An idea for experiment

hello everyone
i have a simple idea for an experiment
is there a way to build straight line ? i believe there is. if so
why not just build a straight line over the water like in river or lake

i say water because it always has the perfect surface for such experiment whether its curved or flat water
then we can measure the distance between the surface of water and the line
its so simple and the result cant be denied

Welcome to the flat-earth forums, msd!

Probably the most reliable and convincing apparatus would be a laser beam shining through a sealed conduit. I suggest sealed conduit to avoid air density and composition differences along the length, which may or may not require evacuation or thermal control.

How long would it need to be? It needs to be long enough that the expected amount of curvature (deviation of the curved surface from a straight line) is sufficiently greater than experimental error to be conclusive. Assuming that care has been taken so that the laser beam is not refracted along its length and, thus, really is a straight line, sources of potentially significant error include (but may not be limited to):

• If the conduit has constant dimensions over its length and is sufficiently straight that the laser is visible at the far end, we know that the bottom is straight to within its top-to-bottom dimension.
  
  • If you have a way to locate the beam within the conduit at midpoint, this potential error is eliminated.
• the assumption that the surface is truly level.
  
  • A river would probably not be suitable for this because significant current can cause significant deviations.
  • Wind can "push" the the water of a lake toward one bank or the other, causing the elevation of the surface to change.
• Determination of the location of water level.
  
  • How big are ripples and waves?

How long does this need to be, then? A convenient way to estimate of the curvature of a circle (distance between the circle and a tangent line) with a radius of 4000 miles (approximately the radius of the earth) is:

drop (in inches) = 8 × (distance from tangent point in miles)²

This works reasonably well for distances less than a few hundred miles.

So... if you build this over a 1-mile wide lake, the wind is still, and both ends are the same height above the waterline, the curvature from the middle to each end would be about ((8 in/mi²) × (1/2 mile)² = 8 inches × 1/4 = 2 inches.

If the lake is two miles wide, the middle should be 8 inches closer to the laser than the ends (distance is squared, so doubling it increases the result by a factor of 4).

As in most cases, conceptualizing this is fairly easy, but building one that is both sufficiently long, straight enough, and performs as intended becomes a significant engineering problem.

[Edit] Fix copy-paste error and typo.

Welcome to the flat-earth forums, msd!

Probably the most reliable and convincing apparatus would be a laser beam shining through a sealed conduit. I suggest sealed conduit to avoid air density and composition differences along the length, which may or may not require evacuation or thermal control.

How long would it need to be? It needs to be long enough that the expected amount of curvature (deviation of the curved surface from a straight line) is sufficiently greater than experimental error to be conclusive. Assuming that care has been taken so that the laser beam is not refracted along its length and, thus, really is a straight line, sources of potentially significant error include (but may not be limited to):

• If the conduit has constant dimensions over its length and is sufficiently straight that the laser is visible at the far end, we know that the bottom is straight to within its top-to-bottom dimension.
  
  • If you have a way to locate the beam within the conduit at midpoint, this potential error is eliminated.
• the assumption that the surface is truly level.
  
  • A river would probably not be suitable for this because significant current can cause significant deviations.
  • Wind can "push" the the water of a lake toward one bank or the other, causing the elevation of the surface to change.
• Determination of the location of water level.
  
  • How big are ripples and waves?

How long does this need to be, then? A convenient way to estimate of the curvature of a circle (distance between the circle and a tangent line) with a radius of 4000 miles (approximately the radius of the earth) is:

drop (in inches) = 8 × (distance from tangent point in miles)²

This works reasonably well for distances less than a few hundred miles.

So... if you build this over a 1-mile wide lake, the wind is still, and both ends are the same height above the waterline, the curvature from the middle to each end would be about ((8 in/mi²) × (1/2 mile)² = 8 inches × 1/4 = 2 inches.

If the lake is two miles wide, the middle should be 8 inches closer to the laser than the ends (distance is squared, so doubling it increases the result by a factor of 4).

