What are some experiments I can perform to prove the FE.

Hey guys and girls,  I'm FE curious and I'm wondering if there are any experiments I can perform myself to prove the earth is flat.  I've read about the bedford level experiments and I have done a few similar experiments myself with inconclusive results.

Are there any other experiments I can try myself that don't involve line of sight?

You aren't likely to get a good answer on this.

You could try the infamous "How does it look experiment?"

Thanks.

Why am I not likely to get a good answer?

What is the "How does it look experiment?"  I googled and couldn't find it.

There is no "infamous how does it look experiment".

Don't spam Q&A.

@amused1

There are no experiments to establish the shape of material objects (the earth very much included).  Rigorous and repeated measurement is the only thing that can do that.

Experiments are for an entirely different purpose, and sadly the colloquial and incorrect usage of the word obscures that. 

Scientific illiteracy is essentially ubiquitous, and the definitions of the vernacular employed are no exception.

There are many measurements and observations that you can perform to establish the general shape (locally), as well as generally establish that the world is not and (most likely) cannot be spherical in the manner we are taught.

I recommend beginning with the shape of water's surface at rest (hydrostatics). All measurements that exist (of water's surface at rest, barring negligible surface tension artifacts) show it is flat and level/horizontal.  It is a natural law, and plainly demonstrable.

As for experiments, you can establish the causal relationship between density of a surrounding fluid and an object which displaces it on gravity, levity, and neutrality (archimedes' principle) to help you better understand what "gravity" (and the law of gravity) is and how it works.  This is only tangentially related to the shape of the world, however.

@jack44556677 Thanks for replying.

I'm sorry I don't understand the scientific definition of experiment.  I'm just looking for some way to check for myself without trusting someone else did their measurements correctly.  That's what I mean by experiment.

Is there any way I can check for myself?

There are many measurements and observations that you can perform to establish the general shape (locally), as well as generally establish that the world is not and (most likely) cannot be spherical in the manner we are taught.

Can you tell me more about this?  I think that is exactly what I'm looking for.  Measurement.

Thanks again

Try a laser over a small lake.

In the below drawing, it shows a laser hitting its target. his would suggest a flat Earth in terms of water.
It would suggest that water conforms to the container it is in and does not curve.
It would suggest that Earth would not be a globe, as proof.

However, if the laser misses the levelled target then there is a clear case for a globe and water conforming to a globe.

Just 201 metres.
Easily done and nothing flash needed.

Can be done in various ways and over various changes in temperatures or times of day.

Morning, noon and night.
Summer, spring, autumn and winter.

You can even set it up on iced ponds/lakes if they're safe to do so.


Remember all you have to do is be accurate with your start and finish markings and a level laser with 201 metres of distance.


To add in an extra you can place the laser on a one inch thick floating board and do the same 201 metres away with a stand up target on the receiving board.
If the laser hits the bottom of the receiving board target, you're on a flat Earth, water wise, at least.

If the laser hits the water (a small hump/upward curve) and fails to reach the target. The case for a globe would be strong.


Minimal cost and maximum outcome of proof.

Thanks @sceptimatic!  Much appreciated. 

I have done a few of these types of experiments and plan to do more over longer distances.  But I am wondering if there are any other type of measurements that I can do that are not line of sight.

I would like to confirm for myself and my family by more than one method.  I'm afraid a sight line / lazer over water experiment would be viewed as nothing more than a parlor trick if I cannot show them via multiple methods that the earth is flat.

I was thinking that something like a vertical rod or a sundial would be able to measure the angle of the sun at different times of the day.  I haven't quite figured out the mathematics yet, but I'm certain the sun would trace different shapes on the ground if it were orbiting a sphere vs circling a disc.

I'm surprised there isn't a list of tests I can do somewhere on this site.  Google isn't much use either but that's to be expected.

I'm sorry I don't understand the scientific definition of experiment.

