really quite a show you guys have here. Might be the next Barnum and Bailey if you keep it up.

Perhaps this would be less of a circus if you were less vague and less condescending.

Excuse you, for your response is both vague and condescending.

You seem really focused that I said the academic consensus was that the Pythagorean Theorem exists. You begged me to provide sources for a commonly and well repeated fact that you know the answer to. Of course it does.

The debate is settled! It Exists!

What other attacks does the round earth philosophy want to levee against such an easy to implement experiment?

What other attacks does the round earth philosophy want to levee against such an easy to implement experiment?

Easy to implement my ass. 

Mr. Davis, for the purpose of recreating this parody of an experiment, what brand and number of plies twine did you use?  Did you use a polyethylene or natural fiber twine and was it a single spool or did you tie lengths together?  If it was multiple spools, what knot was used to secure the lengths together?  As far as the stakes are concerned, what diameter and length were they?  What knot or method of securement was used to attach the twine to the stake?  I am assuming that you were able to completely remove any slack from the line so that the measure from the ground to where the line was secured at the stake was identical at either end?  Finally, where did you perform this experiment so I can find a suitable location in the US to recreate this.  I imagine that a beach or dry lake bed would be acceptable, but for the sake of consistency, I'd like to know what you would consider an acceptable topography.

Quote from: markjo on August 23, 2019, 05:24:39 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 23, 2019, 05:17:17 PM

Ah sorry for using a 'layman's term'. I am sure it is too low for the ivory tower of hubris you are wrongfully defending.

So let me get this straight - the formula, that I didn't supply, is incorrect because I used a common term which you clearly knew the meaning of, namely "dip".

Really quite a show you guys have here. Might be the next Barnum and Bailey if you keep it up.

Perhaps this would be less of a circus if you were less vague and less condescending.

Excuse you, for your response is both vague and condescending.

You seem really focused that I said the academic consensus was that the Pythagorean Theorem exists. You begged me to provide sources for a commonly and well repeated fact that you know the answer to. Of course it does.

The debate is settled! It Exists!

What other attacks does the round earth philosophy want to levee against such an easy to implement experiment?

Since I've shown that "The Candle Experiment" was totally useless I suggest that you come up with some better evidence your Pancake Planet.

Any explanation for beautiful Sunrises and Sunsets that don't involve magic bendy light and impossible perspective yet? I won't hold my breath.

Rab, we can argue the logical merits of the argument all day with this dude; he won't give up the ghost.  I am throwing the gauntlet down:

JOHN DAVIS

Please provide the answers to the questions I've asked in the post above.  They are simple queries that will provide me the framework necessary to reproduce your experiment.  I'll order the necessary equipment as soon as you provide me the information requested.  I'll post my findings on YouTube and link it here. 

Is it the availability of twine? Or the kind, or the sticks we should use to put in the ground?

What is the length of the coast of England?

You see the worm turn in these counter arguments, above.

Quote from: John Davis on August 23, 2019, 01:39:18 PM

Now, light the candle while explaining that should the earth indeed have such a curvature - the candles flame would be touching said black line.

Ok, Amazon Prime came through with same day delivery. I set up the experiment in multiple locations following your instructions to the letter. In all instances the candle flame touched the twine at the mark made and burned through my line. According to your parameters, indeed the earth does have such curvature.

Now what?

Good luck on your journey.

Quote from: rvlvr on August 24, 2019, 08:52:17 AM

Oh crap.

Not entirely sure what you are referring to?

Is it that a smug and condescending post turned into a utter train wreck?

I didn’t even notice at first that John completely botched the simplified curve calculation, the only calculation flat earthers pay any attention to.

John, you had one job!

From here, it looks like they are looking at the wrong bits. But hey, you guys seem to know it all.

Quote from: John Davis on August 23, 2019, 03:02:07 PM

And here come the acrobats! Quite the entrance of gladiators, would you not say?

An oddly specific number indeed. It is of course a fourth of a mile, and the dip for a mile is predicted by the globularist academic community to be eight inches. I trust that globularism has not rotted your brains such that you can't perform simple arithmetics and divide an octuplet such that you get its quarter.

It is stated clearly that one must walk until said string is taught, and put the sticks in such that this is the case. If you can't follow simple instructions, I don't know if I can help you globularists. Is it really so difficult to the believer to tie an appropriate twine to two sticks? I have done so myself many times to the bemusement of many. When done in more urban areas, which obviously would fit this experiment well, it often draws quite a crowd. Bring a music box to give the entire ordeal a fanciful rhythm!

It is clear that these globularists are too spooked by my 'scary magic' that they will not even attempt to properly execute this experiment themselves. It is said that the man who thinks he knows something can be taught naught, yet those with an open mind might find themselves able to learn. This is in action this very day as you rotunders flip to and fro from mental trapeze sets to avoid facing up to the fact that there is no way the earth could possibly be some sort of round ball.