As in most cases, conceptualizing this is fairly easy, but building one that is both sufficiently long, straight enough, and performs as intended becomes a significant engineering problem.

[Edit] Fix copy-paste error and typo.

great idea
but that seems untouchable after its been build
we want something that's easy for every one to check and measure for themselves
just a straight line of any suitable material like wood or something
i don't believe no one has ever done this

This has kinda been done with lasers as Alpha suggested.
Stanford designed and built the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), when "construction began on what was then the longest and straightest structure in the world".

Because of what they were attempting to construct, "Building the 2-mile-long structure was an engineering challenge that required taking the Earth’s curvature into account (a 20-inch shift in the vertical axis)."
https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/virtual-tour/accelerator

Far be it for me to burst your bubble msd but remember 'flat Earth' is just a conspiracy theory and not an actual scientific, evidence based theory. Those who hold a belief that the Earth is flat will continue to do regardless of the result of any experiment which shows it is not. 

As Stash has pointed out there have been umpteen experiments carried out with highly advanced equipment that have told us what the true shape of the Earth is but that makes no difference to those who want to believe otherwise.

They do this largely because of their anti-establishment or anti-authoritarian views and basically devise all their alternative assertions  because of that rather than what science might say.  So you go ahead and do your experiment if you wish but you won't change the views of any flat Earthers.

You will never be able to convince a flat earther that your straight tube is actually straight.

No matter how many plumb bobs, gears and crosshairs you add. 

JJA is right.

Remember that when this guy Rowbotham who lived in the mid 19th century and who wrote his book about 'the Earth is not a globe' or something alone those lines, which some flat Earthers regard as a kind of 'bible' to support their views, he described an experiment which involved laying out flags on a 6 mile stretch of a canal and then trying to see them all lined up through a telescope. That was enough to convince him that the Earth is actually flat!!  I will leave you to ponder on the possible sources of error that might exist with that experiment...

Compared to that I guess laying something that appears to be straight over some water is actually quite advanced thinking..  Question is how long are you going to make this straight line of yours and what are you going to make it from?  I can't think of anything long enough to be of any value for this kind of experiment. Can you?

There are easier ways to evidence that the Earth is not actually flat. 

If you accept that light travels in a straight line, then it is possible.
But it would be quite expensive as it will need to be a very long structure to show the curvature.

However it will still easily be denied as people will claim it isn't built straight.
If it really was going to be that simple, observations of distant objects with their base obscured would have already been simple an undeniable.

But FEers then claim that light will magically bend, or some other convoluted nonsense regarding perspective. But that would then apply the same to trying to construct the straight line, with them discarding using a laser to make a straight line.

FEers would probably accept using a spirit level along the length of the object, but that shows it to be level, not straight, and for a RE that level would follow the curvature, not be a straight line.

If you try a simpler structure like wood or even metal beams, a big issue is that it will sag.
All materials will sag to some extent, so it will need to be supported along its length.
And it will only require a slight misalignment to follow the curvature of Earth.
For examples, if you use sections which are 1 m long, they only need to turn by 0.000009 degrees.
With that, you could get quite a range of results, from an Earth much smaller than it actually is, getting larger till eventually there is no curvature and Earth appears flat, through to then having negative curvature with the surface we live on being the inside of a sphere.

If you just try to support it at each end, and then measure at the middle, the change in distance at the middle due to it sagging would be greater than that due to the curvature of Earth.


So while it is a very simple idea, the engineering challenges with nothing being perfectly rigid and the extreme tolerances required, it becomes impossible without some external way to determine the tube is level. And when you accept those external tools, long distance observations are enough to already show Earth is round.

Also, I would say forget the water surface.
It would work better with a mostly enclosed water level, such as made from a long piece of hose and 2 clear sections to set the water level in.

@msd

As i answered on the sister site, this has been done at least once before and supposedly found the world to be concave!