No apology necessary! You are in very good company, besides, as virtually everyone is miseducated as to what science is and how to practice it.  The colloquial definitions that we learn and use are wrong, and extremely few people ever learn the correct ones.  Though if you wish to discuss (let alone practice) science, it is critical to learn the correct ones first.

I'm just looking for some way to check for myself without trusting someone else did their measurements correctly.  That's what I mean by experiment.

Fair enough! I would try to use the word observation/measurement when that is what you mean, as using experiment in this manner (an experiment is NEVER simply an observation and/or measurement) because it helps obscures science further.  That said, the vast majority of people use the word experiment incorrectly and most people (who do not know the correct definitions) will understand what you mean.

Is there any way I can check for myself?

Of course! Unless it is repeatable, it isn’t science.  Science includes mere measurement, but we do not call it an experiment.  When you have performed enough rigorous measurement to establish what is, it is called natural law.

What do you wish to check?  As I said, the surface of water at rest is a good place to begin to dispel the notion that bodies of water can (or do) curve in the manner required by the globe model.  Validating the shape of the entire world will take significant time, perhaps more than is available in a human lifetime (especially with only individual support). Ars longa, vita brevis.

What do you wish to check?

Oh sorry, sometime my verbose typing obscures the plain meaning of my prose.

I wish to check the shape of the earth.

As i said, checking the shape of the entire earth will take significant amounts of time (possibly more than you have). 

I would start small (ie locally) and then build a composite.  Be careful to actually measure, and not infer measurement from purely optical means - as those are known to be inaccurate and unreliable especially over long distances and over water (chiefly due to refraction, due largely to the density gradient in our air, and other known light-matter interactions).

As scepti suggested, frozen lakes (when safe to walk upon) are a great place to start.  Let me know if you need any more direction or have any other ideas you are toying with for validation and I will assist if I can!

Oh boy, this is more complicated than I thought.

Perhaps you could direct me to a few experiments used to determine the shape of the earth which I could repeat myself.  As I mentioned, I have tried viewing distant objects over water but surely there must be more than one way to measure/observe the shape of the earth.  yes?

Oh boy, this is more complicated than I thought.

That is what everyone who earnestly evaluates this subject concludes!  Measuring the entirety of the world is no small feat, and there are those who speculate that it is not an attainable goal at all (as the world is speculated by some to be boundless, and by others to be MUCH larger than we currently presume etc.)

Perhaps you could direct me to a few experiments used to determine the shape of the earth which I could repeat myself.

Experiments cannot be used to determine the shape of physical objects.  I cannot be more clear about that.  Experiments are solely for testing hypotheses by establishing, ideally,  causal relationships between IV(s) and DV(s).

In terms of procedures/methodologies for measuring, there are a great many.  You can try using lasers, lidar, radar, sonar, “maser” and other range-finding technologies - though they are not without their own issues and inaccuracies (especially over long distances).  You can also, and I recommend, use more traditional approaches like strings/lines, spirit levels, surveyor's wheels and even wooden stakes. 

The world is big, and measuring it is not trivial.  Whatever methodology you employ, I recommend you validate it (do “sanity checks”) via other (ideally more direct) means as well.  There are many others that have walked down the same road as yourself, and many here may be able to point you to specific procedures you might want to replicate. Searching the forum (as well as the “sister” forum) for such procedures is also a good idea.  “Frozen lake” observations/tests/“experiments” are one such search to begin with.

I, for one, do not speculate as to the size and shape of the entire world because I lack the verified and verifiable data to make such a determination (like everyone else).  Problems that are too large to address are best broken into smaller, more achievable, problems.

Determining the shape of water at rest is one of the most direct ways to determine if the globe model “holds water” or not (yuk, yuk, yuk).  It will not help you determine the true shape of the entire world, but it will help you determine the local shape which can be used to extrapolate within reason (and/or ultimately build a composite).

As I mentioned, I have tried viewing distant objects over water but surely there must be more than one way to measure/observe the shape of the earth.  yes?

There is more than one way to measure, but rigorous measurement is the only way to establish the shape of physical objects.  Measurement is called for, not observation/viewing.