As a matter of course, it is of necessity to actually perform an experiment to properly refute and debunk it. There is even less doubt in my mind that the ball head refuses to even entertain scientific notions, their mind too atrophied from considering nonsenses and piecing together incoherences to properly reason.

Mr. Davis, you are a liar.  You've never done this experiment because if you had, you'd note that twine over 1000' cannot be pulled perpendicular to the ground without it snapping.  This is the most disingenuous post you've made that I've been party to.   I've worked with several types of line, up to a distance of an imperial mile, and know (apparently better than you) that this experiment as you've presented it is not possible.

I would be more than happy to purchase twine of this length and demonstrate on video the difficulty I know to be the case here.  If you'd be so kind as to provide the brand and number of plies, I will purchase and PROVE that you are absolutely full of crap.

Like I've said, I will not support any such nonsense that supports "I saw it on the interweb videos - it must be true."

Good luck on your journey.

To think you had touched the bottom with the poison bread argument ....
What a farce
Your silly pedantic attitude makes this post even funnier.
Keep em comming.

Read a book. That's all I have for this one. Just read a book.

Quote from: John Davis on August 24, 2019, 09:35:35 PM

What other attacks does the round earth philosophy want to levee against such an easy to implement experiment?

Easy to implement my ass. 

Mr. Davis, for the purpose of recreating this parody of an experiment, what brand and number of plies twine did you use?  Did you use a polyethylene or natural fiber twine and was it a single spool or did you tie lengths together?  If it was multiple spools, what knot was used to secure the lengths together?  As far as the stakes are concerned, what diameter and length were they?  What knot or method of securement was used to attach the twine to the stake?  I am assuming that you were able to completely remove any slack from the line so that the measure from the ground to where the line was secured at the stake was identical at either end?  Finally, where did you perform this experiment so I can find a suitable location in the US to recreate this.  I imagine that a beach or dry lake bed would be acceptable, but for the sake of consistency, I'd like to know what you would consider an acceptable topography.

The tao that is named, is not the Tao.

Please, John. Tell us what materials you used. Should not be that difficult.

As I thought, deflection and aversion.  These are simple questions.  See, if I go out on my own and assume what sort of materials you used and return with a different result, you can claim I didn't do it correctly.  In an effort to make sure this affair is transparent, please do us the pleasure of disclosing these details so I can reproduce your experiment.

In the absence of a reply that addresses these points, I stand firmly on my first observation - you are a liar and this is quite plain for all to see.  At this point, the easiest way for me to prove you wrong is to perform your experiment.  If you are so certain of its results, please tell me how you did it, specifically with the answers to my questions.  I don't want there to be any doubt that I faithfully reproduce it. 

However, I know you'll respond with some sort of evasion and confirm what you've already demonstrated - this experiment is dishonest, you know it is, and have already gone too far and must defend the lie.

Here you go john, I just saved you 40 bucks...

KastKing Superpower Braided Fishing Line,Moss Green,30 LB,547 Yds https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01A6UULXE/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_Z7HyDbH9E0SSB

Who the hell pays 61 dollars for twine?

A stone cold liar, that's who!

Is it the availability of twine? Or the kind, or the sticks we should use to put in the ground?

It's the impossility of performing your ridiculous Candle Experiment.

The centre of this "hump" you are looking for is only ¹/₈ of an inch above the ends.

No known twine has a specific strength anywhere approaching that needed! And even with very thin "twine" your "sticks" would need to withstand a strain.

Come back when you have some "twine" that weighs about 4 Oz for the whole length that can withstand about 3.3 tons and
some "sticks we should use to put in the ground" to withstand that load without moving.

Please stick to your Software Engineering!

What other attacks does the round earth philosophy want to levee against such an easy to implement experiment?

If it's such "such an easy to implement experiment" I suggest that you perform the experiment with good video and photographic documentation.

Then show how tiny this "ball we live on" is, according to the infamous "John Davis Candle Experiment" !

I am sure it is too low for the ivory tower of hubris you are wrongfully defending.

You have a lot of gall to say something like that when it is quite obvious you are lying.

And yes, agreed, this’d be good stuff for Behind the Curve II.

I have done so myself many times to the bemusement of many. When done in more urban areas, which obviously would fit this experiment well, it often draws quite a crowd. Bring a music box to give the entire ordeal a fanciful rhythm!

Ok, and nobody ever has taken any photo? Really? Such crowds and no single photo? I mean come on, it's impossible today with all these smart phones. Now would be the perfect time to show them!

YouTube video titled ”Village idiot burns twine”.