You may enjoy these.  The youtube one is, I think, a guy who wants to do exactly as you suggest and has set up a crowdfund for it (last I heard, the crowdfund failed just short of its goal ).

https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/morrow.htm

In common with any other conspiracy theory, those who support it will jump on each and any tiny piece of individual evidence that seems to support their belief and declare that as proof that they are right. While at the same time ignoring the bigger picture which contains plenty of evidence that shows they are wrong.

The classic is the flat horizon you see when you are at sea and out of sight of land. People see what they want to believe and so to flat Earth believers the flat horizon to them proves that the Earth is flat. Whereas it does nothing of the sort. Hell some of them even deny the true reason for the horizon.

As i answered on the sister site, this has been done at least once before and supposedly found the world to be concave!

And as already addressed, that suffers from materials not being perfectly rigid.

The only genuine experiment that people could do is to find the same set up as Rowbotham did, regardless of whether people think he was wrong and someone else proved him wrong.
The Bedford level, like experiment, especially in this day with the gadgets we have, could be performed by a group of people with a variation of the simplest to the more advanced gadgets over a set distance.

I wonder why nobody puts this to the test.

And iced lake is a great set up, also but it leaves arguments.
A legitimate canal experiment would prove one or the other arguments. It only takes a few people from each side to set up so they experiment is not in any way, compromised.

The only genuine experiment that people could do is to find the same set up as Rowbotham did

Why?
Why is that the one and only genuine experiment?
What is wrong with the countless other experiments people have done?

It would be my suggestion that there is actually very little in the way of simple experiments you can do at the local level (i.e. what you can see directly) which will prove beyond any doubt that the Earth is a globe.

However as we know there have been plenty of experiments carried out in the professional circles of science, engineering and technology which have been performed and have told us exactly what shape the Earth is. Which side of the fence you are on here will determine whether you accept the results of these experiments as they have been published or whether you dismiss them all as potential lies, cover ups or deliberate attempts to mislead etc etc.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 04:28:40 AM

The only genuine experiment that people could do is to find the same set up as Rowbotham did

Why?
Why is that the one and only genuine experiment?
What is wrong with the countless other experiments people have done?

People like you is what's wrong.

As alpha20mega suggests, with a laser shining through a straight tube. But, the tube will need to be a vacuum. If it is not a vacuum, the air inside the tube will continue to scatter the laser beam as distance of the beam increases, which will render the experiment useless.

I'm certain the Bedford experiment has been performed in recent times and the water proven to curve. Has anyone heard of this?

The only genuine experiment that people could do is to find the same set up as Rowbotham did, regardless of whether people think he was wrong and someone else proved him wrong.
The Bedford level, like experiment, especially in this day with the gadgets we have, could be performed by a group of people with a variation of the simplest to the more advanced gadgets over a set distance.

I wonder why nobody puts this to the test.

Why don't you do it?  There's your answer. 

@msd

As i answered on the sister site, this has been done at least once before and supposedly found the world to be concave!

You really need to understand that objects bend, no matter how strong the material is. Nothing is 100% rigid.

I suggest you do some research before trying to answer questions on subjects you're not familiar with. Maybe talk to a woodworker and ask them about what happens to long pieces of wood with no support in the middle.

People like you is what's wrong.

You mean people who are smart enough to see through your BS and object to your baseless claims?
That really just means you are the problem, not me.

Again, why is it the only genuine experiment?
What is wrong with long distance observations which show the base obscured, especially such observations over water?
What about the power line over Lake Pontchartrain, which have been provided plenty of times, which show a clear curve. That is basically the same as Row Boat's, but you have power lines instead of flags.

What makes these non-genuine?
Is it because they show Earth isn't flat, and therefore you need to dismiss them as fake or non-genuine?

You really need to understand that objects bend, no matter how strong the material is. Nothing is 100% rigid.

That's true, however the design of the rectilineator was supposed to mitigate that.  Each section was built freestanding and then physically attached to each other.

It seems highly likely that the koreshans (or whatever primordial name they had then) already had their belief the world was a contained concave cell before they conducted their observations.