Many get bogged down in trying to “see” the curve of the earth.  What those people have learned, is that there is no such curvature that is observable from the highest heights attainable (hydrogen balloon).  Understanding why the horizon does not curve at any attainable height is valuable in this subject, but through that understanding you also learn why that does not establish the true shape of the world either.

Arguably the most valuable lesson that is learned from going down that road is that merely “seeing” is not measurement, nor can it ever be. Often what we see, is not what is - and empirical science requires rigorous measurement instead for good reason.

Thanks @sceptimatic!  Much appreciated. 

I have done a few of these types of experiments and plan to do more over longer distances.  But I am wondering if there are any other type of measurements that I can do that are not line of sight.

I would like to confirm for myself and my family by more than one method.  I'm afraid a sight line / lazer over water experiment would be viewed as nothing more than a parlor trick if I cannot show them via multiple methods that the earth is flat.

I was thinking that something like a vertical rod or a sundial would be able to measure the angle of the sun at different times of the day.  I haven't quite figured out the mathematics yet, but I'm certain the sun would trace different shapes on the ground if it were orbiting a sphere vs circling a disc.

I'm surprised there isn't a list of tests I can do somewhere on this site.  Google isn't much use either but that's to be expected.

You need to do the experiments for yourself, not as a proof or an appeal to those who are hell bent on denying anything other than a globe.
You cannot pacify the masses, no matter what you do.

There's lots of experiments you can perform but everyone will be rejected even if you somehow magically had the opportunity and vision to go up and see the entirety yourself and brought back video and pictures.

Why?
It would be classed as CGI and all the rest of the stuff by the very people who are trying to push the very same CGI onto those that question the globe model.


If you're serious about finding the reality then you have to do it for you and those who have the same reasoning and mentality as yourself in terms of questioning the narrative.

The road is not easy and there's always a Slugworth in the waiting.
Be true to your goals and be the Charlie Bucket and not the Mike TV, Veruca Salt, Augustus Gloop or Violet Beauregarde. 

Ok that was a bit of a slight humour....but, globalists will try to steer you away and ridicule you even if you produced some genius proof that absolutely nailed it that we are not living on a globe.


Absolute clear logic and the simplest reality is all anyone needs to know the Earth is not a spinning globe.

Water level.

For a globe to work there must always be a water hump. Yes, a water HUMP from your vision at one point to an object over the calm water.

You do not need a laser if you have a frozen lake to use.
You can place 5 equal sized markers along a 201 metre line.
Attach the line exactly on top of the start and end markers.
Rest the line atop the central marker between the start and end markers.
If the Earth (water) is flat and level the string line should also be touching the tops of the other two markers left and right of centre.


If the string line does not touch the left and right of centre markers and those markers are below the line, then the argument for a globe is valid.


All it takes is for 3 honest people who want to find a truth to do this experiment.
One each end to ensure the string line is taut and a person to video that string line resting on centre and to verify whether left and right of centre have a string line touching or not touching.


Something like this.

The world is big, and measuring it is not trivial.

Oh yes, no question.  You are preaching to the choir there.   

Searching the forum (as well as the “sister” forum) for such procedures is also a good idea.

Is there a sister forum?  I googled it, but the results were, shall we say, not safe for work.

There are many others that have walked down the same road as yourself, and many here may be able to point you to specific procedures you might want to replicate.

Oh yes, that's what I'd like.  Do you know of a person I can ask for specific procedures.  I will ask them myself.

Thanks again for being patient with my questions.  I can see that I have a lot to learn.

You need to do the experiments for yourself

Yes!  That is what I want.

You do not need a laser if you have a frozen lake to use.

I apologize for sounding needy, but I live in the horse latitudes so there are no frozen lakes around.  Surely the evidence of a flat earth is not solely based on water..?

All it takes is for 3 honest people who want to find a truth to do this experiment.

LOL!  In this day and age?  3 honest people...?  Just kidding. It was too easy.

Something like this.

I might be way off base here, but I'm thinking a 201 meter string would likely sag substantially along it's length.  I could pull it tight to make it more linear.  But tell me if I'm wrong, would I need to pull it infinitely taught to approach a perfectly level string?

Edit:  I was just looking closely at your diagram and I noticed 2 things:

• The equal sized markers are not equal (I'll ignore this as my experiment will utilize equal size markers)
• In the bottom figure (assuming equal size markers) there would not be a gap in the center if the earth were spherical (assuming one is standing on the outside of the sphere).  If my understanding of this experiment is correct, the string (if it were perfectly straight) would touch the center marker with gaps on either end (or touch 2 markers at most).  Let me know if you'd like a diagram if I'm not being clear.

Let me know where I am going wrong.

Is there a sister forum?  I googled it, but the results were, shall we say, not safe for work.

Search for "the flat earth society".  You can't miss it.

Do you know of a person I can ask for specific procedures.  I will ask them myself.

I don't have anyone specific in mind (though Scepti is generously already providing you with some), however it is best if you come up with the procedures for measuring yourself in any case.  What you discover/learn will be more meaningful, and is less likely to be corrupted by others ideas and interpretations (instilling bias, the bane of objective study and the slim chance therof) 

Autodidacticism is required to study this subject, and most who do are independent researchers.

Life is like a movie you arrive late to, and are cruelly pulled away from before the ending.  You can ask the other moviegoers what you missed, what the meaning is, what the ending will be, and what they saw, but their responses will usually be brief and curt - and they will most often just ask you to please stop talking.

Continuing the analogy in this context, you can avoid bothering them directly because some have already recorded their ideas/perspectives for your perusal.  Start by searching the forums - and you'll find some procedures you are looking for (as well as some of the people)

Thanks again for being patient with my questions.  I can see that I have a lot to learn.

Don't we all!  I'm most happy to provide direction and answers when I can.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2021, 11:41:19 PM

You need to do the experiments for yourself

Yes!  That is what I want.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2021, 11:41:19 PM

You do not need a laser if you have a frozen lake to use.

I apologize for sounding needy, but I live in the horse latitudes so there are no frozen lakes around.  Surely the evidence of a flat earth is not solely based on water..?

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2021, 11:41:19 PM

All it takes is for 3 honest people who want to find a truth to do this experiment.

LOL!  In this day and age?  3 honest people...?  Just kidding. It was too easy.

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 29, 2021, 11:41:19 PM

Something like this.

I might be way off base here, but I'm thinking a 201 meter string would likely sag substantially along it's length.  I could pull it tight to make it more linear.  But tell me if I'm wrong, would I need to pull it infinitely taught to approach a perfectly level string?

Edit:  I was just looking closely at your diagram and I noticed 2 things:

• The equal sized markers are not equal (I'll ignore this as my experiment will utilize equal size markers)
• In the bottom figure (assuming equal size markers) there would not be a gap in the center if the earth were spherical (assuming one is standing on the outside of the sphere).  If my understanding of this experiment is correct, the string (if it were perfectly straight) would touch the center marker with gaps on either end (or touch 2 markers at most).  Let me know if you'd like a diagram if I'm not being clear.

Let me know where I am going wrong.

The two markers I dipped below the line were to show a gap between them as the line is stretched end to end and sitting on the middle marker, meaning you have approximately 100 metres each side which will certainly get you a decent taut line.

If the line leaves a gap between the two left to right of centre markers like I've showed then the Earth is convexly curved.

If both the left to right of centre markers are touched by the line then the Earth is flat in terms of water and certainly not any convex curved globe.


The only reason I made the markers shorter was illustration purposes to show a gap.

Search for "the flat earth society".  You can't miss it.

I thought that is where we are https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum

Are you referring to root website of which this forum is a subdomain of?  In that case, this is why I came here to ask questions.  The website has a list entitled "Experiments", but they are all the exact same experimental set up (line of sight over water).  The only thing that's changed is time and place which is unsatisfying for me as I am trying to verify by as many means as possible the claims made by the FE theory.