I suggest you do some research before trying to answer questions on subjects you're not familiar with. Maybe talk to a woodworker and ask them about what happens to long pieces of wood with no support in the middle.

12 foot long, 4 foot thick, 19 year old seasoned mahogany ought to do the trick for each section. 

However, I tend to agree that there is probably an error somewhere in their procedure (or there is no procedural error, and this is yet another brilliant example of how infinitely capable we deluded/biased people are in finding what we are looking for - whether its there or not).  I suppose the other option could be, the world/universe is concave - but I'll need some more convincing.

I thought the rectilineator or some variation thereof (like the one the gofundme was for) was a worthy thing to repeat.  I thought the OP might agree as well, as it seemed to fit the bill.

Quote from: JJA on August 31, 2021, 02:20:49 PM

You really need to understand that objects bend, no matter how strong the material is. Nothing is 100% rigid.

That's true, however the design of the rectilineator was supposed to mitigate that.  Each section was built freestanding and then physically attached to each other.

Yeah, using fancy made up words like rectilineator doesn't make that experiment any less fatally flawed or somehow remove the fact that physical materials bend and flex. You guys love basing your entire worldview on some experiment run by a charlatan from the 1800s don't you.

Quote

I suggest you do some research before trying to answer questions on subjects you're not familiar with. Maybe talk to a woodworker and ask them about what happens to long pieces of wood with no support in the middle.

12 foot long, 4 foot thick, 19 year old seasoned mahogany ought to do the trick for each section. 

You need to talk to your woodworker friend again. Ask him to tell you about how wood expands and bends with differing temperatures and humidity levels. That beam is still going to go out of alignment the moment you breathe on it. Ask him if he can plane down beams like that perfectly flat and align them perfectly a quarter of a mile apart.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Confidence in your own opinion is great, but being able to back it up with knowledge and facts is better. Study more.

More info on the Koreshian "rectilineator" experiment...

For one, the Gofundme campaign to replicate the experiment was called "Force the Line" organized by someone named Chris Watson (Flatty McFlatface on YT)
https://www.gofundme.com/f/force-the-line

And yeah he got something like 163 donation for a total of £9,711 raised. However, I think the Gofundme amount requested was £100,000!
It looks like he refunded the money raised with the option of patrons to donate to Make-a-Wish. I think. Not super clear.

Now, on to the actual "rectilineator" experiment

I stumbled upon a vid by "I Can Science That" on YT regarding exactly this. Coincidently, "I Can Science That" is ICanScienceThat on tfes.org. He kicked around there for a while a year or two ago. I think he's a Mathematician of sorts by trade. I think he got fed up and left because of the likes of things like the "Moon Tilt Illusion" megathread where Bishop refused to simply do the ball and string observation and went on to create yet another cherry picked, out of context wiki post to support I don't even know what. In any case, I digress.

Here I Can Science That goes through the math regarding the experiment in question. Long and short, from what I can surmise, each section of the contraption would need to be within a measurable tolerance of being true to the next within 0.0018° over the course of the mile span to be accurate. Something on the magnitude of a 10th of a mm. That seems unachievable even on an iced over lake, let alone...

My input: These zealots did this measurement, experiment, whatever you call it, on a beach. Sand.

I can Science That's vid:

As alpha20mega suggests, with a laser shining through a straight tube. But, the tube will need to be a vacuum. If it is not a vacuum, the air inside the tube will continue to scatter the laser beam as distance of the beam increases, which will render the experiment useless.

I'm certain the Bedford experiment has been performed in recent times and the water proven to curve. Has anyone heard of this?

No and you have to ask, why.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on August 31, 2021, 01:31:28 PM

As alpha20mega suggests, with a laser shining through a straight tube. But, the tube will need to be a vacuum. If it is not a vacuum, the air inside the tube will continue to scatter the laser beam as distance of the beam increases, which will render the experiment useless.

I'm certain the Bedford experiment has been performed in recent times and the water proven to curve. Has anyone heard of this?

No and you have to ask, why.

There have been a few Bedford level tests on the same spot on the Old Bedford canal in the past few years. I’ve seen some vids on YT. I’ll try and dig them up.
One was kind of an original Wallace/Hampden survey with flags and such. Another tried using a laser but failed due to haze/refraction.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 10:25:46 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on August 31, 2021, 01:31:28 PM

As alpha20mega suggests, with a laser shining through a straight tube. But, the tube will need to be a vacuum. If it is not a vacuum, the air inside the tube will continue to scatter the laser beam as distance of the beam increases, which will render the experiment useless.

I'm certain the Bedford experiment has been performed in recent times and the water proven to curve. Has anyone heard of this?

No and you have to ask, why.

There have been a few Bedford level tests on the same spot on the Old Bedford canal in the past few years. I’ve seen some vids on YT. I’ll try and dig them up.
One was kind of an original Wallace/Hampden survey with flags and such. Another tried using a laser but failed due to haze/refraction.

Try your best to find them.

You see, this is the real issue. The tests all seem well and good but they have to be done in many different ways, I think.

I don't think 6 miles has to be a benchmark and I do believe all different weather conditions have to be taken into account.
Obviously we're looking for calmest but also not glaringly sunny.

If we go by the 8 inches per mile squared debate we can simply use all kinds of ways and means to get to some kind of reality.

One mile each way using markers would crete the hit or miss of them.

Then it's all about times of day and night and seasons to see any fluctuations between the experiments.

I find it odd why this hasn't been extensively done.

Quote from: Stash on August 31, 2021, 11:05:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 10:25:46 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on August 31, 2021, 01:31:28 PM

As alpha20mega suggests, with a laser shining through a straight tube. But, the tube will need to be a vacuum. If it is not a vacuum, the air inside the tube will continue to scatter the laser beam as distance of the beam increases, which will render the experiment useless.

I'm certain the Bedford experiment has been performed in recent times and the water proven to curve. Has anyone heard of this?

No and you have to ask, why.

There have been a few Bedford level tests on the same spot on the Old Bedford canal in the past few years. I’ve seen some vids on YT. I’ll try and dig them up.
One was kind of an original Wallace/Hampden survey with flags and such. Another tried using a laser but failed due to haze/refraction.

Try your best to find them.

You see, this is the real issue. The tests all seem well and good but they have to be done in many different ways, I think.

I don't think 6 miles has to be a benchmark and I do believe all different weather conditions have to be taken into account.
Obviously we're looking for calmest but also not glaringly sunny.

If we go by the 8 inches per mile squared debate we can simply use all kinds of ways and means to get to some kind of reality.

One mile each way using markers would crete the hit or miss of them.

Then it's all about times of day and night and seasons to see any fluctuations between the experiments.

I find it odd why this hasn't been extensively done.

You know there are a gazillion vids on YT that are all about seeing curvature or not over bodies of water, ice, salt flats, etc.? All conditions, all times of year.

Do you not have access to YT?

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 11:19:04 PM

Quote from: Stash on August 31, 2021, 11:05:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 10:25:46 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on August 31, 2021, 01:31:28 PM

As alpha20mega suggests, with a laser shining through a straight tube. But, the tube will need to be a vacuum. If it is not a vacuum, the air inside the tube will continue to scatter the laser beam as distance of the beam increases, which will render the experiment useless.

I'm certain the Bedford experiment has been performed in recent times and the water proven to curve. Has anyone heard of this?

No and you have to ask, why.

There have been a few Bedford level tests on the same spot on the Old Bedford canal in the past few years. I’ve seen some vids on YT. I’ll try and dig them up.
One was kind of an original Wallace/Hampden survey with flags and such. Another tried using a laser but failed due to haze/refraction.

Try your best to find them.

You see, this is the real issue. The tests all seem well and good but they have to be done in many different ways, I think.