I'm starting to think I would have better luck trying several of the many experiments offered by the spherical earth people.  Surely they do not prove the earth is a sphere, but by eliminating competing theories I will be able to focus my efforts on understanding the true shape of the earth.

In the meantime, if you should happen to think of an experiment (or observation or measurement) which doesn't involve distance over water, could you please let me know.  I am still hoping to get to the bottom of this myself. 

The two markers I dipped below the line were to show a gap between them as the line is stretched end to end and sitting on the middle marker, meaning you have approximately 100 metres each side which will certainly get you a decent taut line.

If the line leaves a gap between the two left to right of centre markers like I've showed then the Earth is convexly curved.

If both the left to right of centre markers are touched by the line then the Earth is flat in terms of water and certainly not any convex curved globe.


The only reason I made the markers shorter was illustration purposes to show a gap.

Thank you for explaining!  I think I'm starting to understand.  However I have a few follow-up questions.

1. How will I know if the line is sufficiently taught?  If it were to sag even the tiniest of bits, it would invalidate the experiment.

2. I am still having a hard time understanding the bottom figure.  If all 5 markers are the same size, and if the earth were spherical, and if the string is absolutely linear, and if the string is touching the first and last marker, it stands to reason that the string would be pushed upwards by all 3 of the central markers (as you say a sphere presupposes a "hump").  Therefore there would be no gaps at all in the bottom figure.  Therefore the results of the experiment are the same no matter if the earth were spherical or flat.

I thought that is where we are https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum

Yes, that is where we are now.  There is another flat earth society, a “sister” site.  There are actually more than 2, but these are the ones that are established/have active user bases.  The other one is not on the same domain, and it has a somewhat comprehensive wiki, a decent library, and its own forum.

I'm starting to think I would have better luck trying several of the many experiments offered by the spherical earth people.  Surely they do not prove the earth is a sphere, but by eliminating competing theories I will be able to focus my efforts on understanding the true shape of the earth.

Absolutely, however you would be best off coming up with and performing measurement yourself to avoid being misled/biased.  Many (if not all) of the “spherical proofs” are designed to convince, and not to measure.  Their major flaws are usually in the interpretation of the data, not the data itself.

For example: one could repeat eratosthenes’ measurements and calculations and believe that they had measured the world a globe.  Unfortunately what they actually measured were shadows and then performed calculations that DEPEND on the world being spherical to work at all. I think you can understand why this is not a sound way to determine the true shape of the world.

For another example, many look at lights in the sky (eclipses, constellations, etc.) and then perform calculations that often lead to the erroneous belief that they have measured the shape of the world.  What they measured were lights in the sky, and studying the sky to determine the shape of the ground is both foolish and unscientific.  Please let me know if what I am saying is unclear, or if you disagree.

In the meantime, if you should happen to think of an experiment (or observation or measurement) which doesn't involve distance over water, could you please let me know.  I am still hoping to get to the bottom of this myself.

Experiments cannot determine the shape of material objects.  Measuring water is the most straightforward thing to do to estimate/extrapolate the earth’s larger shape, as it is believed (and taught) to comprise > 70% of it.  There is no substitute for measurement, however there is much to learn about the history (including contemporary) of those that have attempted to determine the shape for themselves that you may find useful.

Oh yes, I am well aware (thanks to you!) that experiments are not the same as measurements.  This is why I am intent on asking for measurements and observations that I can perform.  I also know that I must make my own inferences of the data to come to my own conclusion.  Indeed, this is why I am here asking my questions! 

However, I wish to stand on the shoulders of giants as they say.  If I were to suppose that everything somebody told me was deceptive, then I would have no business coming here to ask my questions, would I?  I think it should be obvious by the nature of my questions that I am no pushover hoping to be spoon-fed the answers like a baby.  Learned may we be by another man's knowledge, we must be wise with wisdom of our own.