I don't think 6 miles has to be a benchmark and I do believe all different weather conditions have to be taken into account.
Obviously we're looking for calmest but also not glaringly sunny.

If we go by the 8 inches per mile squared debate we can simply use all kinds of ways and means to get to some kind of reality.

One mile each way using markers would crete the hit or miss of them.

Then it's all about times of day and night and seasons to see any fluctuations between the experiments.

I find it odd why this hasn't been extensively done.

You know there are a gazillion vids on YT that are all about seeing curvature or not over bodies of water, ice, salt flats, etc.? All conditions, all times of year.

Do you not have access to YT?

I've seen plenty and I've seen enough to convince me Earth is not a globe. I'm 100% sure of that.

I'm not saying this for me, I'm saying what I'm saying so globalists can be shown their reality is nothing more than a handed down fantasy.

But naturally it's deny deny deny so something concrete has to be found to show most that they've been following a big dupe.


Naturally many won't due to stubbornness and embarrassment, especially if they pass themselves off as some kind of scientist.

Quote from: Stash on August 31, 2021, 11:48:44 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 11:19:04 PM

Quote from: Stash on August 31, 2021, 11:05:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 10:25:46 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on August 31, 2021, 01:31:28 PM

As alpha20mega suggests, with a laser shining through a straight tube. But, the tube will need to be a vacuum. If it is not a vacuum, the air inside the tube will continue to scatter the laser beam as distance of the beam increases, which will render the experiment useless.

I'm certain the Bedford experiment has been performed in recent times and the water proven to curve. Has anyone heard of this?

No and you have to ask, why.

There have been a few Bedford level tests on the same spot on the Old Bedford canal in the past few years. I’ve seen some vids on YT. I’ll try and dig them up.
One was kind of an original Wallace/Hampden survey with flags and such. Another tried using a laser but failed due to haze/refraction.

Try your best to find them.

You see, this is the real issue. The tests all seem well and good but they have to be done in many different ways, I think.

I don't think 6 miles has to be a benchmark and I do believe all different weather conditions have to be taken into account.
Obviously we're looking for calmest but also not glaringly sunny.

If we go by the 8 inches per mile squared debate we can simply use all kinds of ways and means to get to some kind of reality.

One mile each way using markers would crete the hit or miss of them.

Then it's all about times of day and night and seasons to see any fluctuations between the experiments.

I find it odd why this hasn't been extensively done.

You know there are a gazillion vids on YT that are all about seeing curvature or not over bodies of water, ice, salt flats, etc.? All conditions, all times of year.

Do you not have access to YT?

I've seen plenty and I've seen enough to convince me Earth is not a globe. I'm 100% sure of that.

I'm not saying this for me, I'm saying what I'm saying so globalists can be shown their reality is nothing more than a handed down fantasy.

But naturally it's deny deny deny so something concrete has to be found to show most that they've been following a big dupe.


Naturally many won't due to stubbornness and embarrassment, especially if they pass themselves off as some kind of scientist.

You realize that you're just pulling a pot/kettle gambit, right? Illustrated:

- I've seen plenty and I've seen enough to convince me Earth is not a globe. I'm 100% sure of that.
- I'm not saying this for me, I'm saying what I'm saying so flerfers globalists can be shown their reality is nothing more than a handed down fantasy via YT/FB/Twitter FEr's desperate for clicks, subs, $'s.
- But naturally it's deny deny deny so something concrete has to be found to show most that they've been following a big dupe. (See above)
- Naturally many won't due to stubbornness and embarrassment, especially if they pass themselves off as some kind of scientist.

I'm not sure what your point is. First you're saying there are no modern-ish Beford Level type of efforts. There have been a gazillion. But then you say you've seen enough already. So why do you need more if you already have what you need to fulfill and maintain your narrative?

I guess the ball's in your court. If you want to embarrass the globulists with definitive evidence of a flat earth, maybe even with a dome and such, post the experiment(s) that will do it. Or maybe find one that has already been performed and post it. I'd be curious as to what you come up with.