I have to say I'm a bit disappointed by the lack of hard evidence of offer from the FE community.

You might go out of town and look at the skyscrapers. find out how far away you are, also not if their is elevation differences you need to account for. go out 20 miles or so and see how much of the buildings are obscurred by the curvature.

This seems to result in a no curvature conclusion for me, but I'm not 100 % sure dwontown isn't on a hill as well as the easy to find vantage points on a hill. One time i found the elevations involved and if i remember correctly there was no curvature after simple math applied, but the distance was not that great ~15 miles. I have sen the missing curvature onmany occasions, so can't treemember this particular outcome.

Curvature formula is drop in inches on level surface = 8 x (miles)squared. you can convert km to miles - plug into formual - and then multiply answer by .6666 to get hypothetical drop, in feet. 10 feet roughly equals 1 story of a building.

Please accept my apologies. I totally messed up this explanation for the markers. I hold my hands up and accept it.

Sorry for the mess up, I meant to go the opposite way.
Call me whatever you want, I deserve it.


The opposite should happen with both left and right of centre markers, meaning the line should be below them not above them.

Once again, my apologies to all.

@faded mike. That's not a bad idea.  Thanks!  I'm not sure why I hadn't thought of that.  Finding a perfectly flat piece of land near the city might be difficult considering there are small fluctuations even in the desert or Kansas too, but I will try to work with it. 

The desert in summer is exceptionally clear so I should be able to see ~100 miles all but negating the effects of small topographical defects.

Btw, I'm no ace at mathematics, but your formula doesn't seem right.  y = 8x^2 is a parabola, chart it for yourself here or you can easily plot it on graph paper.  Intuition should tell us that anything times x squared cannot possibly be a circle.  It's too late at night for me to figure out the formula now, but I'm certain trig is needed.

@sceptimatic. No problem at all.  I don't trust anyone who cannot admit they are wrong on occasion.  So on that front you are doing vastly better than most (all really) of the internet and most people IRL.

I think the center part of the parabola works out to be pretty round - so much so that it is within A few (3) % of the better, more exact formula - for like 500 miles. Easily enough to eyeball it (estimate) reasonably.

I think the center part of the parabola works out to be pretty round - so much so that it is within A few (3) % of the better, more exact formula - for like 500 miles. Easily enough to eyeball it (estimate) reasonably.

A wrench can be used as a hammer if you don't have a hammer.  But nobody would hammer with a wrench if they had a hammer.

We have the equation for a circle, so why not use the proper equation?  Also, a straight line is likely also within a few percent of a 24,000 mile circle for the first 500 miles and would make calculations simpler.  Is a straight line preferable to simply using the exact formula for the thing we hope to measure (or disprove)?

@faded mike. That's not a bad idea.  Thanks!  I'm not sure why I hadn't thought of that.  Finding a perfectly flat piece of land near the city might be difficult considering there are small fluctuations even in the desert or Kansas too, but I will try to work with it. 

The desert in summer is exceptionally clear so I should be able to see ~100 miles all but negating the effects of small topographical defects.

Btw, I'm no ace at mathematics, but your formula doesn't seem right.  y = 8x^2 is a parabola, chart it for yourself here or you can easily plot it on graph paper.  Intuition should tell us that anything times x squared cannot possibly be a circle.  It's too late at night for me to figure out the formula now, but I'm certain trig is needed.

Can you manage a trip to Salt Lake and go to the flats, good place to see long distance.

Utah is several days drive.  There are dry lake beds closer to my house, but they are still a day's drive away so I won't be able to go anytime soon unfortunately.

Truthfully I'm not as interested in these "look at something a long distance away to see if it goes behind the horizon" experiments.  I've done a few of them myself and intend to do more.  But they all suffer from this problem that the effect could due to refraction.  If anyone has any idea how to control for refraction, please let me know.

But I keep coming back to the thought that the whole FET seems to hinge on this one single experiment. FE adherents have said there are many other experiments, but I have yet to find any others.