Quote from: Stash on August 31, 2021, 11:48:44 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 11:19:04 PM

Quote from: Stash on August 31, 2021, 11:05:30 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 31, 2021, 10:25:46 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on August 31, 2021, 01:31:28 PM

As alpha20mega suggests, with a laser shining through a straight tube. But, the tube will need to be a vacuum. If it is not a vacuum, the air inside the tube will continue to scatter the laser beam as distance of the beam increases, which will render the experiment useless.

I'm certain the Bedford experiment has been performed in recent times and the water proven to curve. Has anyone heard of this?

No and you have to ask, why.

There have been a few Bedford level tests on the same spot on the Old Bedford canal in the past few years. I’ve seen some vids on YT. I’ll try and dig them up.
One was kind of an original Wallace/Hampden survey with flags and such. Another tried using a laser but failed due to haze/refraction.

Try your best to find them.

You see, this is the real issue. The tests all seem well and good but they have to be done in many different ways, I think.

I don't think 6 miles has to be a benchmark and I do believe all different weather conditions have to be taken into account.
Obviously we're looking for calmest but also not glaringly sunny.

If we go by the 8 inches per mile squared debate we can simply use all kinds of ways and means to get to some kind of reality.

One mile each way using markers would crete the hit or miss of them.

Then it's all about times of day and night and seasons to see any fluctuations between the experiments.

I find it odd why this hasn't been extensively done.

You know there are a gazillion vids on YT that are all about seeing curvature or not over bodies of water, ice, salt flats, etc.? All conditions, all times of year.

Do you not have access to YT?

I've seen plenty and I've seen enough to convince me Earth is not a globe. I'm 100% sure of that.

I'm not saying this for me, I'm saying what I'm saying so globalists can be shown their reality is nothing more than a handed down fantasy.

But naturally it's deny deny deny so something concrete has to be found to show most that they've been following a big dupe.


Naturally many won't due to stubbornness and embarrassment, especially if they pass themselves off as some kind of scientist.

Sceptimatic, you know I'm not a scientist, and nor do I have to be. Would you like for me to arrange for you to be shown first-hand, the true shape of the Earth?

That's true, however the design of the rectilineator was supposed to mitigate that.  Each section was built freestanding and then physically attached to each other.

It didn't.
Even small sections will sag. The only question is how much.
The fact that they square it up when it is laying horizontally instead of vertically should be a serious alarm bell.

12 foot long, 4 foot thick, 19 year old seasoned mahogany ought to do the trick for each section.

No, it shouldn't.
For 12 feet, all you need is 0.000033 degrees to have it appear flat, and twice that, 0.000066 degrees, to appear concave with the same radius.
If you want to deal with height differences, then you only need it to sag by 1 nm to have Earth appear flat and by 2 nm to have Earth appear concave with the same radius.

You cannot expect to build a structure perfectly straight without some external reference.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on August 31, 2021, 01:31:28 PM

As alpha20mega suggests, with a laser shining through a straight tube. But, the tube will need to be a vacuum. If it is not a vacuum, the air inside the tube will continue to scatter the laser beam as distance of the beam increases, which will render the experiment useless.

I'm certain the Bedford experiment has been performed in recent times and the water proven to curve. Has anyone heard of this?

No and you have to ask, why.

Not really.
The RE has plenty of advanced measurements of the shape of Earth, and don't need these tests.
If you want a simple test anyone can do, there are already plenty of them, other than the Bedford Level experiment.

FEers likely wouldn't promote results showing Earth is round.

So it isn't really surprising at all.

But naturally it's deny deny deny so something concrete has to be found to show most that they've been following a big dupe.

Unfortunately that does seem to be one of the very few things you can do.
You are unable to refute anything that shows Earth is round. You just deny it, claiming it is fake, or entirely ignore it.
While concrete things can seem to stop you denying, you just ignore it.

Naturally many won't due to stubbornness and embarrassment, especially if they pass themselves off as some kind of scientist.

Like you?